Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

[PaulP]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/...licy-2020/

Decide for yourselves how much difference there is. Biden could easily be a moderate republican.

[Mav]

LP, I wouldn’t necessarily go too far down the “Biden stands against corporate greed” line. I’d put him around John Howard on the Australian political spectrum. It’s just that Trump’s at the Pauline Hanson/Mark Latham extreme that makes Biden look left-wing.

Remember that Biden was a Senator from Delaware. Delaware just happens to be like the Lichtenstein of US States. It has lax corporate laws so a stack of corporations with no natural link to Delaware domicile there. Any Senator from Delaware has to keep them happy, so in a sense you can’t blame him from doing so (though he could have moved to another State to avoid that influence). Elizabeth Warren and Biden squared off over bankruptcy laws back in the early 2000s. There were 2 forms of bankruptcy. Chapter 7 bankruptcy that allowed people to do something like corporate liquidation: sell off non-protected assets, distribute them to creditors and extinguish the remaining debts. Chapter 13 bankruptcy is more like a payment plan in which the debt continues until it’s paid. The Banks and credit card companies of course didn’t like the Chapter 7 bankruptcies and Biden as lead Democrat on the Judiciary Committee pushed legislation to limit access to that form of bankruptcy. Warren and Biden have been frosty since.

Perhaps Biden is now free of that sort of corporate influence. Sure as hell, he won’t run for the Senate in Delaware no matter what happens. Perhaps he can make amends by giving Warren a Cabinet position or role in an agency from which she can promote consumer protection. But he ain’t an enemy of capitalism.

He has some serious credits in the bank when it comes to race relations as he was an enthusiastic underling to Obama. I’d imagine a closet racist would have kept his distance from Obama as Vice-Presidents can easily do but he was keen to be of service. He was also humanised by his son Beau’s death from brain cancer: he was obviously shattered by it on top of the death of his 1st wife and daughter in a car crash and it has made him a much more empathetic man than Trump could very be. But don’t expect him to be a democratic socialist.

I’d compare Harris to Julia Gillard on the Australian political spectrum.

[capcom]

Great point Lods.

I'm married to an American from a far left democrat aligned state.  Have been for many years.  She certainly liked Obama and has totally shifted her position (no influence at all from me) to Trump, but only after seeing the way our political system works with heavy political back biting and her knowing the state of America is in needing much of the same analysis.  We're way better than the U.S. in that we'll collectively go after anybody from either side when called for.  They don't and the simmering volcano lies not far beneath the surface.  Been there many times and across many states.  Strange place at times.   

[cookie2]

@ Capcom

Interesting post Cap. I was reading about the Dems a few days ago and of the factions in play within the party. According to the writer there are loosely three major factions, the Obamas who are currently dominant, the Clintons whose star has recently fallen somewhat and George Soros. Joe is the Obamas man and probably just a place holder. Interestingly, according to the writer,  Hillary looked upon Obama as a placeholder for her but he eventually completely outmanoeuvered her, to the point where she may being set up to take the fall for Russiagate crimes, should they ever  get pursued. That won't happen of course if Biden wins.Be interested in your comments.

[LP]

LP, I wouldn’t necessarily go too far down the “Biden stands against corporate greed” line.

But I didn't write that, I wrote he wasn't prepared to let corporate greed burn society.

As you point out,

He has some serious credits in the bank when it comes to race relations as he was an enthusiastic underling to Obama. I’d imagine a closet racist would have kept his distance from Obama as Vice-Presidents can easily do but he was keen to be of service. He was also humanised by his son Beau’s death from brain cancer: he was obviously shattered by it on top of the death of his 1st wife and daughter in a car crash and it has made him a much more empathetic man than Trump could very be. But don’t expect him to be a democratic socialist.

[LP]

@ Capcom

Interesting post Cap. I was reading about the Dems a few days ago and of the factions in play within the party. According to the writer there are loosely three major factions, the Obamas who are currently dominant, the Clintons whose star has recently fallen somewhat and George Soros. Joe is the Obamas man and probably just a place holder. Interestingly, according to the writer,  Hillary looked upon Obama as a placeholder for her but he eventually completely outmanoeuvered her, to the point where she may being set up to take the fall for Russiagate crimes, should they ever  get pursued. That won't happen of course if Biden wins.Be interested in your comments.

I think it's too easy to go a step too far in all this analysis, like the Russiagate conspiracies that want a domestic actor as a facilitator.

A nefarious 3rd party does not need domestic assistance, they act in ways that serve their own purpose anyway. Not to say that some domestic source can't align themselves or feed off those nefarious actions. Both sides do this equally, the joke is claiming one isn't!

I listened to a political and economic analysis from some students a while back, the claim was Trump's anti-China huff and puff is contradicted by his actions, in that domestically he has made himself look to the US public like the Gold Star Sheriff by arresting some bit playing stooge like Huawei, but globally this is a drop in the ocean when you look at food, oil, minerals, etc., etc.. Overall he's actually assisting China in the long term with many of his policies that will hurt the people who vote for him while lining the pockets of his billionaire associates with gold.

As an aside banning the likes of Huawei actually assists Russia, it was something the Russian's had already been exposed as actively pursuing behind the scenes because basically Russia is broke and cannot afford to keep up the countries infrastructure in the face of the 5G technology race. Not Russia specifically against Huawei, but to slow the growing technology gap in general. Russia needs progress in China, India and the USA to be slowed so it has a chance to catch up.

Ironically, while watching the F1 in Sochi I was reminded of this by some spurious comments made by the commentators about the quality of local technologies and media services, visiting the Olympic town was like visiting the 70s or 80s. A 2020 skin on 1980s bones. Keep in mind, Sochi was the bleeding edge of Russian progress just a handful of years back!

Think also about the Huawei ban locally, in light of the position of some involved in that recent decision in relation to early opposition or support for technologies such as the NBN a decade ago. Some see this technology race ideologically as a waste of money, the return does not justify the cost, but perhaps some see the cost and think we cannot afford to race!

When you combine these observations it's clear domestically one US person cannot act in favour of both, yet there are real world actions and events in play. The only sensible explanation is that there are a bunch of disparate actors combining to deliver these outcomes in a chaotic fashion. If you look at the events with any pre-existing political or social bent you will find a perspective that reinforces your pre-existing bias. It's very easy to cherrypick and come to a conclusion that only fits a small part of the observed behaviour.

[Mav]

Trump’s problems with China started with his reflexive rejection of the TPP. IMO, the TPP was a geopolitical rather than an economic pact. If it had come to fruition, it would have brought Asian and Pacific countries into the US sphere and stymied China’s attempts to expand its influence. The hope had been that China would then negotiate to gain access to that market.

China has expanded its Belt and Road program into the pacific and has managed to persuade Solomon Islands and Kiribati to cut diplomatic ties with Taiwan. This was a diplomatic black eye for Taiwan even if those islands were hardly big trading partners.

Trump has never cared for multilateral partnerships, so he was reduced to starting a trade war whose costs dwarfed any supposed losses that the US would have experienced under the TPP. He found that telling other countries to keep away from China without offering them incentives didn’t achieve much.

Trump was lucky, though, that President Xi showed he’s as belligerent as Trump which has limited the benefit China has accrued. Traditionally, China has preferred to use soft power but Xi has preferred to throw his weight around. His attempts at dominating the South China Sea have alarmed countries with competing claims such as Vietnam and the Phillipines, the border skirmishes with India have forced the Indians closer to the US, the trade bans against Australia haven’t done it any favours, and the crackdown in Hong Kong has limited the political inroads it could make in Asia and the Pacific.

[capcom]

@ Capcom

Interesting post Cap. I was reading about the Dems a few days ago and of the factions in play within the party. According to the writer there are loosely three major factions, the Obamas who are currently dominant, the Clintons whose star has recently fallen somewhat and George Soros. Joe is the Obamas man and probably just a place holder. Interestingly, according to the writer,  Hillary looked upon Obama as a placeholder for her but he eventually completely outmanoeuvered her, to the point where she may being set up to take the fall for Russiagate crimes, should they ever  get pursued. That won't happen of course if Biden wins.Be interested in your comments.

@ Cookie2

On the surface, not a great deal I'd disagree with but if I let you what the better half thinks (and knows with her daily interactions with folks at home over many years) about Hilary and the Clinton foundation and their history, it'd scare most. 

I'd not believe George Soros is out of the picture just yet either.  There are skeletons in closets right throughout both parties. 

I wanted to emigrate there and the third degree they put me through with no criminal record whatsoever, health clearances (and married to a woman who has always held an American passport) was unimaginable ... thousands of emails.  Literally.

I'm glad I never went.  So is the good wife )  Thanks mate

[cookie2]

@ Cookie2

On the surface, not a great deal I'd disagree with but if I let you what the better half thinks (and knows with her daily interactions with folks at home over many years) about Hilary and the Clinton foundation and their history, it'd scare most. 

I'd not believe George Soros is out of the picture just yet either.  There are skeletons in closets right throughout both parties. 

I wanted to emigrate there and the third degree they put me through with no criminal record whatsoever, health clearances (and married to a woman who has always held an American passport) was unimaginable ... thousands of emails.  Literally.

I'm glad I never went.  So is the good wife )  Thanks mate

Thanks Cap. Yes I think you and your wife made the right choice for sure. The future there looks very uncertain at the moment.

[Mav]

Russiagate I needed a good laugh.