Biden/Harris Presidency Discussion Thread

Deshawn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He also armed the likes of Saudi Arabia to the tooth with weapons that were later used for attacking civilians..

It will be great for peace in the Middle East once Trump and co are out and gone.

Manach

Deshawn wrote: »

It will be great for peace in the Middle East once Trump and co are out and gone.

So no counter-arguements beyond vague unfounded assertions that somehow the failed interventist strategies of the previous regime will work and that the US is the only ill-starred stakeholder of note there. A rather simplistic and yet unsurprising take.

AbusesToilets

I'm pretty shocked that anyone thinks a Biden administration is going to reverse decades of support for various murderous regimes in the Middle East.

duploelabs

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I'm pretty shocked that anyone thinks a Biden administration is going to reverse decades of support for various murderous regimes in the Middle East.

Well for one scenario, I'm sure the murder of Jamal Khashoggi will be investigated a bit more thoroughly than the current administration

AbusesToilets

duploelabs wrote: »

Well for one scenario, I'm sure the murder of Jamal Khashoggi will be investigated a bit more thoroughly than the current administration

To what end? Do you think the US will sanction the Crown Prince or the country? Doubtful. They are a convenient source of military purchases, and a handy mechanism to stymie Russian ambitions

Deshawn

Manach wrote: »

So no counter-arguements beyond vague unfounded assertions that somehow the failed interventist strategies of the previous regime will work and that the US is the only ill-starred stakeholder of note there. A rather simplistic and yet unsurprising take.

Nobody cares tbh. The goal was to remove Trump. People got upset with his press conferences and tweets. Once he is gone that's all that matters to most. People being killed and maimed in far away lands isn't a factor for many

MadYaker

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I'm pretty shocked that anyone thinks a Biden administration is going to reverse decades of support for various murderous regimes in the Middle East.

Does anyone think that or is this just a strawman. Trump made noise about doing it, but didn't. Biden won't even make noise about it. It wasn't an election issue at all. The USA have been stuck in the ME for decades and that isn't going to change no matter who gets elected.

Rjd2

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I'm pretty shocked that anyone thinks a Biden administration is going to reverse decades of support for various murderous regimes in the Middle East.

Realistically when it comes to American politics if you placed any value on their oversea policies you would never vote as its been decades of interventionism and regime chance.

Republicans obviously much worse with Ronnie, Bush and Trump but not as if Obama and Biden the man who supported the Iraq war were doves either.

I don't know when it will change tbh, may have to wait a decade or so and hope the real left start to replace the neo liberal ghouls in the Democrat party, because despite what the so called populists in the GOP say they will always be the war mongers party.

Hawley etc talk the talk about the middle east but even if somehow you give them the benefit of doubt regarding toning down their presence in the middle east, they seem to be craving a stand off with China so basically sending poor kids somewhere else to die. Populism!

Wanderer78

Rjd2 wrote:

I don't know when it will change tbh, may have to wait a decade or so and hope the real left start to replace the neo liberal ghouls in the Democrat party, because despite what the so called populists in the GOP say they will always be the war mongers party.

Chomsky could be right again, we may in fact be entering a period of even more intense neoliberalism

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I'm pretty shocked that anyone thinks a Biden administration is going to reverse decades of support for various murderous regimes in the Middle East.

That's quite the straw Man. Who thinks that? No one.

Ronaldinho

Brian? wrote: »

That's quite the straw Man. Who thinks that? No one.

Have a look at post #342 on this thread.

moon2

The indicated post doesn't assert biden is going to reverse course. It simply stated that it would be better for peace when Trump isn't in power.

Perhaps the poster believes the Trump administration has been a far more destabilising influence than other administrations.

AbusesToilets

moon2 wrote: »

The indicated post doesn't assert biden is going to reverse course. It simply stated that it would be better for peace when Trump isn't in power.

Perhaps the poster believes the Trump administration has been a far more destabilising influence than other administrations.

Rather bold assertion. Despite his many, many, innumerous failings, Trump didn't start any new conflicts in the ME. Something rather unprecedented for a Presidency over the last 2 decades.

moon2

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Rather bold assertion. Despite his many, many, innumerous failings, Trump didn't start any new conflicts in the ME. Something rather unprecedented for a Presidency over the last 2 decades.

Is your only metric the number of wars started?

What weight would you apply to number of civilians killed, number of bombs dropped, or number of cities razed? How about the failure to publish the Airpower Summary?

Do you know the two years where the most bombs were dropped on Afghanistan?

Manic Moran

Rjd2 wrote: »

Hawley etc talk the talk about the middle east but even if somehow you give them the benefit of doubt regarding toning down their presence in the middle east, they seem to be craving a stand off with China so basically sending poor kids somewhere else to die. Populism!

I don't know if they're craving a stand-off with China, but I wouldn't be surprised if one is coming. They are just shy of overtaking Japan as the dominant naval capability shy of the US in the Pacific rim (to the concern of the Japanese who cannot keep up in terms of personnel or equipment), and their staking of territorial claims has been more aggressive over time, particularly with navies smaller than it like the Philippines. Even at that, you may have noticed the couple dozen soldiers killed this year at their border with India. They have also now turned their attention to their amphibious capability and, in typical Chinese manner, they're not wasting any time nor doing things by halves. This has very much caught the attention of Taiwan, you may have noticed their recent armament shopping excursions.

Being prepared for a confrontation with China by orienting maritime forces on the Pacific is no more hawkish than being prepared for confrontation with Russia by the current policy of placing troops and aircraft in the Baltic states and Poland.

It is also worth noting that the point of being prepared for confrontation with China is to keep the peace. If China feels it is in a position of advantage with respect to the US, things may get... interesting. Remember, just because one side is a dove doesn't mean the other side will be.

Itssoeasy

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Rather bold assertion. Despite his many, many, innumerous failings, Trump didn't start any new conflicts in the ME. Something rather unprecedented for a Presidency over the last 2 decades.

He may not have stated any new wars but his hamfisted plans to bring troops home haven’t been in America’s interest. There’s a way to do it and its something that is supported but Trump and his lack of understanding of the underlying processes needed to do that means he creates more problems then he solves. Also, he wanting to move troops from Germany is utterly stupid and plays into Russia’s hands.

AbusesToilets

Itssoeasy wrote: »

He may not have stated any new wars but his hamfisted plans to bring troops home haven’t been in America’s interest. There’s a way to do it and its something that is supported but Trump and his lack of understanding of the underlying processes needed to do that means he creates more problems then he solves. Also, he wanting to move troops from Germany is utterly stupid and plays into Russia’s hands.

I would agree on all points. I find it aggravating that folks act as tho Biden is likely to be a break from the political philosophy we've seen for decades however.

Itssoeasy

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I would agree on all points. I find it aggravating that folks act as tho Biden is likely to be a break from the political philosophy we've seen for decades however.

Well at the very least Biden knows and understands that making those decisions which I mentioned above that trump has made a mess isn’t as easy as sending a tweet and will more than likely do it in the right way so as to not cause what is already a complicated process worse.

AbusesToilets

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well at the very least Biden knows and understands that making those decisions which I mentioned above that trump has made a mess isn’t as easy as sending a tweet and will more than likely do it in the right way so as to not cause what is already a complicated process worse.

I would hope so, but then I remember he was involved in the debacle in Libya , and all the catastrophes that have stemmed from it since.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I would hope so, but then I remember he was involved in the debacle in Libya , and all the catastrophes that have stemmed from it since.

Involved how? Obama was commander in chief and Hilary was Secretary of State. What role did Biden play in foreign policy or military operations?

Water John

Brian? wrote: »

Involved how? Obama was commander in chief and Hilary was Secretary of State. What role did Biden play in foreign policy or military operations?

In fairness, he was the last person in the room when Obama made a major decision, so he owns any of those, good and bad.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

Involved how? Obama was commander in chief and Hilary was Secretary of State. What role did Biden play in foreign policy or military operations?

I would gather he would have been a central member of the cabinet, involved in the discussion surrounding it. Or did that only occur in instances that can be viewed in light that makes him look good?

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I would gather he would have been a central member of the cabinet, involved in the discussion surrounding it. Or did that only occur in instances that can be viewed in light that makes him look good?

Do you know what his role was or not? I certainly don’t.

Overheal

Brian? wrote: »

Do you know what his role was or not? I certainly don’t.

Somewhere between Mike Pence silently warming a chair for 2 hours and Dick Cheney blasting his neighbor with a shotgun. Either way this theory will fizzle out like the investigations chaired by Durham, Gowdy, and others before them.

rossie1977

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I would hope so, but then I remember he was involved in the debacle in Libya , and all the catastrophes that have stemmed from it since.

Libya was a joint NATO/UN operation...

eire4

AbusesToilets wrote: »

To what end? Do you think the US will sanction the Crown Prince or the country? Doubtful. They are a convenient source of military purchases, and a handy mechanism to stymie Russian ambitions

Given how the US has propped up the disgusting regime in Saudi Arabia since they did a backroom deal in the 1970's the best we can expect IMHO is a verbal slap on the wrist of some nature. Read John Perkins book Confessions of an economic hitman if your looking for background on the US' collusion with the Saudi regime.

eire4

Rjd2 wrote: »

Realistically when it comes to American politics if you placed any value on their oversea policies you would never vote as its been decades of interventionism and regime chance.

Republicans obviously much worse with Ronnie, Bush and Trump but not as if Obama and Biden the man who supported the Iraq war were doves either.

I don't know when it will change tbh, may have to wait a decade or so and hope the real left start to replace the neo liberal ghouls in the Democrat party, because despite what the so called populists in the GOP say they will always be the war mongers party.

Hawley etc talk the talk about the middle east but even if somehow you give them the benefit of doubt regarding toning down their presence in the middle east, they seem to be craving a stand off with China so basically sending poor kids somewhere else to die. Populism!

So true. I find it the height of irony when the Americans complain about the Russians getting involved in disrupting their so called democracy when they themselves have actually had foreign leaders murdered. Joseph Allende in Chile springs to mind along with Jamie Roldos in Ecuador and Omar Torrijos in Panama. Don't get me wrong Russia is a nasty dictatorship under Putin who would happily destroy democracy completely if they could but the US pointing fingers for election interference is a bit rich given their history in that area.

Brussels Sprout

It's looking very likely that it'll be a 50-50 Senate which would allow the Democrats control via the President of the Senate, Kamala Harris.

However, the Republicans will still be able to use the filibuster. Does anyone know if they an use that to stop everything or are there limits to how long that can be used for?

What legislation should Biden prioritise given that he likely has 18 months tops to get any legislation through?

Presumably, just as Obama did he will need to prioritise the crisis that he inherited first and enact some kind of Covid legislation. Beyond that though I think they should focus on a Voting Rights Act. If they don't do that they run the risk of being shut out of elections in some states for a generation. The only worry with that kind of bill though is that it inevitably ends up in the Supreme Court which is now basically a Republican institution.

AbusesToilets

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

It's looking very likely that it'll be a 50-50 Senate which would allow the Democrats control via the President of the Senate, Kamala Harris.

However, the Republicans will still be able to use the filibuster. Does anyone know if they an use that to stop everything or are there limits to how long that can be used for?

What legislation should Biden prioritise given that he likely has 18 months tops to get any legislation through?

Presumably, just as Obama did he will need to prioritise the crisis that he inherited first and enact some kind of Covid legislation. Beyond that though I think they should focus on a Voting Rights Act. If they don't do that they run the risk of being shut out of elections in some states for a generation. The only worry with that kind of bill though is that it inevitably ends up in the Supreme Court which is now basically a Republican institution.

Eliminate the filibuster, pursue aggressive electoral reform legislation. It's the smartest move politically, given the Republicans are losing demographically.

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Eliminate the filibuster, pursue aggressive electoral reform legislation. It's the smartest move politically, given the Republicans are losing demographically.

I'm not sure if Majority Leader can lock the filibuster rule in now before the GA Senators are seated. Pelosi's rule changes already reportedly eliminate such filibustering in the House.

Needs to happen, this "Time to Unite" bs doesn't need to extend to protecting the filibuster after McConnel's reign of horsecrap, from filibustering in the minority to grim reaping in the majority.