[Politics] The 2024 US Election - Trump v Harris

[peterward]

I generally don’t disagree with any of the above, a decent level headed post and opinion.

I don’t have a good solution or any good ideas that wouldn’t potentially escalate things to a level that we can’t come back from.

But I ask, what are your solutions and/or ideas? - Genuinely.

I’m pretty sure we all want the same end result - but how to get there?

The same ideas that the head of MI6 and CIA called for today, that many political leaders call for in Eastern Europe and the majority of pro Ukrainians who mirror what Ukraine ask for.

Give Ukraine everything it needs in conventional military technology to hit at the airbase in Russia from where missiles are launched, to hit Russian energy infrastructure in the same way Russia, as the agressor hits Ukrainian.

To allow Ukraine to shoot back at the Archer and not be banned from doing so and only allowed to defend against his never ending arrows.

To give the victim the same licence and capability the aggressor enjoys and to stop prioritising Russian airbase over Ukrainain civilians being bombed in the homes. I'm confident Ukraine won't just bomb civillians in Russia, but bringing the war to Russia and hitting the places from where Russia launches its illegal war changes the domestic calculations for Putin inside Russia.

Jake Sullivan is the problem now, Trump would be disastrous, can only hope Harris will be better.

This in a nutshell.

 

[StonehamPark]

Give Ukraine everything it needs in conventional military technology to hit at the airbase in Russia from where missiles are launched, to hit Russian energy infrastructure in the same way Russia, as the agressor hits Ukrainian.

To allow Ukraine to shoot back at the Archer and not be banned from doing so and only allowed to defend against his never ending arrows.

To give the victim the same licence and capability the aggressor enjoys and to stop prioritising Russian airbase over Ukrainain civilians being bombed in the homes. I'm confident Ukraine won't just bomb civillians in Russia, but bringing the war to Russia and hitting the places from where Russia launches its illegal war changes the domestic calculations for Putin inside Russia.

My heart agrees with everything here. Of course let's arm Ukraine to the teeth, kill Putin and hope for a better Governance of Russia.

My head won't allow me to roll the dice, to bring the war into Russia using European and American arms and to destroy Russian energy infrastructure for the following reason and scenarios:

- The following move would (imo) be Putin sending a tactical short-range ballistic nuclear missile to the Verkhovna Rada. A viscious warning bite to Ukraine and NATO to gtfo of Russia within 24 hours, or another strike is launched.

Three options after the above:
A: Retreat from Russia and carry on as they are currently in a neverending slow war.
B: Call Putin's bluff and carry on bringing the war to Russia, hope he doesn't launch another strike.
C: Retaliate and send a nuclear missile to Moscow?

I cannot see any other possibilities.

And I'm not in general disagreement with you - we're theorycrafting war. We both want the same result, I just don't think this is the way to get there.

The same ideas that the head of MI6 and CIA called for today, that many political leaders call for in Eastern Europe and the majority of pro Ukrainians who mirror what Ukraine ask for.
---
This in a nutshell.

I haven't read the articles or seen what MI6 or the CIA have called for, but I will make an effort to do some reading tomorrow. They will likely inform me better.

 

[Zeberdi]

Not dangerous at all, you think appeasement is the answer to a genocidal fascists insatiable appetite?

With greatest respect, whats really dangerous imho is "escalation management" people who voice similar opinions like yours and who offer no solutions at all, to a genocidal fascist who is all in and won't stop until he is either stopped or wins and global stability accelerates not recedes.

The price to stop Putin will keep going up and he's not going to stop, nor is Ukraine going to hand over 5m of its citizens, its territory or just airbrush out the atrocities for your comfort.

Putin isn't going to nuke anyone, he's absolutely terrified of death and those around him including wealthy oligarchs are criminals who love luxury, they are not jihadists. Every bluff had been called and we must go all in to see his defeat.

He is far more likely to withdraw, beg for mercy or be deposed than nuke and the price of not defeating him as he supplies Iran with nuclear technology, makes global nuclear risks higher than his defeat.

He is a crazy genocidal fascist who went nuts in lockdown and has invaded another country, you cannot wish it away.

Excellent post - that would be my take on it too.

Harris is not likely to depart much from Biden’s approach to Ukraine, but with her legal background, her focus I think will be very much on Russia’s illegal occupation so unlikely to agree any peace deal that concedes Ukranian territory - she needs to reset the US’s approach but much will depend on the Democrats winning both the House and Senate (which is looking unlikely) .

Trump however, will be a disaster for Ukraine IMO - he boasts he will end the war in 24hrs if he were elected but has provided no policy detail - it is very concerning though, he'll do it by simply abandoning Ukraine, cut off aid and put pressure on Zelenskyy to get into negotiations that end up conceding territory to Putin. IMO Trump will handle Russia’s illegal occupation in the same way he handled a peace deal with Netanyahu- by appeasement and without the involvement of the Palestinians and by handing over a third of the illegally occupied West Bank to Israel.

Starmer has made a significant policy change by agreeing that British missiles can now be used to destroy targets inside Russia. That is the right direction - it should have been agreed months ago by the Tory Government..

Keir Starmer gives go-ahead for British missiles to be used in strikes against targets inside Russia

The decision over the use of Storm Shadow missiles, which has been welcomed by Ukraine, represents a hawkish shift in policy from the stance taken by the former Conservative government.

news.sky.com

Anyway, much of this discussion probably belongs on another thread tbh.

 

[sparkie]

There’s quite a lot in that post.

Keeping on track with Putin/Russian support of Trump, with Putin endorsing Kamala recently - do you believe that to be genuine, or untruthful?

And with Winnie the Pooh, I fundamentally disagree. Trump in power would again hugely financially screw China in terms of export/import taxes and tariffs.

I don’t think it’s genuine or smart to say ‘all bad leaders support Trump, grrrr’.
Geopolitics are far more complex and intricate than that.

Untruthful without doubt.

Putin knows his endorsement loses the candidate votes.

So he endorses the one he doesn't want to win.


Trump is Putin's last throw of the dice in his disastrous war.

If Trump loses the election I expect Putin to fold soon-ish. He'll have to get his propaganda machine to sell it as some kind of "win" to his own people, of course. Something about completing the "de-natizification" or similar.

If Trump wins then Putin gets him to force an abysmal stop-gap deal on Ukraine which is in reality just a pause to re-arm.

 

[Springal]

There’s quite a lot in that post.

Keeping on track with Putin/Russian support of Trump, with Putin endorsing Kamala recently - do you believe that to be genuine, or untruthful?

And with Winnie the Pooh, I fundamentally disagree. Trump in power would again hugely financially screw China in terms of export/import taxes and tariffs.

I don’t think it’s genuine or smart to say ‘all bad leaders support Trump, grrrr’.
Geopolitics are far more complex and intricate than that.

The tariff thing under Trump first time round screwed a lot of Americans to. I worked for a company that increased its products 30% overnight (and almost all our competitors) as they passed on the tariff increases.

Overtime we kept manufacturing in China but got round the tariffs by ‘assembling’ in Taiwan - but never really took back the 30% increase that was originally applied

 

[rogersix]

View attachment 188620

christ, that made me laugh.

is it none, is it. i'ld imagine that it would be none, but i don't know. if it's not none, i'll bet it's pretty close to none, but i don't know. @Crawley Dingo lives there, i wonder if he would have any pertinent information on the matter

 

[peterward]

My heart agrees with everything here. Of course let's arm Ukraine to the teeth, kill Putin and hope for a better Governance of Russia.

My head won't allow me to roll the dice, to bring the war into Russia using European and American arms and to destroy Russian energy infrastructure for the following reason and scenarios:

- The following move would (imo) be Putin sending a tactical short-range ballistic nuclear missile to the Verkhovna Rada. A viscious warning bite to Ukraine and NATO to gtfo of Russia within 24 hours, or another strike is launched.

Three options after the above:
A: Retreat from Russia and carry on as they are currently in a neverending slow war.
B: Call Putin's bluff and carry on bringing the war to Russia, hope he doesn't launch another strike.
C: Retaliate and send a nuclear missile to Moscow?

I cannot see any other possibilities.

And I'm not in general disagreement with you - we're theorycrafting war. We both want the same result, I just don't think this is the way to get there.



I haven't read the articles or seen what MI6 or the CIA have called for, but I will make an effort to do some reading tomorrow. They will likely inform me better.

Gonna make this last comment on this thread as its not directly about Trump/Harris.

Your whole stance is one of self deterrence based on a presumption that Putin will fire a nuclear weapon.

He won't.

Russia right now is isolated from the world, it is entirely economically dependent on China and on China to supply the majority of its import needs. The Chinese have already warned against any nuclear use. China benefits from the world as is. Putin firing any form of nuke is like putting a gun to his own head.

Plus as I mentioned before, you shouldn't focus on merely what he threatens (as a means to an end to scare people like Scholz into self deterrence), but on the true psychology of Putin and those around him in his vertical of power..

When Prigorzhin matched on Moscow, Medvedev and propagandist Solovyev despite all their threats and nuclear rhetoric fled in biz jets, Putin legged it to Valdai. Of course he wants to win and destroy Ukraine, he has put everything in now, there is no going back, win or bust...... but he is terrified of death and dying, and losing his grip on power which is all that keeps him alive..... already the incursion by Ukraine into kursk region has changed the narrative and ramped up pressure inside Russia, with critisism against him for first time, it never did when it was just a "special military operation" abroad, viewed on TV.

Ukraine incrementally ramping up attacks inside Russia, against that which fuels Putins war machine and Russia attacks is self defence under UN charter and legal, it also puts direct pressure on Putin inside Russia. He can withdraw and go home any time he likes, giving him licence to win isn't an option and will increase global instability. Allowing Ukraine to hit back shouldn't be prevented. Its already destroyed a lot of Russia oil/gas refining (energy infratructure) and invaded a region of Russia and called Putins Bluff.

It is a bluff.

Putin has no value on others lives but he does his own, all the money, all the luxury palaces, he's not a jihadist. Those around him in power are very rich because of patronage, theyre not religious fanatics who will die for him. When he realises he is going to lose then and only then will he will try and negotiate, including his own safety. If he fires a nuke he's finished and he's smart enough to know it.

Back on topic, Biden is better than Trump, but he's still weak. Harris will be better than Trump for sure and hopefully better than Biden?

 

[Triggaaar]

It'd entirely depend on the person performing the action. There's been centuries of coups, executions and assassinations of leaders to draw experiences from.
Most recently, Yevgeny Prigozhin led a 'mutiny' against Russia/Putin and had a decently sized army march back into Russia - at a time when Russia was 'winning'. Though he (insanely) naively negotiated for peace with Putin, and then very strangely died in a plane crash thereafter. A very silly decision.

So yes, I do believe there may be others who would do (or would consider) similar, and VERY much hopefully more sane and rational people than Yevgeny Prigozhin. And the sooner the better.



I'm not really advocating for a middle ground in this situation, I've been advocating for not backing Putin into an unwinnable corner, because that's when the big red button starts to become much more attractive - my worst fear of all.
That's why a coup or assassination is preferable, resulting in a 'transition' of power to a more peaceful and workable government.

We can't make a coup happen, so apart from trying to assassinate him, all we can really do is support Ukraine and hope they prevail (which means forcing him into an unwinnable corner). So are you suggesting that we (the West) try to assassinate him?

Assassinating him could lead to quite worrying consequences

 

[bhafc99]

(It insists on misspelling ‘thread’)

 

[Triggaaar]

I generally don’t disagree with any of the above, a decent level headed post and opinion.

I don’t have a good solution or any good ideas that wouldn’t potentially escalate things to a level that we can’t come back from.

But I ask, what are your solutions and/or ideas? - Genuinely.

I’m pretty sure we all want the same end result - but how to get there?

My solution is to support Ukraine to the extent that Russia realises it cannot win and cannot hold on to what it's taken. Or in other words, backing Putin into a corner.

What would happen next is of course unpredictable, but the consequences of not helping Ukraine are also unpredictable.

I'm guessing that if it becomes obvious that Putin will lose, people around him in Russia will realise he's not the answer or their protector, and they'd be emboldened to do something about it. If one of them wants to help Russia and themselves, a good option would be to remove Putin and blame the whole silly war on him, and then move forward into a new era.

 

[Triggaaar]

My heart agrees with everything here. Of course let's arm Ukraine to the teeth, kill Putin and hope for a better Governance of Russia.

My head won't allow me to roll the dice

The dice are being rolled whatever we do. Allowing Russia to win would allow them to then wage war on the next country, rolling yet more dice. You are an appeaser. I'm not having a go at you for that, you want to avoid all out war. But I am saying appeasement doesn't work.

, to bring the war into Russia using European and American arms and to destroy Russian energy infrastructure for the following reason and scenarios:

- The following move would (imo) be Putin sending a tactical short-range ballistic nuclear missile to the Verkhovna Rada. A viscious warning bite to Ukraine and NATO to gtfo of Russia within 24 hours, or another strike is launched.

Three options after the above:
A: Retreat from Russia and carry on as they are currently in a neverending slow war.
B: Call Putin's bluff and carry on bringing the war to Russia, hope he doesn't launch another strike.
C: Retaliate and send a nuclear missile to Moscow?

I cannot see any other possibilities.

America has told Russia what would happen if they launch such a weapon, and we've been told what that's likely to be. It's not a b or c from above, it's d) Retaliate with a massive conventional force, taking control of the skies and destroying Russian targets in Ukraine.


EDIT - just seen the posts above (pointing out that this isn't the Russia/Ukraine thread). I agree, except that Trump's support for Putin is the biggest threat to European security, so it's difficult to avoid discussing it.

 

[Hugo Rune]

America has told Russia what would happen if they launch such a weapon, and we've been told what that's likely to be. It's not a b or c from above, it's d) Retaliate with a massive conventional force, taking control of the skies and destroying Russian targets in Ukraine.

It’s all about what Putin wants.

I agree that he does not want Nuclear war. He wants power and money for himself, much more than he wants success for Russia.

I kind of think the current situation suits him. Yea, he wanted Ukraine conquered in days but the war gives him an excuse to crack down on all internal rivals. I think that he is in a more powerful and in a stronger position than he was pre-war. It puts one in mind of the totalitarian government seen in Orwell’s 1984. War was constant, war was a tool to feed nationalism, create a distraction and keep the status quo.

Putin is happy for it to roll on and on. He’ll not escalate if the West don’t but the West won’t let Russia win it or help Ukraine win it. That’s where we are and where we have been for a year or two. I think we are going to have to wait for Putin to die of natural causes for the war to end.

 

[Triggaaar]

...

replied on Russia thread

 

[Zeberdi]

Trump makes a hilarious push pack to criticism that it is a sign he is losing his mental faculties when he goes off script:


“I do the weave. You know what the weave is? I’ll talk about, like, nine different things that they all come back brilliantly together. And it’s like friends of mine that are like English professors, they say: ‘It’s the most brilliant thing I’ve ever seen …”

“I do the weave” ffs

The Guardian covers this brilliantly

Trump rebrands his ramblings as ‘I do the weave’ – but is he just losing it?

Ex-president tries to fend off criticisms of mental acuity that plagued Biden as he waffles about sharks and batteries

www.theguardian.com

 

[Triggaaar]

"friends of mine that are like English professors, they say: ‘It’s the most brilliant thing I’ve ever seen …”

Yeah righto Trumpy


PS - Friends of mine who are English professors

 

[Zeberdi]

Yeah righto Trumpy


PS - Friends of mine who are English professors

You have to admit it is priceless and very funny Trump though as are 99% of the other posts about Trump’s behaviour on this thread.

Just trying to lighten the mood a bit

ps I think he was likening his friends to English Professors not that he actually has friends that are.

 

[Fungus]

Trump makes a hilarious push pack to criticism that it is a sign he is losing his mental faculties when he goes off script:


“I do the weave. You know what the weave is? I’ll talk about, like, nine different things that they all come back brilliantly together. And it’s like friends of mine that are like English professors, they say: ‘It’s the most brilliant thing I’ve ever seen …”

“I do the weave” ffs

The Guardian covers this brilliantly

Trump rebrands his ramblings as ‘I do the weave’ – but is he just losing it?

Ex-president tries to fend off criticisms of mental acuity that plagued Biden as he waffles about sharks and batteries

www.theguardian.com

This bit caught my eye - “he uses digressions, piled high with false claims, as a means to avoid proper scrutiny”. Reminds me of certain NSC posters!

The article also reminded me of comic geniuses who could do ”the weave” with rambling stores that come back to the start - Dave Allen, Billy Connolly, Spike Milliigan, Dame Edna, etc. He’s not them.

 

[herecomesaregular]

Trump is more "word salad" than "weave".

 

[Triggaaar]

ps I think he was likening his friends to English Professors not that he actually has friends that are.

His grasp of English is so poor that it's impossible to know what BS he was claiming. Either way, it's 'who' not 'that'.

 

[Machiavelli]

To 'steelman' his position, Cheney has had major financial and political interests in USA being involved in war in the past.

He is publicly backing and voting Dem.
Keeping Dem's in the White House may have a significantly higher chance of keeping the USA heavily (financially) involved in war, as per the prior 4 years, thus benefitting Cheney. (My opinion)

As I said, that's my steelman argument - though I do personally believe that;
- Dems in the WH may = continued level of global conflict and therefore financial gain to be had by people such as Cheney.
- Republicans in the WH may = lesser (financial) involvement in global war.

My biggest personal concern or worry in relation to American politics is global (in)stability. And I want whoever is next to be on the Iron Throne, to help settle the world down for the sake of us all.

I appreciate you're presenting a particular sort of argument -- a steel man -- and have seen (at least) some of your subsequent contributions, but disagree with this.
I do agree with the bolded bits, but think you're being a tad conspiratorial about Cheney's motivations. He's not doing it for money. He's doing it for his convictions, which entails keeping US power as strong as possible for as long as possible -- all impeccably articulated by the Statement of Principles of PNAC. If he was doing it for money, why now and not then (ie 2020)? He's also a Republican through and through, and the question of what is the Republican Party has shifted substantially over the past decade and really will require some serious soul-searching in the eventuality of a Harris win in November.
The thing I'm less aware of is to what extent will the trads be able to wrench the Republican Party back from the Trumpist cult. It's known as the GOP for a reason. There's a similar dilemma for the Conservative Party over here, although it's not quite as stark as it is for the GOP (Republicans have lost the popular vote in all but one election since 1988 IIRC; whereas the Tories have the hex over the electorate or, more precisely, the electoral system over here).