If Trump wins what will be your emotions on the morning of the 6th:
1. Sheer unfettered delight. A new dawn has broken for our American cousins 2. Mild cheer, coupled with intense delight at the tears of the lefties 3. Indifference, it's a foreign country so what does it have to do with me? 4. Mild disappointment tempered by a frisson of schadenfreude re libs tears 5. Oh FFS, I just knew that senile old narcissist would sneak in again (that'll be me) 6. Shock and a deep sense of foreboding that perhaps the apocalypse is nigh 7. Checks winnings or losses on bets and determines degree of cheerfulness on that basis?
6. Apocalypse is overstating but it will be a very bad result for America and for the things most people on this forum profess to cherish (without much sincerity in some cases I think)
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.
What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?
Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.
Indeed.
I suspect that, if the election goes Trump’s way, there will be a large change in rhetoric but little change in facts on the ground. If anything, the absurdity of trying to micromanage the Ukranians’ use of individual weapons might come to an end.
Instead of “$100bn in aid to Ukraine”, we’ll instead hear of “$100bn of investment in a new weapons system to keep America safe in the 2030s and support 25,000 jobs in Republican districts”, alongside the quiet disposal of a lot of old kit, sold to NATO allies for $1.
He’ll also have a good go at getting everyone around the table, for the first time since the war started.
I think you are prioritising hope over experience.
US Aid to Ukraine stops in Trump's first month is my hunch.
For some odd reason given his background, Sandpit doesn't care about Ukraine. Either that, or his is delusional about it and Trump.
You cannot support Trump and Ukraine. He supports Trump.
End of.
This again, really? Just how many times does one have to make their own position clear, without the same misrepresentation being made continuously?
Why you shouldn't always go after a dropped phone.
A young woman spent hours trapped upside down after slipping between two boulders as she tried to retrieve her mobile phone during a hike in Australia.
The woman - named in reports as Matilda Campbell - was walking in New South Wales' Hunter Valley region earlier this month when she fell into the three-metre crevice.
It was the start of a seven-hour ordeal which would see emergency services undertake a "challenging" rescue - including moving several boulders. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgeyezggpezo
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
Trump is an awful person, but he's not an especially weak candidate. He's already won once and got a lot closer than McCain/Romney with his second attempt. He's able to energize certain groups of voters others can't.
1 What's the distribution of votes across states? Is each candidate putting on useful votes or wasted votes? 2 What demographic modelling are pollsters using? Do their sausage machines incorporate the increase in voting by younger (Dem leaning) women which I think most people are expecting this time? 3 Is the mix of early voting the same as before, or different? How much is it habitual voters voting at a different time, as opposed to new voters?
1 What's the distribution of votes across states? Is each candidate putting on useful votes or wasted votes? 2 What demographic modelling are pollsters using? Do their sausage machines incorporate the increase in voting by younger (Dem leaning) women which I think most people are expecting this time? 3 Is the mix of early voting the same as before, or different? How much is it habitual voters voting at a different time, as opposed to new voters?
On the subject of Trump, doesn't it depend on what he does.
Let's leave aside Ukraine for a minute, if he implements the proposed tariffs, then it would be disastrous for the US and the world. It would immediately result in tit-for-tat tariffs from the rest of the world, and would highly likely result in inflation spiking, and trade drying up.
We've been down this road before, and it didn't end well.
I mean, we do all know his proposed tariff policies, right?
Because there seems to be an awful lot of desire to believe that Trump won't implement his proposed tariff rises.
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.
What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?
Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.
This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.
I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.
But ultimately, Trump and his proxies have repeatedly backed Russia over Ukraine. So you'll forgive me if I think that a Trump victory would be anything other than a disaster for Ukraine.
Also: "how many dead" is a fucked up measure. It suggests that if the UK had been invaded by the Nazis in WW2, but only 150,000 people died in the invasion, then that would have been a better outcome than us - you know - fighting off the invasion.
Trump also told Europe to increase defence spending and stop relying on Russian energy.
While Biden was VP to Obama who did nothing in response to Russian aggression and who sneered when Romney spoke about the danger from Russia.
The leadership of the USA has been various levels of mediocre to bad for a long time.
That's not going to change, its just a question of how mediocre and how bad according to your personal preferences.
Europe did both of those things.
Albeit they only did the second after the invasion of Ukraine.
So they didn't do the second.
And bar a few countries in eastern Europe they've didn't do the first either and still haven't in some cases.
Dude:
They proved they weren't reliant on Russian energy. Russian gas was turned off, and the lights and power stayed on across Europe.
Indeed, we - who essentially didn't buy any Russian gas - were more affected than most European countries, because it turns out that energy is fungible.
The Europeans incurred no economic penalty from having imported Russian gas. Indeed, the people who lost out were the Russians, because they had no alternative markets for the gas.
That's the amazing thing about Putin's madness. Even if he was to 'win' and gain all of Ukraine overnight, then Russia is probably weaker than it would have been without the war since 2014. They will have gained a devastated territory whose population is against them, and lost a heck of a lot of blood and treasure in this pointless war. More so, if the sanctions remain.
During WW2 France was more of a drain on Germany's resources than it was a benefit. Despite rationing, there was no 'hunger plan' in France.
The days of imperialist expansionist wars are thankfully in the past; at least they will be, if Russia loses. Which is a good reason to try to ensure that Russia 'loses'.
If Trump wins what will be your emotions on the morning of the 6th:
1. Sheer unfettered delight. A new dawn has broken for our American cousins 2. Mild cheer, coupled with intense delight at the tears of the lefties 3. Indifference, it's a foreign country so what does it have to do with me? 4. Mild disappointment tempered by a frisson of schadenfreude re libs tears 5. Oh FFS, I just knew that senile old narcissist would sneak in again (that'll be me) 6. Shock and a deep sense of foreboding that perhaps the apocalypse is nigh 7. Checks winnings or losses on bets and determines degree of cheerfulness on that basis?
6. Apocalypse is overstating but it will be a very bad result for America and for the things most people on this forum profess to cherish (without much sincerity in some cases I think)
To return to the Elephant in the Room...
If a politician's response to defeat is the one shown by Trump since November 2020, why doesn't that cross the line that disqualifies you from participating in democracy?
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.
What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?
Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.
Indeed.
I suspect that, if the election goes Trump’s way, there will be a large change in rhetoric but little change in facts on the ground. If anything, the absurdity of trying to micromanage the Ukranians’ use of individual weapons might come to an end.
Instead of “$100bn in aid to Ukraine”, we’ll instead hear of “$100bn of investment in a new weapons system to keep America safe in the 2030s and support 25,000 jobs in Republican districts”, alongside the quiet disposal of a lot of old kit, sold to NATO allies for $1.
He’ll also have a good go at getting everyone around the table, for the first time since the war started.
I think you are prioritising hope over experience.
US Aid to Ukraine stops in Trump's first month is my hunch.
For some odd reason given his background, Sandpit doesn't care about Ukraine. Either that, or his is delusional about it and Trump.
You cannot support Trump and Ukraine. He supports Trump.
End of.
This again, really? Just how many times does one have to make their own position clear, without the same misrepresentation being made continuously?
How am I misrepresenting you?
Trump has made his position clear on Ukraine. So has much of the GOP. You shill for them. You should be shouting against them.
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.
What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?
Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.
This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.
I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.
But ultimately, Trump and his proxies have repeatedly backed Russia over Ukraine. So you'll forgive me if I think that a Trump victory would be anything other than a disaster for Ukraine.
Also: "how many dead" is a fucked up measure. It suggests that if the UK had been invaded by the Nazis in WW2, but only 150,000 people died in the invasion, then that would have been a better outcome than us - you know - fighting off the invasion.
Trump also told Europe to increase defence spending and stop relying on Russian energy.
While Biden was VP to Obama who did nothing in response to Russian aggression and who sneered when Romney spoke about the danger from Russia.
The leadership of the USA has been various levels of mediocre to bad for a long time.
That's not going to change, its just a question of how mediocre and how bad according to your personal preferences.
Europe did both of those things.
Albeit they only did the second after the invasion of Ukraine.
So they didn't do the second.
And bar a few countries in eastern Europe they've didn't do the first either and still haven't in some cases.
Dude:
They proved they weren't reliant on Russian energy. Russian gas was turned off, and the lights and power stayed on across Europe.
Indeed, we - who essentially didn't buy any Russian gas - were more affected than most European countries, because it turns out that energy is fungible.
The Europeans incurred no economic penalty from having imported Russian gas. Indeed, the people who lost out were the Russians, because they had no alternative markets for the gas.
Europe incurred an economic penalty through the higher costs and extra government borrowing that happened after the Russian gas was turned off.
You can add the political turmoil that has resulted as well from higher inflation.
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.
What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?
Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.
Indeed.
I suspect that, if the election goes Trump’s way, there will be a large change in rhetoric but little change in facts on the ground. If anything, the absurdity of trying to micromanage the Ukranians’ use of individual weapons might come to an end.
Instead of “$100bn in aid to Ukraine”, we’ll instead hear of “$100bn of investment in a new weapons system to keep America safe in the 2030s and support 25,000 jobs in Republican districts”, alongside the quiet disposal of a lot of old kit, sold to NATO allies for $1.
He’ll also have a good go at getting everyone around the table, for the first time since the war started.
Absolutely deluded.
'Ere Sandpit, I have a garden bridge over the Thames to sell you.
If Trump wins what will be your emotions on the morning of the 6th:
1. Sheer unfettered delight. A new dawn has broken for our American cousins 2. Mild cheer, coupled with intense delight at the tears of the lefties 3. Indifference, it's a foreign country so what does it have to do with me? 4. Mild disappointment tempered by a frisson of schadenfreude re libs tears 5. Oh FFS, I just knew that senile old narcissist would sneak in again (that'll be me) 6. Shock and a deep sense of foreboding that perhaps the apocalypse is nigh 7. Checks winnings or losses on bets and determines degree of cheerfulness on that basis?
I’ll bite. 2.5.
7 tempered by 2
You were one of the last PBers I would have expected to be a closet Trumper.
On the subject of Trump, doesn't it depend on what he does.
Let's leave aside Ukraine for a minute, if he implements the proposed tariffs, then it would be disastrous for the US and the world. It would immediately result in tit-for-tat tariffs from the rest of the world, and would highly likely result in inflation spiking, and trade drying up.
We've been down this road before, and it didn't end well.
I mean, we do all know his proposed tariff policies, right?
Because there seems to be an awful lot of desire to believe that Trump won't implement his proposed tariff rises.
Both here and in the USA Trumpists seem confident that he won't actually do what he says he will do. In other words they believe he is lying to them.
Seattle Times - Seattle arts funder, after Guardian report, disavows ‘hateful ideology’
Andrew Conru — a Seattle tech entrepreneur who is emerging as a major local arts funder — distanced himself last week from several organizations that he has funded after an investigation published by British newspaper The Guardian. The article showed Conru funded an organization that has promoted the genetic superiority of certain ethnic groups.
In emails sent to The Seattle Times last Thursday, Conru said he has stopped funding the Human Diversity Foundation and other groups. Conru also disavowed “racism, discrimination or hateful ideology,” attributed his contributions to insufficient due diligence, and said he has launched a review of his investments and donations.
The Guardian report revealed that Conru, who made his wealth in a host of early web businesses, sent $1.3 million to the Human Diversity Foundation. The article was published last Wednesday following an investigation with U.K. advocacy group Hope Not Hate and German publications.
A related investigation published by Hope Not Hate found that Conru provided funding to various other groups and people who have promoted white nationalist ideas and pseudoscientific studies trying to prove the supposed superiority of white people.
The 56-year-old Seattle philanthropist, who purchased the former Lusty Lady building last year, said he thought he was supporting “nonpartisan academic research” at HDF. . . .
“I now realize that my due diligence and ongoing monitoring process should have been more thorough,” Conru added. “Let me be unequivocally clear: I reject any form of racism, discrimination or hateful ideology.”
Public tax filings for the Conru Foundation (a nonprofit established in 2017) do not show financial contributions to the Human Diversity Foundation. Conru said Thursday that the previously undisclosed $1.3 million in funding for HDF was separate from his foundations but declined to provide further details.
In recordings reviewed by The Guardian, Matthew Frost — previously affiliated with HDF’s media arm — described Conru as the organization’s principal benefactor, having acquired a 15% stake in the group. . . .
Is promoting eugenics good or bad pr for a dating site" billionaire? *Oh! Research failure, perhaps he should be funding antibiotics research!!
Out of Biden, Harris and Trump, which is most likely to order a strike against Russia? (Not a prediction that they would, but which is the most likely to do so?)
I can promise you. None of them. Trump never would etc. It will not happen.
On the subject of Trump, doesn't it depend on what he does.
Let's leave aside Ukraine for a minute, if he implements the proposed tariffs, then it would be disastrous for the US and the world. It would immediately result in tit-for-tat tariffs from the rest of the world, and would highly likely result in inflation spiking, and trade drying up.
We've been down this road before, and it didn't end well.
I mean, we do all know his proposed tariff policies, right?
Because there seems to be an awful lot of desire to believe that Trump won't implement his proposed tariff rises.
The odd thing from Trump's tariff plan is that the possible beneficiaries are limited to a few million potential workers in new factories - its unlikely to be of any help to current manufacturing workers.
I'm somewhat curious as to who thinks they'll be one of these potential new factory workers.
If Trump wins what will be your emotions on the morning of the 6th:
1. Sheer unfettered delight. A new dawn has broken for our American cousins 2. Mild cheer, coupled with intense delight at the tears of the lefties 3. Indifference, it's a foreign country so what does it have to do with me? 4. Mild disappointment tempered by a frisson of schadenfreude re libs tears 5. Oh FFS, I just knew that senile old narcissist would sneak in again (that'll be me) 6. Shock and a deep sense of foreboding that perhaps the apocalypse is nigh 7. Checks winnings or losses on bets and determines degree of cheerfulness on that basis?
It is very hard for me to be happy with a Trump win, but I have reconciled myself to the fact it is a clear possibility and as a result I have decided to try hard to avoid the sense of doom and despair that will permeate in many quarters.
To that end I will try and focus on what upsides I can. I hope that a Trump victory will be the shock to the system that Europe needs to build a proper, well-funded security apparatus. He might indeed display a canny ability to at least stop the escalation in the ME, by virtue of being a new actor in the game. There is even the fact that there might be a short term feel-good around him getting Ukraine “resolved” (albeit I think we’ll feel the pain of that one (and possibly the ME) in the future).
One thing I am evaluating at the moment, once the US victor is known (on which some bets hinge), is whether I might take a bit of a hiatus from following news, politics and current affairs for a period. I am finding, for the first time ever, that I am not quite enjoying following the day-to-day news cycle - generally instead finding it rather depressing and a bit all-encompassing. A reset might be needed: a few months of listening to the headlines at the start and end of the day and not interrogating the world beyond that - trying to spend a little more time focussed on hobbies and other interests etc instead.
On the subject of Trump, doesn't it depend on what he does.
Let's leave aside Ukraine for a minute, if he implements the proposed tariffs, then it would be disastrous for the US and the world. It would immediately result in tit-for-tat tariffs from the rest of the world, and would highly likely result in inflation spiking, and trade drying up.
We've been down this road before, and it didn't end well.
I mean, we do all know his proposed tariff policies, right?
Because there seems to be an awful lot of desire to believe that Trump won't implement his proposed tariff rises.
Both here and in the USA Trumpists seem confident that he won't actually do what he says he will do. In other words they believe he is lying to them.
Supplementary question:
If Trumpists don't really expect him to do what he has said he will, what do they expect?
I really want to hope there's more to it than Salty Liberal Tears, but I'm not quite sure what.
If Trump wins what will be your emotions on the morning of the 6th:
1. Sheer unfettered delight. A new dawn has broken for our American cousins 2. Mild cheer, coupled with intense delight at the tears of the lefties 3. Indifference, it's a foreign country so what does it have to do with me? 4. Mild disappointment tempered by a frisson of schadenfreude re libs tears 5. Oh FFS, I just knew that senile old narcissist would sneak in again (that'll be me) 6. Shock and a deep sense of foreboding that perhaps the apocalypse is nigh 7. Checks winnings or losses on bets and determines degree of cheerfulness on that basis?
5 too.
I think Trump will be bad for America, judging by his first term:
But it will be really crap for Ukraine. The rest of us can shrug and laugh.
A rerun of the first term. It may appear to be worse. Different it will be for sure and balance out to be the same in the end. A load of hot air and bollocks. Nothing to worry about that is for sure.
If Trump wins what will be your emotions on the morning of the 6th:
1. Sheer unfettered delight. A new dawn has broken for our American cousins 2. Mild cheer, coupled with intense delight at the tears of the lefties 3. Indifference, it's a foreign country so what does it have to do with me? 4. Mild disappointment tempered by a frisson of schadenfreude re libs tears 5. Oh FFS, I just knew that senile old narcissist would sneak in again (that'll be me) 6. Shock and a deep sense of foreboding that perhaps the apocalypse is nigh 7. Checks winnings or losses on bets and determines degree of cheerfulness on that basis?
> Lincoln Co seat moved from Sprague > Davenport > Snohomish Co seat from (town of Snohomish) > Everett > Spokane Co seat from Spokane Falls (now city of Spokane) > Cheney > back to Spokane
"In Spokane County, an armed mob from Cheney forcibly seized county records from the elected seat of Spokane Falls (now Spokane), in 1881. Spokane became the county seat in an 1886 election."
AND county seat "wars" are NOT a thing of the past, at least not in WA; note this from 2010:
TRI-CITIES, Wash. (AP) — It appears that Benton County’s county seat will remain in Prosser.
A measure to move it to Kennewick is failing to reach the required 60 percent approval, although early results from Tuesday’s election showed 56 percent support.
Retired judge Fred Staples who led the campaign says he’s disappointed that people didn’t understand the need to move the seat to Kennewick where courts and most of county government is already located.
Staples blamed the “Prosser propaganda machine” and told the Tri-City Herald that at 77 he has no plans to bring up the issue again.
SSI - Prosser close to the county line in old agricultural part of Benton County, while Kennewick is in at center of county population, part of the Tri-Cities of Southwest WA: Kennewick, Richland and Pasco (across the Columbia River in Franklin County).
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.
What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?
Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.
This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.
I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.
No. Putin had almost certainly decided to invade Ukraine before Biden's dismal fiasco in Afghanistan. That was in the summer of 2021, while Putin probably took the decision to invade the previous winter - one authoritative investigation put the date at March of that year, though he had probably been thinking about it for at least a couple of years beforehand.
Afghanistan didn't discourage him, but Putin would have invaded anyway, because of Western weakness in the past two decades. In particular because:
- the Europeans, but also the Americans, had done nothing over Chechnya, Moldova, Georgia, Syria and all the other recipients of Russian aggression. - action over Ukraine in 2014 had been pretty token - Western Europe's massive dependence on Russian energy. - America's (and Osborne's) idiotic "pivot to Asia" - the increasingly fractious nature of Western public debate and the number of Russian useful idiots in high public places in the free world.
On the subject of Trump, doesn't it depend on what he does.
Let's leave aside Ukraine for a minute, if he implements the proposed tariffs, then it would be disastrous for the US and the world. It would immediately result in tit-for-tat tariffs from the rest of the world, and would highly likely result in inflation spiking, and trade drying up.
We've been down this road before, and it didn't end well.
I mean, we do all know his proposed tariff policies, right?
Because there seems to be an awful lot of desire to believe that Trump won't implement his proposed tariff rises.
Both here and in the USA Trumpists seem confident that he won't actually do what he says he will do. In other words they believe he is lying to them.
Its a two stage process:
Is Trump lying about what he would do ?
If Trump is honest is he capable of actually doing what he says he would do ?
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.
What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?
Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.
This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.
I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.
But ultimately, Trump and his proxies have repeatedly backed Russia over Ukraine. So you'll forgive me if I think that a Trump victory would be anything other than a disaster for Ukraine.
Also: "how many dead" is a fucked up measure. It suggests that if the UK had been invaded by the Nazis in WW2, but only 150,000 people died in the invasion, then that would have been a better outcome than us - you know - fighting off the invasion.
Trump also told Europe to increase defence spending and stop relying on Russian energy.
While Biden was VP to Obama who did nothing in response to Russian aggression and who sneered when Romney spoke about the danger from Russia.
The leadership of the USA has been various levels of mediocre to bad for a long time.
That's not going to change, its just a question of how mediocre and how bad according to your personal preferences.
Europe did both of those things.
Albeit they only did the second after the invasion of Ukraine.
So they didn't do the second.
And bar a few countries in eastern Europe they've didn't do the first either and still haven't in some cases.
Dude:
They proved they weren't reliant on Russian energy. Russian gas was turned off, and the lights and power stayed on across Europe.
Indeed, we - who essentially didn't buy any Russian gas - were more affected than most European countries, because it turns out that energy is fungible.
The Europeans incurred no economic penalty from having imported Russian gas. Indeed, the people who lost out were the Russians, because they had no alternative markets for the gas.
Europe incurred an economic penalty through the higher costs and extra government borrowing that happened after the Russian gas was turned off.
You can add the political turmoil that has resulted as well from higher inflation.
How was that price any different to that incurred by - say - us? Or Pakistan?
Everyone saw their energy import costs spike, irrespective of whether they bought Russian gas or not.
Let me give you an example, the price of coal went up 12x. So, if you were Malaysia, and your electricity generation was close to 100% coal, then your price of energy went up by the same as the Germans or the Brits.
The same inflation and political turmoil has been seen everywhere if you are an energy importer, because the price of all energy rose.
There was no special negative economic impact in Europe, energy prices rose the same amount there as everywhere else in the world. Because energy is fungible.
If Trump wins what will be your emotions on the morning of the 6th:
1. Sheer unfettered delight. A new dawn has broken for our American cousins 2. Mild cheer, coupled with intense delight at the tears of the lefties 3. Indifference, it's a foreign country so what does it have to do with me? 4. Mild disappointment tempered by a frisson of schadenfreude re libs tears 5. Oh FFS, I just knew that senile old narcissist would sneak in again (that'll be me) 6. Shock and a deep sense of foreboding that perhaps the apocalypse is nigh 7. Checks winnings or losses on bets and determines degree of cheerfulness on that basis?
Both here and in the USA Trumpists seem confident that he won't actually do what he says he will do. In other words they believe he is lying to them.
Trump is, in his own way, quite honest. He tells you what he is and what he will do, with no filter. But an awful lot of people who should know better are not listening.
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.
What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?
Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.
This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.
I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.
But ultimately, Trump and his proxies have repeatedly backed Russia over Ukraine. So you'll forgive me if I think that a Trump victory would be anything other than a disaster for Ukraine.
Also: "how many dead" is a fucked up measure. It suggests that if the UK had been invaded by the Nazis in WW2, but only 150,000 people died in the invasion, then that would have been a better outcome than us - you know - fighting off the invasion.
Trump also told Europe to increase defence spending and stop relying on Russian energy.
While Biden was VP to Obama who did nothing in response to Russian aggression and who sneered when Romney spoke about the danger from Russia.
The leadership of the USA has been various levels of mediocre to bad for a long time.
That's not going to change, its just a question of how mediocre and how bad according to your personal preferences.
Europe did both of those things.
Albeit they only did the second after the invasion of Ukraine.
So they didn't do the second.
And bar a few countries in eastern Europe they've didn't do the first either and still haven't in some cases.
Dude:
They proved they weren't reliant on Russian energy. Russian gas was turned off, and the lights and power stayed on across Europe.
Indeed, we - who essentially didn't buy any Russian gas - were more affected than most European countries, because it turns out that energy is fungible.
The Europeans incurred no economic penalty from having imported Russian gas. Indeed, the people who lost out were the Russians, because they had no alternative markets for the gas.
That's the amazing thing about Putin's madness. Even if he was to 'win' and gain all of Ukraine overnight, then Russia is probably weaker than it would have been without the war since 2014. They will have gained a devastated territory whose population is against them, and lost a heck of a lot of blood and treasure in this pointless war. More so, if the sanctions remain.
During WW2 France was more of a drain on Germany's resources than it was a benefit. Despite rationing, there was no 'hunger plan' in France.
The days of imperialist expansionist wars are thankfully in the past; at least they will be, if Russia loses. Which is a good reason to try to ensure that Russia 'loses'.
They will be the future, if Russia is allowed to win.
Why do you only post Trump-favourable polls on PB? Whose mind are you changing? As far as I am aware only Jim and Seashanty have the vote.
It's a good question. What is the purpose of William's Trumpy arse-licking? Nobody really knows.
Similar questions could be asked of your Starmer rimming
Oh give over, you oddball. This is a British politics site and Starmer is PM. I broadly support most of his policies (not all) and find the absurd luxuriating and pearl-clutching over trivial things like Currygate, Donkeygate and Swiftgate hypocritical and pathetic. And I say so.
William's bizarre brown-nosing of Trump has no obvious reason for it. As Mexican rightly says, only Sea Shanty and Jim can actually vote, so what is the point of it?
On the subject of Trump, doesn't it depend on what he does.
Let's leave aside Ukraine for a minute, if he implements the proposed tariffs, then it would be disastrous for the US and the world. It would immediately result in tit-for-tat tariffs from the rest of the world, and would highly likely result in inflation spiking, and trade drying up.
We've been down this road before, and it didn't end well.
I mean, we do all know his proposed tariff policies, right?
Because there seems to be an awful lot of desire to believe that Trump won't implement his proposed tariff rises.
Both here and in the USA Trumpists seem confident that he won't actually do what he says he will do. In other words they believe he is lying to them.
Supplementary question:
If Trumpists don't really expect him to do what he has said he will, what do they expect?
I really want to hope there's more to it than Salty Liberal Tears, but I'm not quite sure what.
They believe he will do nothing of any significance and that is correct.
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.
What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?
Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.
This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.
I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.
But ultimately, Trump and his proxies have repeatedly backed Russia over Ukraine. So you'll forgive me if I think that a Trump victory would be anything other than a disaster for Ukraine.
Also: "how many dead" is a fucked up measure. It suggests that if the UK had been invaded by the Nazis in WW2, but only 150,000 people died in the invasion, then that would have been a better outcome than us - you know - fighting off the invasion.
Trump also told Europe to increase defence spending and stop relying on Russian energy.
While Biden was VP to Obama who did nothing in response to Russian aggression and who sneered when Romney spoke about the danger from Russia.
The leadership of the USA has been various levels of mediocre to bad for a long time.
That's not going to change, its just a question of how mediocre and how bad according to your personal preferences.
Europe did both of those things.
Albeit they only did the second after the invasion of Ukraine.
So they didn't do the second.
And bar a few countries in eastern Europe they've didn't do the first either and still haven't in some cases.
Dude:
They proved they weren't reliant on Russian energy. Russian gas was turned off, and the lights and power stayed on across Europe.
Indeed, we - who essentially didn't buy any Russian gas - were more affected than most European countries, because it turns out that energy is fungible.
The Europeans incurred no economic penalty from having imported Russian gas. Indeed, the people who lost out were the Russians, because they had no alternative markets for the gas.
Europe incurred an economic penalty through the higher costs and extra government borrowing that happened after the Russian gas was turned off.
You can add the political turmoil that has resulted as well from higher inflation.
How was that price any different to that incurred by - say - us? Or Pakistan?
Everyone saw their energy import costs spike, irrespective of whether they bought Russian gas or not.
Let me give you an example, the price of coal went up 12x. So, if you were Malaysia, and your electricity generation was close to 100% coal, then your price of energy went up by the same as the Germans or the Brits.
The same inflation and political turmoil has been seen everywhere if you are an energy importer, because the price of all energy rose.
There was no special negative economic impact in Europe, energy prices rose the same amount there as everywhere else in the world. Because energy is fungible.
Not entirely. Russia supplied gas and oil at below market prices to countries with fewer scruples.
Of course there were practical limits on how much, but there was, and still is a two tier market.
Both here and in the USA Trumpists seem confident that he won't actually do what he says he will do. In other words they believe he is lying to them.
Trump is, in his own way, quite honest. He tells you what he is and what he will do, with no filter. But an awful lot of people who should know better are not listening.
Well he didn't build that wall.
And how many of the things Trump promised in his 2016 victory speech were done ?
If Trump wins what will be your emotions on the morning of the 6th:
1. Sheer unfettered delight. A new dawn has broken for our American cousins 2. Mild cheer, coupled with intense delight at the tears of the lefties 3. Indifference, it's a foreign country so what does it have to do with me? 4. Mild disappointment tempered by a frisson of schadenfreude re libs tears 5. Oh FFS, I just knew that senile old narcissist would sneak in again (that'll be me) 6. Shock and a deep sense of foreboding that perhaps the apocalypse is nigh 7. Checks winnings or losses on bets and determines degree of cheerfulness on that basis?
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.
What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?
Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.
This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.
I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.
No. Putin had almost certainly decided to invade Ukraine before Biden's dismal fiasco in Afghanistan. That was in the summer of 2021, while Putin probably took the decision to invade the previous winter - one authoritative investigation put the date at March of that year, though he had probably been thinking about it for at least a couple of years beforehand.
Afghanistan didn't discourage him, but Putin would have invaded anyway, because of Western weakness in the past two decades. In particular because:
- the Europeans, but also the Americans, had done nothing over Chechnya, Moldova, Georgia, Syria and all the other recipients of Russian aggression. - action over Ukraine in 2014 had been pretty token - Western Europe's massive dependence on Russian energy. - America's (and Osborne's) idiotic "pivot to Asia" - the increasingly fractious nature of Western public debate and the number of Russian useful idiots in high public places in the free world.
We are all doomed. He is running the show. Run for the hills!
Both here and in the USA Trumpists seem confident that he won't actually do what he says he will do. In other words they believe he is lying to them.
Trump is, in his own way, quite honest. He tells you what he is and what he will do, with no filter. But an awful lot of people who should know better are not listening.
This must rank as one of the most delusional posts of all time on PB.
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.
What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?
Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.
This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.
I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.
But ultimately, Trump and his proxies have repeatedly backed Russia over Ukraine. So you'll forgive me if I think that a Trump victory would be anything other than a disaster for Ukraine.
Also: "how many dead" is a fucked up measure. It suggests that if the UK had been invaded by the Nazis in WW2, but only 150,000 people died in the invasion, then that would have been a better outcome than us - you know - fighting off the invasion.
Trump also told Europe to increase defence spending and stop relying on Russian energy.
While Biden was VP to Obama who did nothing in response to Russian aggression and who sneered when Romney spoke about the danger from Russia.
The leadership of the USA has been various levels of mediocre to bad for a long time.
That's not going to change, its just a question of how mediocre and how bad according to your personal preferences.
Europe did both of those things.
Albeit they only did the second after the invasion of Ukraine.
So they didn't do the second.
And bar a few countries in eastern Europe they've didn't do the first either and still haven't in some cases.
Dude:
They proved they weren't reliant on Russian energy. Russian gas was turned off, and the lights and power stayed on across Europe.
Indeed, we - who essentially didn't buy any Russian gas - were more affected than most European countries, because it turns out that energy is fungible.
The Europeans incurred no economic penalty from having imported Russian gas. Indeed, the people who lost out were the Russians, because they had no alternative markets for the gas.
Europe incurred an economic penalty through the higher costs and extra government borrowing that happened after the Russian gas was turned off.
You can add the political turmoil that has resulted as well from higher inflation.
How was that price any different to that incurred by - say - us? Or Pakistan?
Everyone saw their energy import costs spike, irrespective of whether they bought Russian gas or not.
Let me give you an example, the price of coal went up 12x. So, if you were Malaysia, and your electricity generation was close to 100% coal, then your price of energy went up by the same as the Germans or the Brits.
The same inflation and political turmoil has been seen everywhere if you are an energy importer, because the price of all energy rose.
There was no special negative economic impact in Europe, energy prices rose the same amount there as everywhere else in the world. Because energy is fungible.
Not entirely. Russia supplied gas and oil at below market prices to countries with fewer scruples.
Of course there were practical limits on how much, but there was, and still is a two tier market.
Indeed. In an ideal world we’d be seeing sanctions on India and China for their trade in Russian O&G product.
Yet today was the meeting of the BRICS group which includes China, Russia, India, and a number of OPEC members.
That the BRICS groups exists at all, is a failure of statecraft by the leading Western powers.
On the subject of Trump, doesn't it depend on what he does.
Let's leave aside Ukraine for a minute, if he implements the proposed tariffs, then it would be disastrous for the US and the world. It would immediately result in tit-for-tat tariffs from the rest of the world, and would highly likely result in inflation spiking, and trade drying up.
We've been down this road before, and it didn't end well.
I mean, we do all know his proposed tariff policies, right?
Because there seems to be an awful lot of desire to believe that Trump won't implement his proposed tariff rises.
The odd thing from Trump's tariff plan is that the possible beneficiaries are limited to a few million potential workers in new factories - its unlikely to be of any help to current manufacturing workers.
I'm somewhat curious as to who thinks they'll be one of these potential new factory workers.
The illegal immigrants will work there. The people he does not want to allow in.
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.
What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?
Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.
This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.
I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.
But ultimately, Trump and his proxies have repeatedly backed Russia over Ukraine. So you'll forgive me if I think that a Trump victory would be anything other than a disaster for Ukraine.
Also: "how many dead" is a fucked up measure. It suggests that if the UK had been invaded by the Nazis in WW2, but only 150,000 people died in the invasion, then that would have been a better outcome than us - you know - fighting off the invasion.
Trump also told Europe to increase defence spending and stop relying on Russian energy.
While Biden was VP to Obama who did nothing in response to Russian aggression and who sneered when Romney spoke about the danger from Russia.
The leadership of the USA has been various levels of mediocre to bad for a long time.
That's not going to change, its just a question of how mediocre and how bad according to your personal preferences.
Europe did both of those things.
Albeit they only did the second after the invasion of Ukraine.
So they didn't do the second.
And bar a few countries in eastern Europe they've didn't do the first either and still haven't in some cases.
Dude:
They proved they weren't reliant on Russian energy. Russian gas was turned off, and the lights and power stayed on across Europe.
Indeed, we - who essentially didn't buy any Russian gas - were more affected than most European countries, because it turns out that energy is fungible.
The Europeans incurred no economic penalty from having imported Russian gas. Indeed, the people who lost out were the Russians, because they had no alternative markets for the gas.
Europe incurred an economic penalty through the higher costs and extra government borrowing that happened after the Russian gas was turned off.
You can add the political turmoil that has resulted as well from higher inflation.
How was that price any different to that incurred by - say - us? Or Pakistan?
Everyone saw their energy import costs spike, irrespective of whether they bought Russian gas or not.
Let me give you an example, the price of coal went up 12x. So, if you were Malaysia, and your electricity generation was close to 100% coal, then your price of energy went up by the same as the Germans or the Brits.
The same inflation and political turmoil has been seen everywhere if you are an energy importer, because the price of all energy rose.
There was no special negative economic impact in Europe, energy prices rose the same amount there as everywhere else in the world. Because energy is fungible.
Not entirely. Russia supplied gas and oil at below market prices to countries with fewer scruples.
Of course there were practical limits on how much, but there was, and still is a two tier market.
That's true: India and China have benefited from cheap oil in the aftermath. But gas is a little different, because it's much harder to ship around.
No further proof is needed that Trafalgar is a total fraud pollster .
Two separate Pennsylvania polls one done in September and one in October show exactly the same breakdown of participants in terms of gender and ethnicity to the decimal point .
The fraudster couldn’t even be bothered to change them slightly .
Speaking of (allegedly) square (or rectangular) counties in USA, note that even our (allegedly) square states are NOT:
Denver Gazette - Colorado nothing close to a rectangle, analysis shows
Colorado is one of the most boring states in the country when it comes to appearance on the map – or so you thought. To most, the state looks like a rectangle, so much so that the “Colorado-shaped” cutting board literally looks like a normal cutting board (pretty sure they used the same design for Wyoming, too).
Despite popular belief, Colorado is actually not a rectangle with four sides. It’s what you’d call a hexahectaenneacontakaiheptagon and it’s got 697 sides.
According to Big Think, zooming in on Colorado’s state lines reveal a number of angles and bends. While Colorado is so rectangular in appearance that the southern border is just 22 miles longer than the northern border, errors made by early surveyors resulted in zig zags. Keep in mind that these surveyors didn’t have modern day technology in the late-1800s.
And how many of the things Trump promised in his 2016 victory speech were done ?
How many politicians get to do everything they want to? None.
Trump talks about extensive tariffs, mass deportations, stopping aid to Ukraine and using the apparatus of state against his enemies. I am utterly convinced he will try to do every one of those things, but in all probability won't be able to do them all.
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.
What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?
Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.
This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.
I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.
But ultimately, Trump and his proxies have repeatedly backed Russia over Ukraine. So you'll forgive me if I think that a Trump victory would be anything other than a disaster for Ukraine.
Also: "how many dead" is a fucked up measure. It suggests that if the UK had been invaded by the Nazis in WW2, but only 150,000 people died in the invasion, then that would have been a better outcome than us - you know - fighting off the invasion.
Trump also told Europe to increase defence spending and stop relying on Russian energy.
While Biden was VP to Obama who did nothing in response to Russian aggression and who sneered when Romney spoke about the danger from Russia.
The leadership of the USA has been various levels of mediocre to bad for a long time.
That's not going to change, its just a question of how mediocre and how bad according to your personal preferences.
Europe did both of those things.
Albeit they only did the second after the invasion of Ukraine.
So they didn't do the second.
And bar a few countries in eastern Europe they've didn't do the first either and still haven't in some cases.
Dude:
They proved they weren't reliant on Russian energy. Russian gas was turned off, and the lights and power stayed on across Europe.
Indeed, we - who essentially didn't buy any Russian gas - were more affected than most European countries, because it turns out that energy is fungible.
The Europeans incurred no economic penalty from having imported Russian gas. Indeed, the people who lost out were the Russians, because they had no alternative markets for the gas.
Europe incurred an economic penalty through the higher costs and extra government borrowing that happened after the Russian gas was turned off.
You can add the political turmoil that has resulted as well from higher inflation.
How was that price any different to that incurred by - say - us? Or Pakistan?
Everyone saw their energy import costs spike, irrespective of whether they bought Russian gas or not.
Let me give you an example, the price of coal went up 12x. So, if you were Malaysia, and your electricity generation was close to 100% coal, then your price of energy went up by the same as the Germans or the Brits.
The same inflation and political turmoil has been seen everywhere if you are an energy importer, because the price of all energy rose.
There was no special negative economic impact in Europe, energy prices rose the same amount there as everywhere else in the world. Because energy is fungible.
But wasn't there a variation between countries ?
With those that had less dependence on gas, for example France with its nuclear power stations, less affected by price rises ?
If so then you can say that those with more varied energy resources were less at risk from the price of one increasing - effectively its energy insurance / hedging.
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.
What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?
Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.
This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.
I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.
No. Putin had almost certainly decided to invade Ukraine before Biden's dismal fiasco in Afghanistan. That was in the summer of 2021, while Putin probably took the decision to invade the previous winter - one authoritative investigation put the date at March of that year, though he had probably been thinking about it for at least a couple of years beforehand.
Afghanistan didn't discourage him, but Putin would have invaded anyway, because of Western weakness in the past two decades. In particular because:
- the Europeans, but also the Americans, had done nothing over Chechnya, Moldova, Georgia, Syria and all the other recipients of Russian aggression. - action over Ukraine in 2014 had been pretty token - Western Europe's massive dependence on Russian energy. - America's (and Osborne's) idiotic "pivot to Asia" - the increasingly fractious nature of Western public debate and the number of Russian useful idiots in high public places in the free world.
"No. Putin had almost certainly decided to invade Ukraine before Biden's dismal fiasco in Afghanistan. "
Agreed. ARRSE's 'War in Ukraine' thread started on the 31st March 2021, in response to an article titled "Russian forces begin massing on border with Ukraine". The withdrawal from Afghanistan ended in ignominy in August. But Putin and the Russian military would have been planning this for many months before March 2021 - something Covid probably interrupted.
A quote from that article: "While training were originally given as a possible explanation for the buildup, a U.S. defence official told CBS News here that the locations and types of units seen on the ground didn’t line up with what the Russian Ministry of Defense had announced last month."
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
You can lament the Dems not finding a more compelling candidate but what you cannot do is pretend that this is any sort of explanation for America (if they do) re-electing Donald Trump after he has shown in multiple ways and beyond a shred of doubt that he is unfit to be president.
Just a case of fear of candidate A > fear of candidate B. You're entirely reasonable antipathy for Trump is blinding you to the numerous entirely understandable reasons lots of American voters think a Harris presidency will be very bad news for them personally. FWIW, I am 5 verging on 6 on the TimS reaction to Trump scale. Which is why I am so annoyed at the Dem party machine these last 8 years for not giving the country a non-awful alternative. (FWIW2, Joe Biden was not awful per se just 8 years too late.)
The Dems should absolutely have gone with Biden in 2016.
Hillary Clinton was the worst candidate of all time, except now for Kamala Harris.
Hillary Clinton, while she won the popular vote unlike John Kerry actually got fewer Electoral College votes than Kerry did in 2004. We musn't forget that Kerry would have won had he won Ohio even though Bush won the popular vote.
Harris as a candidate is closer to Kerry than Clinton or Biden, indeed if she wins all the states Kerry won in 2004 plus adds Colorado and New Mexico which Hillary won and NE02 (Walz was born in Nebraska and Biden won 02 last time) she wins the EC 270-268. Even if Trump wins Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio and Florida https://www.270towin.com/
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.
What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?
Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.
Indeed.
I suspect that, if the election goes Trump’s way, there will be a large change in rhetoric but little change in facts on the ground. If anything, the absurdity of trying to micromanage the Ukranians’ use of individual weapons might come to an end.
Instead of “$100bn in aid to Ukraine”, we’ll instead hear of “$100bn of investment in a new weapons system to keep America safe in the 2030s and support 25,000 jobs in Republican districts”, alongside the quiet disposal of a lot of old kit, sold to NATO allies for $1.
He’ll also have a good go at getting everyone around the table, for the first time since the war started.
There’s actually no evidence for any of that, and a fair amount to the contrary. Trump has never criticised Putin, and blames everyone but Russia for the war. A promise to “end the war on day 1” can really only mean one thing.
I think it’s fairly likely that a second Trump term will see the loss of both Ukraine and Taiwan.
And how many of the things Trump promised in his 2016 victory speech were done ?
How many politicians get to do everything they want to? None.
Trump talks about extensive tariffs, mass deportations, stopping aid to Ukraine and using the apparatus of state against his enemies. I am utterly convinced he will try to do every one of those things, but in all probability won't be able to do them all.
Of the things you mention, some require major lawmaking and significant enforcement infrastructure. Stopping aid to Ukraine is different though, as it requires inaction rather than action to stop it.
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.
What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?
Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.
This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.
I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.
But ultimately, Trump and his proxies have repeatedly backed Russia over Ukraine. So you'll forgive me if I think that a Trump victory would be anything other than a disaster for Ukraine.
Also: "how many dead" is a fucked up measure. It suggests that if the UK had been invaded by the Nazis in WW2, but only 150,000 people died in the invasion, then that would have been a better outcome than us - you know - fighting off the invasion.
Trump also told Europe to increase defence spending and stop relying on Russian energy.
While Biden was VP to Obama who did nothing in response to Russian aggression and who sneered when Romney spoke about the danger from Russia.
The leadership of the USA has been various levels of mediocre to bad for a long time.
That's not going to change, its just a question of how mediocre and how bad according to your personal preferences.
Europe did both of those things.
Albeit they only did the second after the invasion of Ukraine.
So they didn't do the second.
And bar a few countries in eastern Europe they've didn't do the first either and still haven't in some cases.
Dude:
They proved they weren't reliant on Russian energy. Russian gas was turned off, and the lights and power stayed on across Europe.
Indeed, we - who essentially didn't buy any Russian gas - were more affected than most European countries, because it turns out that energy is fungible.
The Europeans incurred no economic penalty from having imported Russian gas. Indeed, the people who lost out were the Russians, because they had no alternative markets for the gas.
Europe incurred an economic penalty through the higher costs and extra government borrowing that happened after the Russian gas was turned off.
You can add the political turmoil that has resulted as well from higher inflation.
How was that price any different to that incurred by - say - us? Or Pakistan?
Everyone saw their energy import costs spike, irrespective of whether they bought Russian gas or not.
Let me give you an example, the price of coal went up 12x. So, if you were Malaysia, and your electricity generation was close to 100% coal, then your price of energy went up by the same as the Germans or the Brits.
The same inflation and political turmoil has been seen everywhere if you are an energy importer, because the price of all energy rose.
There was no special negative economic impact in Europe, energy prices rose the same amount there as everywhere else in the world. Because energy is fungible.
Not entirely. Russia supplied gas and oil at below market prices to countries with fewer scruples.
Of course there were practical limits on how much, but there was, and still is a two tier market.
It is an opportunity cost for the Russians though. Before the war Russia shipped vast quantities of hydrocarbons to Europe with big profit margins. Since then they have shipped smaller quantities to places like India and China at below market rates. They can offset those discounts through the market price having increased thanks to them no longer supplying in such large quantities but that's a temporary effect that's already wearing off.
So there is a permanent cost to them. Not enough to stop them doing bad things but it will hurt over the medium and long term.
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.
What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?
Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.
This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.
I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.
No. Putin had almost certainly decided to invade Ukraine before Biden's dismal fiasco in Afghanistan. That was in the summer of 2021, while Putin probably took the decision to invade the previous winter - one authoritative investigation put the date at March of that year, though he had probably been thinking about it for at least a couple of years beforehand.
Afghanistan didn't discourage him, but Putin would have invaded anyway, because of Western weakness in the past two decades. In particular because:
- the Europeans, but also the Americans, had done nothing over Chechnya, Moldova, Georgia, Syria and all the other recipients of Russian aggression. - action over Ukraine in 2014 had been pretty token - Western Europe's massive dependence on Russian energy. - America's (and Osborne's) idiotic "pivot to Asia" - the increasingly fractious nature of Western public debate and the number of Russian useful idiots in high public places in the free world.
"No. Putin had almost certainly decided to invade Ukraine before Biden's dismal fiasco in Afghanistan. "
Agreed. ARRSE's 'War in Ukraine' thread started on the 31st March 2021, in response to an article titled "Russian forces begin massing on border with Ukraine". The withdrawal from Afghanistan ended in ignominy in August. But Putin and the Russian military would have been planning this for many months before March 2021 - something Covid probably interrupted.
A quote from that article: "While training were originally given as a possible explanation for the buildup, a U.S. defence official told CBS News here that the locations and types of units seen on the ground didn’t line up with what the Russian Ministry of Defense had announced last month."
Why do you only post Trump-favourable polls on PB? Whose mind are you changing? As far as I am aware only Jim and Seashanty have the vote.
It's a good question. What is the purpose of William's Trumpy arse-licking? Nobody really knows.
Similar questions could be asked of your Starmer rimming
Well for starters everyone on here except Jim and Seashanty have a vote in the UK election. Anabob has convinced me.
Does Sea Shanty not have a vote? His name suggests he is an Irish citizen as well as a citizen of the United States.
Beg to differ, A'bob! Sad to say, my Irish forebearers were denied their Irish "citizenship" by British Imperialism, which is one reason they left Erin's Isle for (even) greener pastures . . . along with the Potato Famine.
Note that most Irish Americans are NOT eligible for (today's) dual Irish citizenship, which requires at least one Irish-from-Ireland grandparent; having 8 great-great-grandparents don't count!
On the subject of Trump, doesn't it depend on what he does.
Let's leave aside Ukraine for a minute, if he implements the proposed tariffs, then it would be disastrous for the US and the world. It would immediately result in tit-for-tat tariffs from the rest of the world, and would highly likely result in inflation spiking, and trade drying up.
We've been down this road before, and it didn't end well.
I mean, we do all know his proposed tariff policies, right?
Because there seems to be an awful lot of desire to believe that Trump won't implement his proposed tariff rises.
Out of interest, can he set tariffs by exec order or must there be a vote? Any chance we get saved by US pork barrel politics when Senators see what it would do to their states?
Speaking of (allegedly) square (or rectangular) counties in USA, note that even our (allegedly) square states are NOT:
Denver Gazette - Colorado nothing close to a rectangle, analysis shows
Colorado is one of the most boring states in the country when it comes to appearance on the map – or so you thought. To most, the state looks like a rectangle, so much so that the “Colorado-shaped” cutting board literally looks like a normal cutting board (pretty sure they used the same design for Wyoming, too).
Despite popular belief, Colorado is actually not a rectangle with four sides. It’s what you’d call a hexahectaenneacontakaiheptagon and it’s got 697 sides.
According to Big Think, zooming in on Colorado’s state lines reveal a number of angles and bends. While Colorado is so rectangular in appearance that the southern border is just 22 miles longer than the northern border, errors made by early surveyors resulted in zig zags. Keep in mind that these surveyors didn’t have modern day technology in the late-1800s.
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.
What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?
Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.
This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.
I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.
No. Putin had almost certainly decided to invade Ukraine before Biden's dismal fiasco in Afghanistan. That was in the summer of 2021, while Putin probably took the decision to invade the previous winter - one authoritative investigation put the date at March of that year, though he had probably been thinking about it for at least a couple of years beforehand.
Afghanistan didn't discourage him, but Putin would have invaded anyway, because of Western weakness in the past two decades. In particular because:
- the Europeans, but also the Americans, had done nothing over Chechnya, Moldova, Georgia, Syria and all the other recipients of Russian aggression. - action over Ukraine in 2014 had been pretty token - Western Europe's massive dependence on Russian energy. - America's (and Osborne's) idiotic "pivot to Asia" - the increasingly fractious nature of Western public debate and the number of Russian useful idiots in high public places in the free world.
"No. Putin had almost certainly decided to invade Ukraine before Biden's dismal fiasco in Afghanistan. "
Agreed. ARRSE's 'War in Ukraine' thread started on the 31st March 2021, in response to an article titled "Russian forces begin massing on border with Ukraine". The withdrawal from Afghanistan ended in ignominy in August. But Putin and the Russian military would have been planning this for many months before March 2021 - something Covid probably interrupted.
A quote from that article: "While training were originally given as a possible explanation for the buildup, a U.S. defence official told CBS News here that the locations and types of units seen on the ground didn’t line up with what the Russian Ministry of Defense had announced last month."
And how many of the things Trump promised in his 2016 victory speech were done ?
How many politicians get to do everything they want to? None.
Trump talks about extensive tariffs, mass deportations, stopping aid to Ukraine and using the apparatus of state against his enemies. I am utterly convinced he will try to do every one of those things, but in all probability won't be able to do them all.
Of the things you mention, some require major lawmaking and significant enforcement infrastructure. Stopping aid to Ukraine is different though, as it requires inaction rather than action to stop it.
Trump would suffer similar legislative and judicial obstacles as to what every President does.
Not easy to get past without competence and/or bipartisanship.
No further proof is needed that Trafalgar is a total fraud pollster .
Two separate Pennsylvania polls one done in September and one in October show exactly the same breakdown of participants in terms of gender and ethnicity to the decimal point .
The fraudster couldn’t even be bothered to change them slightly .
I think @rcs1000 discovered similar statistical smoking guns last time around – hence why Bowtie Bob is the one and only 'pollster' that PBers are allowed to accuse of being a shill.
If Trump wins what will be your emotions on the morning of the 6th:
1. Sheer unfettered delight. A new dawn has broken for our American cousins 2. Mild cheer, coupled with intense delight at the tears of the lefties 3. Indifference, it's a foreign country so what does it have to do with me? 4. Mild disappointment tempered by a frisson of schadenfreude re libs tears 5. Oh FFS, I just knew that senile old narcissist would sneak in again (that'll be me) 6. Shock and a deep sense of foreboding that perhaps the apocalypse is nigh 7. Checks winnings or losses on bets and determines degree of cheerfulness on that basis?
I’ll bite. 2.5.
7 tempered by 2
If you don't mind me saying you seem to have drifted politically rightwards - it was only a few years ago that you were a LibDem.
On the subject of Trump, doesn't it depend on what he does.
Let's leave aside Ukraine for a minute, if he implements the proposed tariffs, then it would be disastrous for the US and the world. It would immediately result in tit-for-tat tariffs from the rest of the world, and would highly likely result in inflation spiking, and trade drying up.
We've been down this road before, and it didn't end well.
I mean, we do all know his proposed tariff policies, right?
Because there seems to be an awful lot of desire to believe that Trump won't implement his proposed tariff rises.
Out of interest, can he set tariffs by exec order or must there be a vote? Any chance we get saved by US pork barrel politics when Senators see what it would do to their states?
He may be able to get the 60% (or is it 100%?) China tariff through by Executive Order, because it can easily be justified on national security grounds, and the President has some broad Congressional authority to act on those.
I am far from certain he'd be able to get the 10% tariff on the rest of the world through on those grounds however. He can't credibly argue that e.g. the UK or Australia need to be discriminated against to the same extent that Venezuela or Yemen do. But, as so often with Trump, we'd be in uncharted waters.
And how many of the things Trump promised in his 2016 victory speech were done ?
How many politicians get to do everything they want to? None.
Trump talks about extensive tariffs, mass deportations, stopping aid to Ukraine and using the apparatus of state against his enemies. I am utterly convinced he will try to do every one of those things, but in all probability won't be able to do them all.
Of the things you mention, some require major lawmaking and significant enforcement infrastructure. Stopping aid to Ukraine is different though, as it requires inaction rather than action to stop it.
Trump would suffer similar legislative and judicial obstacles as to what every President does.
Not easy to get past without competence and/or bipartisanship.
On the subject of Trump, doesn't it depend on what he does.
Let's leave aside Ukraine for a minute, if he implements the proposed tariffs, then it would be disastrous for the US and the world. It would immediately result in tit-for-tat tariffs from the rest of the world, and would highly likely result in inflation spiking, and trade drying up.
We've been down this road before, and it didn't end well.
I mean, we do all know his proposed tariff policies, right?
Because there seems to be an awful lot of desire to believe that Trump won't implement his proposed tariff rises.
You as a high earning, very educated liberal living in sunny and wealthy California may think that.
Joe Sixpack in small town Pennsylvania, Michigan, West Virginia, Ohio or Wisconsin or Indiana unable to get a job at the factory or mine his father and grandfather worked at down the road and seeing lots of Chinese and EU imports might feel tempted to roll the dice on Trump again. After all, he doesn't have much left to lose and Harris isn't a great fan of his culture either whereas Trump is far more his style
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.
What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?
Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.
This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.
I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.
But ultimately, Trump and his proxies have repeatedly backed Russia over Ukraine. So you'll forgive me if I think that a Trump victory would be anything other than a disaster for Ukraine.
Also: "how many dead" is a fucked up measure. It suggests that if the UK had been invaded by the Nazis in WW2, but only 150,000 people died in the invasion, then that would have been a better outcome than us - you know - fighting off the invasion.
Trump also told Europe to increase defence spending and stop relying on Russian energy.
While Biden was VP to Obama who did nothing in response to Russian aggression and who sneered when Romney spoke about the danger from Russia.
The leadership of the USA has been various levels of mediocre to bad for a long time.
That's not going to change, its just a question of how mediocre and how bad according to your personal preferences.
Europe did both of those things.
Albeit they only did the second after the invasion of Ukraine.
So they didn't do the second.
And bar a few countries in eastern Europe they've didn't do the first either and still haven't in some cases.
Dude:
They proved they weren't reliant on Russian energy. Russian gas was turned off, and the lights and power stayed on across Europe.
Indeed, we - who essentially didn't buy any Russian gas - were more affected than most European countries, because it turns out that energy is fungible.
The Europeans incurred no economic penalty from having imported Russian gas. Indeed, the people who lost out were the Russians, because they had no alternative markets for the gas.
That's the amazing thing about Putin's madness. Even if he was to 'win' and gain all of Ukraine overnight, then Russia is probably weaker than it would have been without the war since 2014. They will have gained a devastated territory whose population is against them, and lost a heck of a lot of blood and treasure in this pointless war. More so, if the sanctions remain.
During WW2 France was more of a drain on Germany's resources than it was a benefit. Despite rationing, there was no 'hunger plan' in France.
The days of imperialist expansionist wars are thankfully in the past; at least they will be, if Russia loses. Which is a good reason to try to ensure that Russia 'loses'.
They will be the future, if Russia is allowed to win.
Precisely my view.
Take China and Taiwan. XI and his predecessors have built up China's military to a high point, with rapid expansion. The problem with doing this is that, in twenty or thirty years, or sooner, many of those resources will require renewing. Ships and planes do not last forever. Neither do tanks, at least without climate-controlled warehousing or rebuilding after long-term storage.
The Chinese military is also chomping at the bit: it has been marched up to the top of the hill, and is acting as though it wants a fight. Witness its behaviour in the seas around the Philippines and in the air in international airspace. Many in the military will want a fight.
Worse, China's growth appears to be slowing, and it faced significant economic problems (though we all do...), just as their population starts shrinking. They may not be able to as easily afford a war of conquest in a couple of decades.
Perhaps the only thing staying Xi's hand is seeing what has happened to Russia since 2022. Is his military as unbeatable as they make out?
But I do hope that Taiwan is just a metaphorical weapon for Xi. It's good to have a goal to get elements of the population energised, without actually going for it. A bit like the Falklands for Argentina. And hopefully Xi will note what happened there as well, when Galtieri did go for it.
I'm having clams tonight. With loads of garlic and butter. And white wine, chilli flakes, lemon juice and zest, and parsley and chives, mixed into linguine
And how many of the things Trump promised in his 2016 victory speech were done ?
How many politicians get to do everything they want to? None.
Trump talks about extensive tariffs, mass deportations, stopping aid to Ukraine and using the apparatus of state against his enemies. I am utterly convinced he will try to do every one of those things, but in all probability won't be able to do them all.
Of the things you mention, some require major lawmaking and significant enforcement infrastructure. Stopping aid to Ukraine is different though, as it requires inaction rather than action to stop it.
Trump would suffer similar legislative and judicial obstacles as to what every President does.
Not easy to get past without competence and/or bipartisanship.
Yes, that's what I said more or less.
Stopping aid to Ukraine at most needs a veto, and more likely mere sloth.
Trump is an isolationist, like America in the Thirties.
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.
What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?
Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.
This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.
I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.
No. Putin had almost certainly decided to invade Ukraine before Biden's dismal fiasco in Afghanistan. That was in the summer of 2021, while Putin probably took the decision to invade the previous winter - one authoritative investigation put the date at March of that year, though he had probably been thinking about it for at least a couple of years beforehand.
Afghanistan didn't discourage him, but Putin would have invaded anyway, because of Western weakness in the past two decades. In particular because:
- the Europeans, but also the Americans, had done nothing over Chechnya, Moldova, Georgia, Syria and all the other recipients of Russian aggression. - action over Ukraine in 2014 had been pretty token - Western Europe's massive dependence on Russian energy. - America's (and Osborne's) idiotic "pivot to Asia" - the increasingly fractious nature of Western public debate and the number of Russian useful idiots in high public places in the free world.
"No. Putin had almost certainly decided to invade Ukraine before Biden's dismal fiasco in Afghanistan. "
Agreed. ARRSE's 'War in Ukraine' thread started on the 31st March 2021, in response to an article titled "Russian forces begin massing on border with Ukraine". The withdrawal from Afghanistan ended in ignominy in August. But Putin and the Russian military would have been planning this for many months before March 2021 - something Covid probably interrupted.
A quote from that article: "While training were originally given as a possible explanation for the buildup, a U.S. defence official told CBS News here that the locations and types of units seen on the ground didn’t line up with what the Russian Ministry of Defense had announced last month."
And how many of the things Trump promised in his 2016 victory speech were done ?
How many politicians get to do everything they want to? None.
Trump talks about extensive tariffs, mass deportations, stopping aid to Ukraine and using the apparatus of state against his enemies. I am utterly convinced he will try to do every one of those things, but in all probability won't be able to do them all.
Interesting looking at the 2020 presidential results page on wiki, with 4 of the top 5 highest percentage Republican vote in Texas (93-96%), though the state as a whole was 52-47.
Probably really tiny counties. The Democrat's most overwhelming percentage was some place in Hawaii with under 100 people.
Texas has the most counties of any US State, some of the 254 out West have tiny populations. Georgia is curiously 2nd in number of counties with 159.
Knox County here is probably really annoyed at Foard County meaning they are not a perfect square like most of their Northern Texas fellows, at least the ones in their row.
pedant alert:
You can't have perfect square areas on the surface of a globe.
On any non-Euclidean plane, please.
(Waits for someone to say there are other cases...)
Indeed. a perfect square on a perfect globe is technically a perfect square *but* the corner angles are each greater than 90 degrees.
And how many of the things Trump promised in his 2016 victory speech were done ?
How many politicians get to do everything they want to? None.
Trump talks about extensive tariffs, mass deportations, stopping aid to Ukraine and using the apparatus of state against his enemies. I am utterly convinced he will try to do every one of those things, but in all probability won't be able to do them all.
Of the things you mention, some require major lawmaking and significant enforcement infrastructure. Stopping aid to Ukraine is different though, as it requires inaction rather than action to stop it.
Trump would suffer similar legislative and judicial obstacles as to what every President does.
Not easy to get past without competence and/or bipartisanship.
Yes, that's what I said more or less.
Stopping aid to Ukraine at most needs a veto, and more likely mere sloth.
Trump is an isolationist, like America in the Thirties.
And his Vice President is - if anything - even more obviously anti-Ukraine than he is.
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.
What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?
Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.
This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.
I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.
But ultimately, Trump and his proxies have repeatedly backed Russia over Ukraine. So you'll forgive me if I think that a Trump victory would be anything other than a disaster for Ukraine.
Also: "how many dead" is a fucked up measure. It suggests that if the UK had been invaded by the Nazis in WW2, but only 150,000 people died in the invasion, then that would have been a better outcome than us - you know - fighting off the invasion.
Trump also told Europe to increase defence spending and stop relying on Russian energy.
While Biden was VP to Obama who did nothing in response to Russian aggression and who sneered when Romney spoke about the danger from Russia.
The leadership of the USA has been various levels of mediocre to bad for a long time.
That's not going to change, its just a question of how mediocre and how bad according to your personal preferences.
Europe did both of those things.
Albeit they only did the second after the invasion of Ukraine.
So they didn't do the second.
And bar a few countries in eastern Europe they've didn't do the first either and still haven't in some cases.
Dude:
They proved they weren't reliant on Russian energy. Russian gas was turned off, and the lights and power stayed on across Europe.
Indeed, we - who essentially didn't buy any Russian gas - were more affected than most European countries, because it turns out that energy is fungible.
The Europeans incurred no economic penalty from having imported Russian gas. Indeed, the people who lost out were the Russians, because they had no alternative markets for the gas.
That's the amazing thing about Putin's madness. Even if he was to 'win' and gain all of Ukraine overnight, then Russia is probably weaker than it would have been without the war since 2014. They will have gained a devastated territory whose population is against them, and lost a heck of a lot of blood and treasure in this pointless war. More so, if the sanctions remain.
During WW2 France was more of a drain on Germany's resources than it was a benefit. Despite rationing, there was no 'hunger plan' in France.
The days of imperialist expansionist wars are thankfully in the past; at least they will be, if Russia loses. Which is a good reason to try to ensure that Russia 'loses'.
They will be the future, if Russia is allowed to win.
Precisely my view.
Take China and Taiwan. XI and his predecessors have built up China's military to a high point, with rapid expansion. The problem with doing this is that, in twenty or thirty years, or sooner, many of those resources will require renewing. Ships and planes do not last forever. Neither do tanks, at least without climate-controlled warehousing or rebuilding after long-term storage.
The Chinese military is also chomping at the bit: it has been marched up to the top of the hill, and is acting as though it wants a fight. Witness its behaviour in the seas around the Philippines and in the air in international airspace. Many in the military will want a fight.
Worse, China's growth appears to be slowing, and it faced significant economic problems (though we all do...), just as their population starts shrinking. They may not be able to as easily afford a war of conquest in a couple of decades.
Perhaps the only thing staying Xi's hand is seeing what has happened to Russia since 2022. Is his military as unbeatable as they make out?
But I do hope that Taiwan is just a metaphorical weapon for Xi. It's good to have a goal to get elements of the population energised, without actually going for it. A bit like the Falklands for Argentina. And hopefully Xi will note what happened there as well, when Galtieri did go for it.
Taiwan is a tough ask for many reasons: it is much better equipped than Ukraine, and it has the advantage of an ocean between China and the Taiwanese main island. On the other hand, one would expect China to be a much more serious adversary, with infinitely more resources.
The biggest thing in Taiwan's favour though, is that it is hard to build a landing force in secret. We'd likely have a lot of warning, because invasion requires landing hundreds of thousands of troops simultaneously, and that means a lot of ships.
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.
What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?
Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.
This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.
I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.
But ultimately, Trump and his proxies have repeatedly backed Russia over Ukraine. So you'll forgive me if I think that a Trump victory would be anything other than a disaster for Ukraine.
Also: "how many dead" is a fucked up measure. It suggests that if the UK had been invaded by the Nazis in WW2, but only 150,000 people died in the invasion, then that would have been a better outcome than us - you know - fighting off the invasion.
Trump also told Europe to increase defence spending and stop relying on Russian energy.
While Biden was VP to Obama who did nothing in response to Russian aggression and who sneered when Romney spoke about the danger from Russia.
The leadership of the USA has been various levels of mediocre to bad for a long time.
That's not going to change, its just a question of how mediocre and how bad according to your personal preferences.
Europe did both of those things.
Albeit they only did the second after the invasion of Ukraine.
So they didn't do the second.
And bar a few countries in eastern Europe they've didn't do the first either and still haven't in some cases.
Dude:
They proved they weren't reliant on Russian energy. Russian gas was turned off, and the lights and power stayed on across Europe.
Indeed, we - who essentially didn't buy any Russian gas - were more affected than most European countries, because it turns out that energy is fungible.
The Europeans incurred no economic penalty from having imported Russian gas. Indeed, the people who lost out were the Russians, because they had no alternative markets for the gas.
Europe incurred an economic penalty through the higher costs and extra government borrowing that happened after the Russian gas was turned off.
You can add the political turmoil that has resulted as well from higher inflation.
How was that price any different to that incurred by - say - us? Or Pakistan?
Everyone saw their energy import costs spike, irrespective of whether they bought Russian gas or not.
Let me give you an example, the price of coal went up 12x. So, if you were Malaysia, and your electricity generation was close to 100% coal, then your price of energy went up by the same as the Germans or the Brits.
The same inflation and political turmoil has been seen everywhere if you are an energy importer, because the price of all energy rose.
There was no special negative economic impact in Europe, energy prices rose the same amount there as everywhere else in the world. Because energy is fungible.
Not entirely. Russia supplied gas and oil at below market prices to countries with fewer scruples.
Of course there were practical limits on how much, but there was, and still is a two tier market.
That's true: India and China have benefited from cheap oil in the aftermath. But gas is a little different, because it's much harder to ship around.
The power of one gas pipeline is open and running between Russia and China and will increase its capacity next year.
On the subject of Trump, doesn't it depend on what he does.
Let's leave aside Ukraine for a minute, if he implements the proposed tariffs, then it would be disastrous for the US and the world. It would immediately result in tit-for-tat tariffs from the rest of the world, and would highly likely result in inflation spiking, and trade drying up.
We've been down this road before, and it didn't end well.
I mean, we do all know his proposed tariff policies, right?
Because there seems to be an awful lot of desire to believe that Trump won't implement his proposed tariff rises.
You as a high earning, very educated liberal living in sunny and wealthy California may think that.
Joe Sixpack in small town Pennsylvania, Michigan, West Virginia, Ohio or Wisconsin or Indiana unable to get a job at the factory or mine his father and grandfather worked at down the road and seeing lots of Chinese and EU imports might feel tempted to roll the dice on Trump again. After all, he doesn't have much left to lose and Harris isn't a great fan of his culture either whereas Trump is far more his style
I agree.
I know what happens when trade wars happen, because they've happened before. And I know that Joe Sixpack will lose out every bit as much - and maybe more - than me.
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.
What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?
Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.
This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.
I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.
But ultimately, Trump and his proxies have repeatedly backed Russia over Ukraine. So you'll forgive me if I think that a Trump victory would be anything other than a disaster for Ukraine.
Also: "how many dead" is a fucked up measure. It suggests that if the UK had been invaded by the Nazis in WW2, but only 150,000 people died in the invasion, then that would have been a better outcome than us - you know - fighting off the invasion.
Trump also told Europe to increase defence spending and stop relying on Russian energy.
While Biden was VP to Obama who did nothing in response to Russian aggression and who sneered when Romney spoke about the danger from Russia.
The leadership of the USA has been various levels of mediocre to bad for a long time.
That's not going to change, its just a question of how mediocre and how bad according to your personal preferences.
Europe did both of those things.
Albeit they only did the second after the invasion of Ukraine.
So they didn't do the second.
And bar a few countries in eastern Europe they've didn't do the first either and still haven't in some cases.
Dude:
They proved they weren't reliant on Russian energy. Russian gas was turned off, and the lights and power stayed on across Europe.
Indeed, we - who essentially didn't buy any Russian gas - were more affected than most European countries, because it turns out that energy is fungible.
The Europeans incurred no economic penalty from having imported Russian gas. Indeed, the people who lost out were the Russians, because they had no alternative markets for the gas.
That's the amazing thing about Putin's madness. Even if he was to 'win' and gain all of Ukraine overnight, then Russia is probably weaker than it would have been without the war since 2014. They will have gained a devastated territory whose population is against them, and lost a heck of a lot of blood and treasure in this pointless war. More so, if the sanctions remain.
During WW2 France was more of a drain on Germany's resources than it was a benefit. Despite rationing, there was no 'hunger plan' in France.
The days of imperialist expansionist wars are thankfully in the past; at least they will be, if Russia loses. Which is a good reason to try to ensure that Russia 'loses'.
They will be the future, if Russia is allowed to win.
Precisely my view.
Take China and Taiwan. XI and his predecessors have built up China's military to a high point, with rapid expansion. The problem with doing this is that, in twenty or thirty years, or sooner, many of those resources will require renewing. Ships and planes do not last forever. Neither do tanks, at least without climate-controlled warehousing or rebuilding after long-term storage.
The Chinese military is also chomping at the bit: it has been marched up to the top of the hill, and is acting as though it wants a fight. Witness its behaviour in the seas around the Philippines and in the air in international airspace. Many in the military will want a fight.
Worse, China's growth appears to be slowing, and it faced significant economic problems (though we all do...), just as their population starts shrinking. They may not be able to as easily afford a war of conquest in a couple of decades.
Perhaps the only thing staying Xi's hand is seeing what has happened to Russia since 2022. Is his military as unbeatable as they make out?
But I do hope that Taiwan is just a metaphorical weapon for Xi. It's good to have a goal to get elements of the population energised, without actually going for it. A bit like the Falklands for Argentina. And hopefully Xi will note what happened there as well, when Galtieri did go for it.
Taiwan is a tough ask for many reasons: it is much better equipped than Ukraine, and it has the advantage of an ocean between China and the Taiwanese main island. On the other hand, one would expect China to be a much more serious adversary, with infinitely more resources.
The biggest thing in Taiwan's favour though, is that it is hard to build a landing force in secret. We'd likely have a lot of warning, because invasion requires landing hundreds of thousands of troops simultaneously, and that means a lot of ships.
And the Us Troops stationed in Korea and Japan will help Tawain as the US will and the Chinese know it.
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.
What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?
Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.
This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.
I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.
But ultimately, Trump and his proxies have repeatedly backed Russia over Ukraine. So you'll forgive me if I think that a Trump victory would be anything other than a disaster for Ukraine.
Also: "how many dead" is a fucked up measure. It suggests that if the UK had been invaded by the Nazis in WW2, but only 150,000 people died in the invasion, then that would have been a better outcome than us - you know - fighting off the invasion.
Trump also told Europe to increase defence spending and stop relying on Russian energy.
While Biden was VP to Obama who did nothing in response to Russian aggression and who sneered when Romney spoke about the danger from Russia.
The leadership of the USA has been various levels of mediocre to bad for a long time.
That's not going to change, its just a question of how mediocre and how bad according to your personal preferences.
Europe did both of those things.
Albeit they only did the second after the invasion of Ukraine.
So they didn't do the second.
And bar a few countries in eastern Europe they've didn't do the first either and still haven't in some cases.
Dude:
They proved they weren't reliant on Russian energy. Russian gas was turned off, and the lights and power stayed on across Europe.
Indeed, we - who essentially didn't buy any Russian gas - were more affected than most European countries, because it turns out that energy is fungible.
The Europeans incurred no economic penalty from having imported Russian gas. Indeed, the people who lost out were the Russians, because they had no alternative markets for the gas.
Europe incurred an economic penalty through the higher costs and extra government borrowing that happened after the Russian gas was turned off.
You can add the political turmoil that has resulted as well from higher inflation.
How was that price any different to that incurred by - say - us? Or Pakistan?
Everyone saw their energy import costs spike, irrespective of whether they bought Russian gas or not.
Let me give you an example, the price of coal went up 12x. So, if you were Malaysia, and your electricity generation was close to 100% coal, then your price of energy went up by the same as the Germans or the Brits.
The same inflation and political turmoil has been seen everywhere if you are an energy importer, because the price of all energy rose.
There was no special negative economic impact in Europe, energy prices rose the same amount there as everywhere else in the world. Because energy is fungible.
Not entirely. Russia supplied gas and oil at below market prices to countries with fewer scruples.
Of course there were practical limits on how much, but there was, and still is a two tier market.
That's true: India and China have benefited from cheap oil in the aftermath. But gas is a little different, because it's much harder to ship around.
The power of one gas pipeline is open and running between Russia and China and will increase its capacity next year.
It's still pretty small in the general scheme of things. (And it's not like Russia's gas fields are all linked. The gas that is supposed to supply the Arkangel LNG plant can't get to China because there simply isn't the internal takeaway capacity.)
On the subject of Trump, doesn't it depend on what he does.
Let's leave aside Ukraine for a minute, if he implements the proposed tariffs, then it would be disastrous for the US and the world. It would immediately result in tit-for-tat tariffs from the rest of the world, and would highly likely result in inflation spiking, and trade drying up.
We've been down this road before, and it didn't end well.
I mean, we do all know his proposed tariff policies, right?
Because there seems to be an awful lot of desire to believe that Trump won't implement his proposed tariff rises.
Out of interest, can he set tariffs by exec order or must there be a vote? Any chance we get saved by US pork barrel politics when Senators see what it would do to their states?
He may be able to get the 60% (or is it 100%?) China tariff through by Executive Order, because it can easily be justified on national security grounds, and the President has some broad Congressional authority to act on those.
I am far from certain he'd be able to get the 10% tariff on the rest of the world through on those grounds however. He can't credibly argue that e.g. the UK or Australia need to be discriminated against to the same extent that Venezuela or Yemen do. But, as so often with Trump, we'd be in uncharted waters.
There's also the question of exceptions.
Those who whispered in his ear, and put dollars in the pockets of the Trump Organization coffers, would no doubt be able to secure exceptions.
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.
What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?
Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.
This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.
I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.
But ultimately, Trump and his proxies have repeatedly backed Russia over Ukraine. So you'll forgive me if I think that a Trump victory would be anything other than a disaster for Ukraine.
Also: "how many dead" is a fucked up measure. It suggests that if the UK had been invaded by the Nazis in WW2, but only 150,000 people died in the invasion, then that would have been a better outcome than us - you know - fighting off the invasion.
Trump also told Europe to increase defence spending and stop relying on Russian energy.
While Biden was VP to Obama who did nothing in response to Russian aggression and who sneered when Romney spoke about the danger from Russia.
The leadership of the USA has been various levels of mediocre to bad for a long time.
That's not going to change, its just a question of how mediocre and how bad according to your personal preferences.
Europe did both of those things.
Albeit they only did the second after the invasion of Ukraine.
So they didn't do the second.
And bar a few countries in eastern Europe they've didn't do the first either and still haven't in some cases.
Dude:
They proved they weren't reliant on Russian energy. Russian gas was turned off, and the lights and power stayed on across Europe.
Indeed, we - who essentially didn't buy any Russian gas - were more affected than most European countries, because it turns out that energy is fungible.
The Europeans incurred no economic penalty from having imported Russian gas. Indeed, the people who lost out were the Russians, because they had no alternative markets for the gas.
Europe incurred an economic penalty through the higher costs and extra government borrowing that happened after the Russian gas was turned off.
You can add the political turmoil that has resulted as well from higher inflation.
How was that price any different to that incurred by - say - us? Or Pakistan?
Everyone saw their energy import costs spike, irrespective of whether they bought Russian gas or not.
Let me give you an example, the price of coal went up 12x. So, if you were Malaysia, and your electricity generation was close to 100% coal, then your price of energy went up by the same as the Germans or the Brits.
The same inflation and political turmoil has been seen everywhere if you are an energy importer, because the price of all energy rose.
There was no special negative economic impact in Europe, energy prices rose the same amount there as everywhere else in the world. Because energy is fungible.
Not entirely. Russia supplied gas and oil at below market prices to countries with fewer scruples.
Of course there were practical limits on how much, but there was, and still is a two tier market.
That's true: India and China have benefited from cheap oil in the aftermath. But gas is a little different, because it's much harder to ship around.
The power of one gas pipeline is open and running between Russia and China and will increase its capacity next year.
It's still pretty small in the general scheme of things. (And it's not like Russia's gas fields are all linked. The gas that is supposed to supply the Arkangel LNG plant can't get to China because there simply isn't the internal takeaway capacity.)
Give them time to increase capacity for this pipeline and build another one. It will happen sooner than we believe.
Appears to have been a very good polling day for Harris - 538 has reverted to 50:50 win percentage having been 53% Trump a couple of days ago.
Yet Betfair has moved further towards Tump today.
It’s been okay nationally but state polls have looked mediocre. There’s really been a lack of higher quality polling in this election compared to previous years and there’s been far too many GOP biased polls trying to flood the averages .
On the subject of Trump, doesn't it depend on what he does.
Let's leave aside Ukraine for a minute, if he implements the proposed tariffs, then it would be disastrous for the US and the world. It would immediately result in tit-for-tat tariffs from the rest of the world, and would highly likely result in inflation spiking, and trade drying up.
We've been down this road before, and it didn't end well.
I mean, we do all know his proposed tariff policies, right?
Because there seems to be an awful lot of desire to believe that Trump won't implement his proposed tariff rises.
Out of interest, can he set tariffs by exec order or must there be a vote? Any chance we get saved by US pork barrel politics when Senators see what it would do to their states?
He may be able to get the 60% (or is it 100%?) China tariff through by Executive Order, because it can easily be justified on national security grounds, and the President has some broad Congressional authority to act on those.
I am far from certain he'd be able to get the 10% tariff on the rest of the world through on those grounds however. He can't credibly argue that e.g. the UK or Australia need to be discriminated against to the same extent that Venezuela or Yemen do. But, as so often with Trump, we'd be in uncharted waters.
There's also the question of exceptions.
Those who whispered in his ear, and put dollars in the pockets of the Trump Organization coffers, would no doubt be able to secure exceptions.
On the subject of Trump, doesn't it depend on what he does.
Let's leave aside Ukraine for a minute, if he implements the proposed tariffs, then it would be disastrous for the US and the world. It would immediately result in tit-for-tat tariffs from the rest of the world, and would highly likely result in inflation spiking, and trade drying up.
We've been down this road before, and it didn't end well.
I mean, we do all know his proposed tariff policies, right?
Because there seems to be an awful lot of desire to believe that Trump won't implement his proposed tariff rises.
You as a high earning, very educated liberal living in sunny and wealthy California may think that.
Joe Sixpack in small town Pennsylvania, Michigan, West Virginia, Ohio or Wisconsin or Indiana unable to get a job at the factory or mine his father and grandfather worked at down the road and seeing lots of Chinese and EU imports might feel tempted to roll the dice on Trump again. After all, he doesn't have much left to lose and Harris isn't a great fan of his culture either whereas Trump is far more his style
I agree.
I know what happens when trade wars happen, because they've happened before. And I know that Joe Sixpack will lose out every bit as much - and maybe more - than me.
Much more, I'd have thought, since you have more money and an escape route if the worst comes to the worst.
But persuading someone from an attractive-but-inaccurate view of the world to an unpleasant-but-accurate one is blooming difficult. It's hard enough unpicking misconceptions in science teaching, and people aren't usually emotionally committed to bad physics in the way that they are to bad economics or geopolitics.
When people say "are you telling me that I'm ignorant?", it's rarely wise to reply "yes". But objectively, it's often the case. (And yes, there are a bajillion things I'm ignorant about, and I'm very imperfect at embracing that honestly. But one of the transferable virtues of doing anything academic, especially science, is how well it highlights how little one knows. Healthy humilty in the face of the universe.)
See also the omerta about the UK's fiscal (not economic, but fiscal) situation.
If Trump does win at least we'll all get to feel really smug when he abandons Ukraine to Russia and say "We told you so"
Oh, I think I can imagine the exculpations.
It’s the Dems’ fault for choosing a loser and Putin invaded while Biden was in charge leaving Trump to clean up the mess (cough, Afghanistan) and the Dems didn’t work with the Reps thus FORCING the latter to block aid for Ukraine. Etc.
Well, yes, obviously if Trump wins I think it's reasonable to blame the Dems for picking a candidate so weak she came up short against the most awful candidate the GOP have ever put up. Why wouldn't it?
So assuming you took in the original point about Ukraine, you will be blaming the Dems if Trump sharts all over the Ukes? Good to know.
What's the death toll of Ukes under Biden versus under Trump so far?
Biden failed to deter Putin and failed to give Ukraine adequate means to defend himself. People need to stop using Trump as a scapegoat.
This would be a lot more compelling argument if (a) Trump hadn't repeatedly praised the Russian attack, and recently criticized them for resisting, and (b) if his allies in the House of Representatives hadn't repeatedly opposed aid to Ukraine.
I agree that Ukraine was invaded because Putin thought the US would do nothing. And he thought the US would do nothing, because of the nature of withdrawal from Afghanistan.
But ultimately, Trump and his proxies have repeatedly backed Russia over Ukraine. So you'll forgive me if I think that a Trump victory would be anything other than a disaster for Ukraine.
Also: "how many dead" is a fucked up measure. It suggests that if the UK had been invaded by the Nazis in WW2, but only 150,000 people died in the invasion, then that would have been a better outcome than us - you know - fighting off the invasion.
Trump also told Europe to increase defence spending and stop relying on Russian energy.
While Biden was VP to Obama who did nothing in response to Russian aggression and who sneered when Romney spoke about the danger from Russia.
The leadership of the USA has been various levels of mediocre to bad for a long time.
That's not going to change, its just a question of how mediocre and how bad according to your personal preferences.
Europe did both of those things.
Albeit they only did the second after the invasion of Ukraine.
So they didn't do the second.
And bar a few countries in eastern Europe they've didn't do the first either and still haven't in some cases.
Dude:
They proved they weren't reliant on Russian energy. Russian gas was turned off, and the lights and power stayed on across Europe.
Indeed, we - who essentially didn't buy any Russian gas - were more affected than most European countries, because it turns out that energy is fungible.
The Europeans incurred no economic penalty from having imported Russian gas. Indeed, the people who lost out were the Russians, because they had no alternative markets for the gas.
Europe incurred an economic penalty through the higher costs and extra government borrowing that happened after the Russian gas was turned off.
You can add the political turmoil that has resulted as well from higher inflation.
How was that price any different to that incurred by - say - us? Or Pakistan?
Everyone saw their energy import costs spike, irrespective of whether they bought Russian gas or not.
Let me give you an example, the price of coal went up 12x. So, if you were Malaysia, and your electricity generation was close to 100% coal, then your price of energy went up by the same as the Germans or the Brits.
The same inflation and political turmoil has been seen everywhere if you are an energy importer, because the price of all energy rose.
There was no special negative economic impact in Europe, energy prices rose the same amount there as everywhere else in the world. Because energy is fungible.
Not entirely. Russia supplied gas and oil at below market prices to countries with fewer scruples.
Of course there were practical limits on how much, but there was, and still is a two tier market.
That's true: India and China have benefited from cheap oil in the aftermath. But gas is a little different, because it's much harder to ship around.
Yes - but the US consumer benefitted from that, of course, compared to us.
It is not over till it is over. Personally I will wait for the election result. If Trump wins then we have the Mid term election. The Dems may then control the two houses. The last two years will be lame duck. Adios Amigo.
Comments
1 What's the distribution of votes across states? Is each candidate putting on useful votes or wasted votes?
2 What demographic modelling are pollsters using? Do their sausage machines incorporate the increase in voting by younger (Dem leaning) women which I think most people are expecting this time?
3 Is the mix of early voting the same as before, or different? How much is it habitual voters voting at a different time, as opposed to new voters?
What else?
1 ..
2 ..
3 ..
Let's leave aside Ukraine for a minute, if he implements the proposed tariffs, then it would be disastrous for the US and the world. It would immediately result in tit-for-tat tariffs from the rest of the world, and would highly likely result in inflation spiking, and trade drying up.
We've been down this road before, and it didn't end well.
I mean, we do all know his proposed tariff policies, right?
Because there seems to be an awful lot of desire to believe that Trump won't implement his proposed tariff rises.
During WW2 France was more of a drain on Germany's resources than it was a benefit. Despite rationing, there was no 'hunger plan' in France.
The days of imperialist expansionist wars are thankfully in the past; at least they will be, if Russia loses. Which is a good reason to try to ensure that Russia 'loses'.
If a politician's response to defeat is the one shown by Trump since November 2020, why doesn't that cross the line that disqualifies you from participating in democracy?
Trump has made his position clear on Ukraine. So has much of the GOP. You shill for them. You should be shouting against them.
You will sadly get what you ask for.
You can add the political turmoil that has resulted as well from higher inflation.
'Ere Sandpit, I have a garden bridge over the Thames to sell you.
*Oh! Research failure, perhaps he should be funding antibiotics research!!
I'm not betting on the election as it's a coin flip with no obvious source of value.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/10/22/2024-elections-live-coverage-updates-analysis/trump-joe-rogan-podcast-00184894
I'm somewhat curious as to who thinks they'll be one of these potential new factory workers.
They might be but they might also be wrong, one way or the other.
To that end I will try and focus on what upsides I can. I hope that a Trump victory will be the shock to the system that Europe needs to build a proper, well-funded security apparatus. He might indeed display a canny ability to at least stop the escalation in the ME, by virtue of being a new actor in the game. There is even the fact that there might be a short term feel-good around him getting Ukraine “resolved” (albeit I think we’ll feel the pain of that one (and possibly the ME) in the future).
One thing I am evaluating at the moment, once the US victor is known (on which some bets hinge), is whether I might take a bit of a hiatus from following news, politics and current affairs for a period. I am finding, for the first time ever, that I am not quite enjoying following the day-to-day news cycle - generally instead finding it rather depressing and a bit all-encompassing. A reset might be needed: a few months of listening to the headlines at the start and end of the day and not interrogating the world beyond that - trying to spend a little more time focussed on hobbies and other interests etc instead.
If Trumpists don't really expect him to do what he has said he will, what do they expect?
I really want to hope there's more to it than Salty Liberal Tears, but I'm not quite sure what.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_seat_war
NOTE that Washington State gets TWO mentions:
> Lincoln Co seat moved from Sprague > Davenport
> Snohomish Co seat from (town of Snohomish) > Everett
> Spokane Co seat from Spokane Falls (now city of Spokane) > Cheney > back to Spokane
"In Spokane County, an armed mob from Cheney forcibly seized county records from the elected seat of Spokane Falls (now Spokane), in 1881. Spokane became the county seat in an 1886 election."
AND county seat "wars" are NOT a thing of the past, at least not in WA; note this from 2010:
TRI-CITIES, Wash. (AP) — It appears that Benton County’s county seat will remain in Prosser.
A measure to move it to Kennewick is failing to reach the required 60 percent approval, although early results from Tuesday’s election showed 56 percent support.
Retired judge Fred Staples who led the campaign says he’s disappointed that people didn’t understand the need to move the seat to Kennewick where courts and most of county government is already located.
Staples blamed the “Prosser propaganda machine” and told the Tri-City Herald that at 77 he has no plans to bring up the issue again.
SSI - Prosser close to the county line in old agricultural part of Benton County, while Kennewick is in at center of county population, part of the Tri-Cities of Southwest WA: Kennewick, Richland and Pasco (across the Columbia River in Franklin County).
Afghanistan didn't discourage him, but Putin would have invaded anyway, because of Western weakness in the past two decades. In particular because:
- the Europeans, but also the Americans, had done nothing over Chechnya, Moldova, Georgia, Syria and all the other recipients of Russian aggression.
- action over Ukraine in 2014 had been pretty token
- Western Europe's massive dependence on Russian energy.
- America's (and Osborne's) idiotic "pivot to Asia"
- the increasingly fractious nature of Western public debate and the number of Russian useful idiots in high public places in the free world.
Is Trump lying about what he would do ?
If Trump is honest is he capable of actually doing what he says he would do ?
Everyone saw their energy import costs spike, irrespective of whether they bought Russian gas or not.
Let me give you an example, the price of coal went up 12x. So, if you were Malaysia, and your electricity generation was close to 100% coal, then your price of energy went up by the same as the Germans or the Brits.
The same inflation and political turmoil has been seen everywhere if you are an energy importer, because the price of all energy rose.
There was no special negative economic impact in Europe, energy prices rose the same amount there as everywhere else in the world. Because energy is fungible.
William's bizarre brown-nosing of Trump has no obvious reason for it. As Mexican rightly says, only Sea Shanty and Jim can actually vote, so what is the point of it?
Russia supplied gas and oil at below market prices to countries with fewer scruples.
Of course there were practical limits on how much, but there was, and still is a two tier market.
And how many of the things Trump promised in his 2016 victory speech were done ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owuq_An4cnk
Yet today was the meeting of the BRICS group which includes China, Russia, India, and a number of OPEC members.
That the BRICS groups exists at all, is a failure of statecraft by the leading Western powers.
Two separate Pennsylvania polls one done in September and one in October show exactly the same breakdown of participants in terms of gender and ethnicity to the decimal point .
The fraudster couldn’t even be bothered to change them slightly .
Denver Gazette - Colorado nothing close to a rectangle, analysis shows
Colorado is one of the most boring states in the country when it comes to appearance on the map – or so you thought. To most, the state looks like a rectangle, so much so that the “Colorado-shaped” cutting board literally looks like a normal cutting board (pretty sure they used the same design for Wyoming, too).
Despite popular belief, Colorado is actually not a rectangle with four sides. It’s what you’d call a hexahectaenneacontakaiheptagon and it’s got 697 sides.
According to Big Think, zooming in on Colorado’s state lines reveal a number of angles and bends. While Colorado is so rectangular in appearance that the southern border is just 22 miles longer than the northern border, errors made by early surveyors resulted in zig zags. Keep in mind that these surveyors didn’t have modern day technology in the late-1800s.
https://gazette.com/news/colorado-nothing-close-to-a-rectangle-analysis-shows/article_2cf93f88-0c15-11ea-af89-739cbf93b4e9.html#:~:text=Despite popular belief, Colorado is,number of angles and bends.
Trump talks about extensive tariffs, mass deportations, stopping aid to Ukraine and using the apparatus of state against his enemies. I am utterly convinced he will try to do every one of those things, but in all probability won't be able to do them all.
With those that had less dependence on gas, for example France with its nuclear power stations, less affected by price rises ?
If so then you can say that those with more varied energy resources were less at risk from the price of one increasing - effectively its energy insurance / hedging.
Agreed. ARRSE's 'War in Ukraine' thread started on the 31st March 2021, in response to an article titled "Russian forces begin massing on border with Ukraine". The withdrawal from Afghanistan ended in ignominy in August. But Putin and the Russian military would have been planning this for many months before March 2021 - something Covid probably interrupted.
A quote from that article: "While training were originally given as a possible explanation for the buildup, a U.S. defence official told CBS News here that the locations and types of units seen on the ground didn’t line up with what the Russian Ministry of Defense had announced last month."
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/russian-forces-begin-massing-on-border-with-ukraine/
https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/war-in-ukraine.304396/
Harris as a candidate is closer to Kerry than Clinton or Biden, indeed if she wins all the states Kerry won in 2004 plus adds Colorado and New Mexico which Hillary won and NE02 (Walz was born in Nebraska and Biden won 02 last time) she wins the EC 270-268. Even if Trump wins Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio and Florida
https://www.270towin.com/
Trump has never criticised Putin, and blames everyone but Russia for the war. A promise to “end the war on day 1” can really only mean one thing.
I think it’s fairly likely that a second Trump term will see the loss of both Ukraine and Taiwan.
So there is a permanent cost to them. Not enough to stop them doing bad things but it will hurt over the medium and long term.
We’re really talking about the start of the full scale invasion.
Note that most Irish Americans are NOT eligible for (today's) dual Irish citizenship, which requires at least one Irish-from-Ireland grandparent; having 8 great-great-grandparents don't count!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mrNEVUuZdk
https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/blood-on-bidens-hands-how-biden-surrenders-ukraine-to-the-aggressor/
Not easy to get past without competence and/or bipartisanship.
I am far from certain he'd be able to get the 10% tariff on the rest of the world through on those grounds however. He can't credibly argue that e.g. the UK or Australia need to be discriminated against to the same extent that Venezuela or Yemen do. But, as so often with Trump, we'd be in uncharted waters.
Joe Sixpack in small town Pennsylvania, Michigan, West Virginia, Ohio or Wisconsin or Indiana unable to get a job at the factory or mine his father and grandfather worked at down the road and seeing lots of Chinese and EU imports might feel tempted to roll the dice on Trump again. After all, he doesn't have much left to lose and Harris isn't a great fan of his culture either whereas Trump is far more his style
Take China and Taiwan. XI and his predecessors have built up China's military to a high point, with rapid expansion. The problem with doing this is that, in twenty or thirty years, or sooner, many of those resources will require renewing. Ships and planes do not last forever. Neither do tanks, at least without climate-controlled warehousing or rebuilding after long-term storage.
The Chinese military is also chomping at the bit: it has been marched up to the top of the hill, and is acting as though it wants a fight. Witness its behaviour in the seas around the Philippines and in the air in international airspace. Many in the military will want a fight.
Worse, China's growth appears to be slowing, and it faced significant economic problems (though we all do...), just as their population starts shrinking. They may not be able to as easily afford a war of conquest in a couple of decades.
Perhaps the only thing staying Xi's hand is seeing what has happened to Russia since 2022. Is his military as unbeatable as they make out?
But I do hope that Taiwan is just a metaphorical weapon for Xi. It's good to have a goal to get elements of the population energised, without actually going for it. A bit like the Falklands for Argentina. And hopefully Xi will note what happened there as well, when Galtieri did go for it.
Stopping aid to Ukraine at most needs a veto, and more likely mere sloth.
Trump is an isolationist, like America in the Thirties.
The biggest thing in Taiwan's favour though, is that it is hard to build a landing force in secret. We'd likely have a lot of warning, because invasion requires landing hundreds of thousands of troops simultaneously, and that means a lot of ships.
I know what happens when trade wars happen, because they've happened before. And I know that Joe Sixpack will lose out every bit as much - and maybe more - than me.
Did Slalom know about this when he picked his Chancellor?
Yet Betfair has moved further towards Tump today.
Those who whispered in his ear, and put dollars in the pockets of the Trump Organization coffers, would no doubt be able to secure exceptions.
But persuading someone from an attractive-but-inaccurate view of the world to an unpleasant-but-accurate one is blooming difficult. It's hard enough unpicking misconceptions in science teaching, and people aren't usually emotionally committed to bad physics in the way that they are to bad economics or geopolitics.
When people say "are you telling me that I'm ignorant?", it's rarely wise to reply "yes". But objectively, it's often the case. (And yes, there are a bajillion things I'm ignorant about, and I'm very imperfect at embracing that honestly. But one of the transferable virtues of doing anything academic, especially science, is how well it highlights how little one knows. Healthy humilty in the face of the universe.)
See also the omerta about the UK's fiscal (not economic, but fiscal) situation.