Author Topic: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe  (Read 38629 times)

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: February 26, 2020, 08:00:11 AM »
Just the last couple of days, Joe’s talked about how he’s running for the senate, his efforts with China’s leader that had been dead for well over a decade, the 150 million Americans killed by assault weapons since 2007, that time he was arrested in South Africa while trying to visit Nelson Mandela, it just goes on and on.

There’s been a couple of times where there’s clearly some confusion on his expression.  He’s always been prone to gaffes but, if you see when he talks about these things, it’s pretty clear there’s some ...let’s say, detachment, from reality. 77 years old, it’s not unusual to be missing a step, getting easily confused.

He’s losing the primary, but could win the nomination. Might be time to shuffle him off.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2020, 12:07:02 PM »
I've been following this.

Quote
To make the point that government gun policies have "caused carnage on our streets," he said, "One hundred and fifty million people have been killed since 2007, when Bernie voted to exempt the gun manufacturers from liability. More than all the wars, including Vietnam, from that point on."

It was a crazy statement. One hundred and fifty million people would be nearly half the population of the U.S., all killed by guns. Someone would have noticed. The real number for the period from 2007-2020 was in the hundreds of thousands, not millions. Biden's gaffe drew ridicule on Twitter, but not a single one of his opponents corrected him onstage.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2020, 12:21:37 PM »
Being killed by a gun fired by someone other than yourself isn't a top cause of deaths in the US.  I think the total for homicides roughly averages about 10k per year, and unless you're in some very specific population groups living in some very specific areas it's extremely unlikely that you're going to die that way.

Suicides by gun make up a much bigger portion of gun deaths, which lets the left craft misleading headlines about gun deaths being a leading cause of death (implying murders) - I was literally looking at NYTimes article that led with guns being a leading cause of death, talked about stopping "gun violence" and then also noted that suicides by themselves were actually what was a leading cause of death.

So more guns in the country than people, 99.99+% of which are not going to be involved in murdering anyone in a given year.   

But on the real topic at hand, seems pretty clear that Biden is either already senile or going to quickly go that route.  He should not be a major party candidate.  Given he's on the left, I would expect that his administration and the compliant media would cover up for him if he was elected President (rather than write article after article about using the Constitution to remove him from office as they did with Trump), and we'd get an absent President we never see with his powers being exercised by party insiders/cabinet members by committee.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2020, 12:29:11 PM »
But on the real topic at hand, seems pretty clear that Biden is either already senile or going to quickly go that route.  He should not be a major party candidate.  Given he's on the left, I would expect that his administration and the compliant media would cover up for him if he was elected President (rather than write article after article about using the Constitution to remove him from office as they did with Trump), and we'd get an absent President we never see with his powers being exercised by party insiders/cabinet members by committee.

You mean like GWB and the shadow presidency of Dick Cheney?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #4 on: February 26, 2020, 01:13:07 PM »
Quick, look over there!

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #5 on: February 26, 2020, 01:17:58 PM »
I'm not a Biden supporter or a Biden apologist. I think he's a disaster. I wouldn't vote for Trump against him, but I would vote third party or leave it blank.

That doesn't stop us from discussing the degree to which Bush was a figurehead president.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #6 on: February 26, 2020, 01:46:10 PM »
Then start a thread on it.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2020, 03:16:24 PM »
You mean like GWB and the shadow presidency of Dick Cheney?

I think that's an interesting and oft repeated delusion (maybe the precursor to TDS)?

I was more thinking of how Reagan was purported to have such issues at the end of his second term. 

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #8 on: February 26, 2020, 04:51:21 PM »
Bush Derangment Syndrome was a thing. It’s where TDS as a identifiable neurosis came from. It also spawned the assassination chic thing where openly fantasizing about killing him was considered cool.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #9 on: February 26, 2020, 05:32:05 PM »
While Uncle Joe doesn't seem as sharp as he used to be, he still strikes me as head-and-shoulders above the current occupant of the White House.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2020, 06:09:08 PM »
Trump at least knows what decade he’s in and what office he’s running for.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #11 on: February 26, 2020, 06:39:46 PM »
Are you sure?  ;)

At least Biden doesn't talk to you like you're a fourth-grader. :)

Now the only question is whether he thinks you're only as smart as a fourth-grader or if he is only as smart as a fourth-grader? ;)

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #12 on: February 26, 2020, 06:46:45 PM »
TDS makes you bitter. It’s not a good look, you know?

You know what Biden does with 4th graders, right? Very handsy, loves to sniff’em. Also not a good look.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2020, 06:50:48 PM by Crunch »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #13 on: February 27, 2020, 12:48:28 PM »
You mean like GWB and the shadow presidency of Dick Cheney?

I think that's an interesting and oft repeated delusion (maybe the precursor to TDS)?

I was more thinking of how Reagan was purported to have such issues at the end of his second term.

Bush 43 was most well-known out of Texas for being bipartisan and putting Democrats within his decision-making groups. Until his strong popularity after 9-11, he had actually brought about many of the Left's long-standing party planks, like the Education bills crafted by Ted Kennedy. The Dems saw their singular issues being stolen from them, so they unilaterally pulled themselves out of his working groups and tried to sabotage the economy and blame it on him. All that was Bush 43, not his VP. ...No shadow Presidency.

The closest would be Hillary under Bill.

Truly, Reagan did have ongoing dementia after he was out of office, but since he had a photographic memory (little reported on), he had a head start on almost everyone he met with. The reason he didn't use notes is because he didn't need them. I understand Ted Cruz has a similar ability with the spoken word. Audiographic memory? Bush 43 also had a near-photographic memory, which is why no one ever bet against him on baseball stats, and why he could coast through school without the effort others had to put in. Read Lannie Davis' warnings about his abilities to other Dems who wanted to take him for granted. Lannie attended the same school as Bush 43 and knew whence he spoke.

TDS is about the Never-Trumpers, not about him. I never heard that Trump has a superior memory, but he may have - the way he sets up his opposition and then crushes them when they say stupid things lends some credence. Biden is definitely a non-rememberer, and Sanders is just a cliché machine.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2020, 12:52:12 PM by wmLambert »

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #14 on: February 27, 2020, 12:59:57 PM »
Quote
TDS makes you bitter.

I told you before, Crunch, I don't like to be called insane. Stop it.

Quote
You know what Biden does with 4th graders, right? Very handsy, loves to sniff’em. Also not a good look.

And how does the way Biden interacts with fourth-graders have do with the fact that Trump speaks at a fourth-grade level when extemporaneously speaking?  If you are so concerned with the possibility of deterioration of Biden's mental capacities, shouldn't you also be concerned with the current Commander-in-Chief's mental capacities?  Isn't it more of a concern that the person currently with his finger on the button talks like a fourth-grader, sometimes speaks incoherently, slurs words, and often makes illogical jumps in his speeches?

If this is an important issue, shouldn't we consider all candidates, not just a few of the Democratic ones?  Or is mental deterioration only something that happens to Democrats? ;)

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #15 on: February 27, 2020, 04:11:47 PM »
Quote
TDS is about the Never-Trumpers,

TDS is also applied to the Trump can do no wrong Trumpers

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #16 on: February 27, 2020, 06:04:37 PM »
Quote
TDS makes you bitter.

I told you before, Crunch, I don't like to be called insane. Stop it.
I told you before, I'm not calling you insane. Nobody is. It's just something you're making up.


And how does the way Biden interacts with fourth-graders have do with the fact that Trump speaks at a fourth-grade level when extemporaneously speaking?  If you are so concerned with the possibility of deterioration of Biden's mental capacities, shouldn't you also be concerned with the current Commander-in-Chief's mental capacities?  Isn't it more of a concern that the person currently with his finger on the button talks like a fourth-grader, sometimes speaks incoherently, slurs words, and often makes illogical jumps in his speeches?

If this is an important issue, shouldn't we consider all candidates, not just a few of the Democratic ones?  Or is mental deterioration only something that happens to Democrats? ;)

So let's walk through it. Trump speaking at a 4th-grade level is, in your mind, the ultimate proof that Trump is stupid or mentally unfit to be president. That's it, full stop. No further critical though applied because "Orange Man Bad". Right. No idea why Trump would talk like that except to confirm your belief that Orange Man Bad.

Did you know, "When speaking to or writing for a broad audience, it’s a best practice to speak at an eighth-grade reading level"? No, you didn't. But, this is so well known that most media outlets target the intermediate literacy level meaning 6th - 8th-grade level. In fact, about a quarter of media outlet production is targeted at the basic level - 4th or 5th grade. The vast majority of politicians realize this and target the intermediate level in their communications.

I know, you're probably gobsmacked. But it gets better ...

You see, 52% of all Americans have basic or below-basic reading skills. Quite literally, over half of Americans have literacy rates below that of a 5th grader. Further, "even highly educated people prefer to read below their formal education level."

So put all that together with a desire to reach as many Americans as possible with your message. What grade level should you be targeting when trying to communicate? The 4th grade. By targeting a 4th-grade level, you effectively reach 96% of the US population (4% are completely illiterate) with your message.

Or, he could go your route and use a bunch of $5 words that make him sound so, so, smart but only provides an effective communication channel to less than half his target audience (i.e. the American people).

Which of those 2 options is the smart choice? Which of those messaging strategies is most likely to get Trump heard and understood?  Obviously, if you want to reach the broadest possible audience, you should be targeting a 4th-grade audience.

Now, the question is, since this is all such a well researched and documented topic, is Trump communicating this way just a happy coincidence? This guy is a graduate of the Wharton School, hardly an institution known for turning out illiterates, you know? And the one grade level that hits precisely the one that maximizes his audience reach is just miraculously what he's hitting? No, it's not a coincidence. Trump knows exactly what he's doing:
Quote
“President Trump touched something inside me,’’ Ms. Hope said. “He speaks like me and he talks like me.

This style is also particularly effective on social media where his message is read instead of delivered verbally.

So when I talk about TDS, I'm talking about the complete lack of intellectual curiosity beyond "Orange Man Bad" and how many of you take only the most superficial of analyses and embrace them as truth based solely on it fitting your desired ideological position. I would guess that more than a few of you had some knowledge of these literacy rates and the guidelines for communication but you completely discarded them and actively refused to connect even one dot. That's TDS.

Trump talking like a 4th grader is not evidence of mental deficiency as you make out, it's evidence he's a genius at effective communication.


TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #17 on: February 27, 2020, 06:41:19 PM »
Crunch,

Trump can use a fourth grade vocabulary without talking like a fourth grader. You get that, right?

There's grammar, mispronunciation, misuse, name calling, and verbal tics like "Duh!".

You really went all out to construct a defense of Trump's non-existent speaking skills though, I'll give you that.

Now you can make the argument that Trump is targeting a fourth grade mentality, and I probably couldn't argue with you there.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #18 on: February 28, 2020, 12:24:26 AM »
You really went all out to construct a defense of Trump's non-existent speaking skills...

Do you really believe he has no speaking skills? Did you watch the last SOTU?

If you're going to entirely hand wave away crunch's references to lower vocabulary levels being effective with the masses as some kind of unintentional bonus side effect of Trump being plain stupid, I don’t know what to tell you. It’s like a fighter's trainer telling him his opponent is a chump in between the rounds he's taking a beat-down.

I think in this case you may be confusing eloquence with skill but regardless, I sure wouldn’t want you advising me on how to beat Trump.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2020, 12:28:34 AM by ScottF »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #19 on: February 28, 2020, 07:25:04 AM »
Crunch,

Trump can use a fourth grade vocabulary without talking like a fourth grader. You get that, right?

There's grammar, mispronunciation, misuse, name calling, and verbal tics like "Duh!".

You really went all out to construct a defense of Trump's non-existent speaking skills though, I'll give you that.

Now you can make the argument that Trump is targeting a fourth grade mentality, and I probably couldn't argue with you there.

And yet
Quote
President Trump touched something inside me,’’ Ms. Hope said. “He speaks like me and he talks like me.

Your response is exactly the point I made. You refuse to understand or even remotely engage in a critical thought then finish with the very typical “Look at me, I’m the smartest guy in the room!” shot.

You actually just completely proved my point.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #20 on: February 28, 2020, 08:38:28 AM »
The whole thing about vocabulary was a non sequitur. I did make crunches point better than him. The trump base loves that he talks like an uneducated child, because they've probably been ridiculed for doing the same thing. They mistrust those people who are well spoken, because those are probably reminiscent of authority figures, or people who have been more successful in life. That trump is a master at catering to the lowest common denominator isn't in question. His low base comes for the Theatre and the simplistic message. The high base comes for the policy and ignores the Theatre, or admires it as great manipulation. The only cost is demeaning the office and diminishing global standing.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #21 on: February 28, 2020, 10:14:14 AM »
Much more reasonable take. As far as diminishing global standing, I think it depends on what you mean. If you mean there have been more instances where global leaders whisper in corners about the uncouth brute (eg Trudeau) you're probably right. If you mean the US itself via policies I don't see evidence of that.

If anything, I see more cautious respect because we have a leader who unashamedly speaks of his policy motives being in the interest of the US first and foremost. That's unsettling for leftists/globalists but probably a topic for a separate thread.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #22 on: February 28, 2020, 10:25:38 AM »
If you mean the US itself via policies I don't see evidence of that.

Turkey in Syria. The people fighting with us got screwed. Our isolation on China trade. Wawei 5g in Europe. I haven't seen a lot of great global cooperation with US goals. Trump isn't TR - he talks loudly and sometimes wields a big tariff stick.

But maybe your happy with Trump bullying some latin america countries on potentially reducing immigrants/refugees. The impact of that has been limited so far though.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #23 on: February 28, 2020, 10:34:18 AM »

Turkey in Syria. The people fighting with us got screwed. Our isolation on China trade. Wawei 5g in Europe. I haven't seen a lot of great global cooperation with US goals. Trump isn't TR - he talks loudly and sometimes wields a big tariff stick.

But maybe your happy with Trump bullying some latin america countries on potentially reducing immigrants/refugees. The impact of that has been limited so far though.

Regardless of the merits of the Turkey/Syria decision, the US has a long history of making military decisions that "screw" people who at one point helped us - that's far from a Trumpism. I'm not sure being the first president to so directly battle China on deficit, finance and trade issues translates to isolation, but ok. I don't know enough about Wawei in Europe to have an opinion.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #24 on: February 28, 2020, 11:30:35 AM »
I'm not sure being the first president to so directly battle China on deficit, finance and trade issues translates to isolation, but ok.

I've been supportive of his trade war with China - but I haven't seen Canada, Mexico, the EU jumping in to add pressure to China. The case was made the world was more on board with American policies/goals. I'm just wondering what those issues were and listing out places where I saw it lacking.

Iran and pulling out of the nuclear deal - EU, Russia, and China weren't on board with that either.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #25 on: February 28, 2020, 11:38:55 AM »
Fair enough on other countries not necessarily aligning on all US interests. My overarching point was I don't think that necessarily translates into "diminished global standing".

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #26 on: February 28, 2020, 12:32:45 PM »
Quote
TDS makes you bitter.

I told you before, Crunch, I don't like to be called insane. Stop it.
I told you before, I'm not calling you insane. Nobody is. It's just something you're making up.

Kind of gas lighting distinction? Deranged but not insane

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #27 on: February 28, 2020, 12:44:56 PM »

Regardless of the merits of the Turkey/Syria decision, the US has a long history of making military decisions that "screw" people who at one point helped us - that's far from a Trumpism.

This is true.  We screwed over the South Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians too.  Great moments for America.  Something we should definitely look into doing more often. 

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #28 on: February 28, 2020, 12:46:52 PM »
Fair enough on other countries not necessarily aligning on all US interests. My overarching point was I don't think that necessarily translates into "diminished global standing".

Bear in mind that when I talk about standing, I don't mean having worse outcomes than other countries, I mean the respect that used to allow us to pull together coalitions for global action and agreement.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #29 on: February 28, 2020, 01:06:44 PM »
Fair enough on other countries not necessarily aligning on all US interests. My overarching point was I don't think that necessarily translates into "diminished global standing".

Bear in mind that when I talk about standing, I don't mean having worse outcomes than other countries, I mean the respect that used to allow us to pull together coalitions for global action and agreement.

To be frank I think this has more to do with "what's in it for them" than any kind of abstract goodwill. They will 'assist' the U.S. when there is sufficient incentive, and won't when they don't like what's happening. The extent to which the U.S. could get beneficial arrangements purely out of other countries 'liking the personality of the U.S.'  seems to me not that relevant.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #30 on: February 28, 2020, 01:08:32 PM »
Fair enough on other countries not necessarily aligning on all US interests. My overarching point was I don't think that necessarily translates into "diminished global standing".

I would think that convincing other countries that their interests align with our interests and that our interests align with their interests is the number one measure of "global standing".  Otherwise, what is it for? 

There is plenty of research out there that shows that general perception of the United States has fallen since 2016.  There is good reason to consider, however, that this perception is colored by the politics of the respondents, but the general consensus is that the United States does not have the best relations even with close allies anymore.  Even W, who had unfavorable #s with Europeans, had good relationships with other NATO leaders and Asian leaders.  I think we all can guess why Don the Builder has sour relations with most allies.  Whether this is a good thing since those lazy Europeans and Asians are cheating the United States is subject to debate. 

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #31 on: February 28, 2020, 01:13:20 PM »

To be frank I think this has more to do with "what's in it for them" than any kind of abstract goodwill. They will 'assist' the U.S. when there is sufficient incentive, and won't when they don't like what's happening. The extent to which the U.S. could get beneficial arrangements purely out of other countries 'liking the personality of the U.S.'  seems to me not that relevant.

This would generally be based on the idea that the majority of the people in the world, including world leaders, and other countries domestic and foreign policies, are centered on "what is in it for them". 

The opposite view is that many people around the world today and throughout history have done things that were not necessarily in their best personal interest. 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #32 on: February 28, 2020, 01:51:56 PM »
This would generally be based on the idea that the majority of the people in the world, including world leaders, and other countries domestic and foreign policies, are centered on "what is in it for them".

They would be negligent otherwise, no?

Quote
The opposite view is that many people around the world today and throughout history have done things that were not necessarily in their best personal interest.

This isn't an opposite view; the opposite would be something like doing something based on "what's in it for others". Doing something not in your own interest may even happen when you believe you're doing something selfish; in fact that is frequently the result. If you meant deliberately doing something not in your self-interest, that depends on which interest you mean. It can be something detrimental economically but gainful in, let's say, humanitarian concerns. I doubt that any country would voluntarily embark on a course that is detrimental with nothing gainful in any category. "Let's self-destruct!"

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #33 on: February 28, 2020, 03:19:08 PM »
I would think that convincing other countries that their interests align with our interests and that our interests align with their interests is the number one measure of "global standing".  Otherwise, what is it for? 

There is plenty of research out there that shows that general perception of the United States has fallen since 2016.

I am sure there is, of course if you're careful with your searches and time limit the results you could say the same for just about any year at least back to the Carter administration. 

But I have a real question, what exactly do you mean?  I suspect that "global standing" is a proxy for nothing more than "Trump is uncouth and that must have had some effect."

So what exactly did it do?  What policy of the US did this cost us?  What impact has this had on our ability to get deals done.  To be honest, it looks like Trump has been more effective, not less, than most of his predecessors.  The rise of China, NK becoming out of control, the entire mess in the middle east, al queda, the fall of Venezuala, US nation building - all before Trump, most of which was in spite of this great US influence (some of it was even the direct results of our ideas - the rise of China).  The EU has spent decades building up massive barriers to trade and protectionistic policies that all the American influence in the world hasn't been able to slow in the least, all the while the US bears their defense costs and most of the costs of advancing medical technology.

Presumably you think Obama had this cache, yet you'd be hard pressed to show any policy he got the EU to support other than in their direct interest or pursuant to a bribe.  Heck, you can directly track most of the current chaos in the Middle East resulting from Iran's funding of insurgencies across the region directly to Obama's negotiations and backing and the money he released to them.

Back on the topic, apparently Biden's story about being arrested trying to see Mandela, has now been boiled down to being separated from his travel companions at the airport in S. Africa (They were requested to split their party for the white's only/all others entrances), but not remotely arrested.   I mean that's a good story in and of itself, no real need to embellish, yet to stretch that to what he said?  Definitely a cause for concern.

If you are so concerned with the possibility of deterioration of Biden's mental capacities, shouldn't you also be concerned with the current Commander-in-Chief's mental capacities?  Isn't it more of a concern that the person currently with his finger on the button talks like a fourth-grader, sometimes speaks incoherently, slurs words, and often makes illogical jumps in his speeches?

Seem to recall that Trump passed his mental acuity test, and remind me how did you react?  Oh yeah, pretty sure you tried to question the credentials of the doctor.  There's nothing out there  that reasonably would make one question Trump at this point, or honestly, anyone else on the Dem's stage, but it's pretty clear Biden shouldn't be running for office.

Quote
If this is an important issue, shouldn't we consider all candidates, not just a few of the Democratic ones?  Or is mental deterioration only something that happens to Democrats? ;)

Yes we should test them all.  But it's only Biden that has obvious evidence of mental deterioration. 
« Last Edit: February 28, 2020, 03:22:04 PM by Seriati »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #34 on: February 28, 2020, 03:28:54 PM »
Biden was just talking about how he looked forward to being president and appointing an African American women to the US senate.

It’s constant. His brain is made of porridge at this point. And what’s not porridge, is pudding. This is essentially elder abuse and his family needs to step in and protect him.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #35 on: February 28, 2020, 04:44:58 PM »
Quote
TDS makes you bitter.

I told you before, Crunch, I don't like to be called insane. Stop it.
I told you before, I'm not calling you insane. Nobody is. It's just something you're making up.

Really?  I explained this to you before.  Which didn't you say?

Quote
But dude, the symptoms of TDS is getting tiresome.
Quote
TDS makes you bitter.

Or, in the Live It Off the Wall thread:

Quote
Trump Derangement Syndrome is a form of insanity.

By elementary logic, that means that you consider anyone with TDS to have a form of insanity, i.e. the person is insane.

So the only question is, are you as dumb as a rock and can't follow simple logic that any fourth-grader could (if A=B and B=C, then A=C, the commutative property) or are you a bold-faced liar who thinks he can just deny what he has said and thinks we're all too stupid to realize it?

So which is it?  Are you stupid?  Or just dishonest?

Whichever, just stop it.  Now.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #36 on: February 28, 2020, 04:48:23 PM »
I'm not sure all 4th grade-level presidents actually can follow that simple logic...

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #37 on: February 28, 2020, 05:00:12 PM »
Quote
...If this is an important issue, shouldn't we consider all candidates, not just a few of the Democratic ones?  Or is mental deterioration only something that happens to Democrats?

There are no "Democratic" candidates. They are Democrats and Socialists. Democracy is not part of their mix.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #38 on: February 28, 2020, 05:02:21 PM »

I am sure there is, of course if you're careful with your searches and time limit the results you could say the same for just about any year at least back to the Carter administration. 

The data from Pew only goes back to 2002.  I'd love to find some more data from Pew or Gallup, but I can't seem to get any.  The major idea is that public opinion plummeted between 2003-2008, and after 2016. 

I suppose you could argue that the numbers don't mean much, since Bush was able to actually put together globalist coalitions due to his connections with the shareholders of Chase Manhattan.

Quote
But I have a real question, what exactly do you mean?  I suspect that "global standing" is a proxy for nothing more than "Trump is uncouth and that must have had some effect."


I think what I believed the end of global standing gives a good enough definition of what I mean.  "convincing other countries that their interests align with our interests and that our interests align with their interests is the number one measure of "global standing"".  To put it more clearly, I believe "global standing" is the ability of the United States to persuade other friendly countries, and even unfriendly countries, to take courses of actions that benefit the United States, themselves, and other allies.  It's basically soft diplomacy power. 

As to being "uncouth", you will have to define what you mean by that for me to have an opinion on whether it has had any effect with our relationships with allies or enemies. 

Quote
So what exactly did it do?  What policy of the US did this cost us?  What impact has this had on our ability to get deals done.

If we're looking at policies we would have to look at the level of cooperation we have been able to get from allies and enemies. 

The first example might be pullout from the Iran deal and further sanctioning of Iran.  The opinion of many the United States was that the Iran deal was a bad deal.  It was even seen as a bad deal by certain local allies.  But notable allies in Europe did not follow suit.  Convincing them to go along when they were not thrilled about it would have been an effect of global standing. 

Another example might be the Paris accords. Same situation.  The current administration believes it was a bad idea.  But several other countries remain in the agreement. 

Further examples would be concessions made by the EU on trade negotiations or NATO negotiations. 

Another example would be further support from allies on additional actions taken on Iran, including the hit on Solemani. 

Maybe additional NATO support for the Baltic States that did not include trading the Kurds for Turkish support. 

I mean, you can take the position that all of our allies are wrong or stupid.  It certainly seems that the current administration has taken an adversarial stance towards NATO and the EU over several issues.  But taking our ball and going home seems to be the rule of the day rather than any sort of diplomatic attempts. 

If The Great Negotiator has had better results in persuading allies and enemies, then I'd like some examples of why this is. 

I'm completely unsure if Don the Builder has curtailed the growth or threat of China.  I don't see where he has done anything positive in North Korea.  Syria and Yemen and Iraq and Afghanistan are getting worse, not better.  Trade barriers in the EU have not changed.  The agreement among NATO countries to apply 2% GDP on defense per country was made in 2014 and is not supposed to be reached until 2024, on top of the general idea that NATO countries not paying their fair share for defense is erroneous.  I suppose it's good for Trumpers to scream about how our allies in Europe are bad friends, but there certainly hasn't been any improvement, only alienation. 

As for Obama, which is a red-herring here, I've always believed that he squandered whatever influence or global standing he may have had with allies and enemies and missed several opportunities.  The Obama administration made several bad foreign policy calls and I think had a lousy State Department and National Security Council in my opinion.  But if he had the right ideas I believe he could have made some real inroads if he tried.  That's all hypothetical what-ifs.  The point is that global standing, if it was to be had between 2009 and 2016, was squandered. 



Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #39 on: February 28, 2020, 06:40:00 PM »

I am sure there is, of course if you're careful with your searches and time limit the results you could say the same for just about any year at least back to the Carter administration. 

The data from Pew only goes back to 2002.  I'd love to find some more data from Pew or Gallup, but I can't seem to get any.  The major idea is that public opinion plummeted between 2003-2008, and after 2016.

Academics write academic materials, and they have a decided ideological slant.  You can certainly find opinion pieces on this topic (decline is US influence) every year.  That's not of course, empirical data, but there really isn't empirical data that would accurately measure something this squishy.  Instead it would be measuring something as a proxy, and the selection of the proxy reveals the bias.
 
Quote
Quote
But I have a real question, what exactly do you mean?  I suspect that "global standing" is a proxy for nothing more than "Trump is uncouth and that must have had some effect."


I think what I believed the end of global standing gives a good enough definition of what I mean.  "convincing other countries that their interests align with our interests and that our interests align with their interests is the number one measure of "global standing"".  To put it more clearly, I believe "global standing" is the ability of the United States to persuade other friendly countries, and even unfriendly countries, to take courses of actions that benefit the United States, themselves, and other allies.  It's basically soft diplomacy power.

That really makes me think that global standing is especially "squishy."  That concept is certainly contradicted by most of the examples you provide.

Fundamentally, ask yourself why we have to "persuade" other countries to do what is in their best interest?  Shouldn't they do that anyway?  I think the reality is that very little globally is actually in someone's "best" interest, or frankly even relevant to them. I mean look at the battle over whaling.  What is actually in anyone's "best" interests?  The Japanese want to eat whales most western people want to save them.  But ther's almost nothing in that debate that's really in anyone's "best" interest.  Japan has bribed other countries into supporting them - I don't think anyone really believes their support is ethical or moral rather than economic, and they are able to do that because getting paid is more in a most country's "best" interests than not getting paid.  In the west supporting japan costs the politicians votes therefore it's not in their personal interests.  Lots of power, soft and hard, playing in that game despite a lack of real interest.

Quote
As to being "uncouth", you will have to define what you mean by that for me to have an opinion on whether it has had any effect with our relationships with allies or enemies.

They find him personally repugnant. 

Quote
Quote
So what exactly did it do?  What policy of the US did this cost us?  What impact has this had on our ability to get deals done.

If we're looking at policies we would have to look at the level of cooperation we have been able to get from allies and enemies.

No, not if your definition is true. We'd have to look at whether the policy is in their interest and we have to splain it to them to get them to go along.

If you're measuring whether they go along with us, you could simply be measuring quite a large number of things other than our global standing.  You could be measuring whether  polices actually do align with their interests.  You could be measuring the extent to which we are or are not "bribing" them either directly like Japan (or say cash pallets being shipped to Iran) or indirectly, like say dumping billions into the EU's defense to get them to give us cover in third world fights where they have no real dog in the fight.

Quote
The first example might be pullout from the Iran deal and further sanctioning of Iran.  The opinion of many the United States was that the Iran deal was a bad deal.  It was even seen as a bad deal by certain local allies.  But notable allies in Europe did not follow suit.  Convincing them to go along when they were not thrilled about it would have been an effect of global standing.

Was it?  The Europeans view Iran's hatred of America as more about America than about Europe.  Lifting the economic sanctions on Iran opened up cheap Iranian oil and new business deals for the EU (and they know they'll have an advantage over the US).  Normalizing Iran is 100% more in their interest than it is in ours.  By all reasonable account Iran has been using the economic freedom and free cash to fund regional terror campaigns, but hey those aren't Europeans dying, so that's not actually very much in their interest to stop.  Europeans do care about Nukes, they are even more anti-Nuke than the US (and closer).  So a deal that slows Nukes, opens markets and lets Iran kill it's neighbors is morally acceptable to them, in their interests and provided Iran plays by the rules and doesn't develop nukes completely okay.

So why would it take any "standing" to get them to enter that deal?  Trump could get them to support him on re-executing it tomorrow.  Their support is 100% based  on their direct benefit and ability to offload the downside to people in the middle east.

The only decision that changes their analysis is whether the US will make it costly to them to keep the deal in place.  If we sanction their banks then they drop Iran like a hot potato, cause it's not about principal.

Quote
Another example might be the Paris accords. Same situation.  The current administration believes it was a bad idea.  But several other countries remain in the agreement.

But again, how is that an example?    To get the worst polluters to sign, it was agreed that they would sign up to non-binding commitments to increase pollution by slower rates somewhere in the future, and get bribed by the West.  The "trade" was that the US would agree to deliberately sabotage it's economy and pay for almost all the pollution reductions.  So wow, they agreed to a deal where the US pays twice and they reap the benefits.   The only "global standing" that demonstrates is that we're chumps with principals willing to try and actually save the environment.

Quote
Further examples would be concessions made by the EU on trade negotiations or NATO negotiations.

They would, if they weren't coupled (and then some) with EU anti-competetive practices that range all across the spectrum.  We don't have trade imbalances with virtually everyone in the EU because they are outcompeting us.  WE have them because for decades we've let them run a trade war against us without response.

Quote
Another example would be further support from allies on additional actions taken on Iran, including the hit on Solemani.

Didn't hear a lot of condemnation from them, but again, they couldn't care less about what Iran does to the locals.  Keep it out of the news to much, don't use WMDs and to Europe it's all okay.  Or can you name the major EU interventions  without US that weren't in direct support of their colonial regimes?   

Quote
Maybe additional NATO support for the Baltic States that did not include trading the Kurds for Turkish support.

Again, this seem to fail your test.  The winner or loser there is almost not in anyone's best interest to decide.  I'd guess the Europeans would be perfectly happy to let the Turks rule the Kurds for the foreseeable future.  What you are really asking is that we bribe the Europeans with concessions on something else (our normal pattern) so they'll agree tod send soldiers to make ours look like they're not alone.  We know for a fact they won't stay without us.  If you ask them to, they'll have the UN declare a peacekeeping mission, with Western generals and third world soldiers for hire.

Quote
I mean, you can take the position that all of our allies are wrong or stupid.

That's literally your position when you define global standing as you did.  You basically define their role as to be too stupid to know their own interests without us telling them and then bribing them.  Instead what you actually thought was our global standing was them acting in their own selfish interests most of the time, including by going along with our bribes when they didn't care that much one way or the other.

I can only think of a handful of times when anyone (and it was really only the UK and Canada) took a decision that wasn't in their own interests just to help us out.

Quote
It certainly seems that the current administration has taken an adversarial stance towards NATO and the EU over several issues.  But taking our ball and going home seems to be the rule of the day rather than any sort of diplomatic attempts.

Yes.  Rather than bribing them he's actually telling them to act in their own interests.  That's exactly why he demanded they pay up in NATO.  Effectively, they were still getting a bribe that they are no longer delivering on.  They've been acting in their own interest (to the detriment of ours) for decades, that's not why we entered into any of those arrangements.

Or to put it another way, does the rich kid at school still have bunches of friends when he stops buying them gifts all the time and paying for everything?  I think we all know that when you buy friends they don't stick around, and your almost certainly in a worse place than if you'd  just been honest in the first place rather than trying to buy them.  But you're kidding yourself if you measure how good his skills are at making friends without considering the bribes he was paying.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #40 on: February 28, 2020, 08:08:59 PM »
Quote from: Seriati
... does the rich kid at school still have bunches of friends when he stops buying them gifts all the time and paying for everything?  I think we all know that when you buy friends they don't stick around, and you're almost certainly in a worse place than if you'd  just been honest in the first place rather than trying to buy them.  But you're kidding yourself if you measure how good his skills are at making friends without considering the bribes he was paying.

Very true.  When you extend your hand in friendship, you get a different result from chicanery and bribes. Obama went on his apology tour and poisoned the respect even friendly nations had for us. Compounding that, he gave billions to Iran as a supposed gesture? It is the hundreds of missionary programs and support projects that our friends need the most. Give money to their leaders and it just buys shoes for their wives, neh?
« Last Edit: February 28, 2020, 08:11:27 PM by wmLambert »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #41 on: February 28, 2020, 08:36:56 PM »

Regardless of the merits of the Turkey/Syria decision, the US has a long history of making military decisions that "screw" people who at one point helped us - that's far from a Trumpism.

This is true.  We screwed over the South Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians too.  Great moments for America.  Something we should definitely look into doing more often.

The South Vietnam situation is... complicated to say the least. In that particular case, it is probably more correct to say we facilitated their ability to screw themselves before ultimately deciding we'd had enough.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #42 on: February 28, 2020, 09:01:09 PM »

Regardless of the merits of the Turkey/Syria decision, the US has a long history of making military decisions that "screw" people who at one point helped us - that's far from a Trumpism.

This is true.  We screwed over the South Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians too.  Great moments for America.  Something we should definitely look into doing more often.

The South Vietnam situation is... complicated to say the least. In that particular case, it is probably more correct to say we facilitated their ability to screw themselves before ultimately deciding we'd had enough.

Better to say that we are so disparate and politically opportunistic that we prey on ourselves.

Think back to that '68 Tet Offensive, wherein General Giap, Commander of NVA forces wrote in his autobiography clearly indicated that NVA troops were without sufficient supplies, and had been continually defeated time and again. By 1968, NVA morale was at it's lowest point ever. The plans for "Tet" '68 was their last desperate attempt to achieve a success, in an effort to boost the NVA morale. When it was over, General Giap and the NVA viewed the Tet '68 offensive as a failure, they were on their knees and had prepared to negotiate a surrender. At that time, there were fewer than 10,000 U.S. casualties, the Vietnam War was about to end, as the NVA was prepared to accept their defeat. Then, they heard Walter Cronkite (former CBS News anchor and correspondent) on TV proclaiming the success of the Tet '68 offensive by the communist NVA. They were completely and totally amazed at hearing that the US Embassy had been overrun. In reality, The NVA had not gained access to the Embassy--there were some VC who had been killed on the grassy lawn, but they hadn't gained access. Further reports indicated the riots and protesting on the streets of America. According to Giap, these distorted reports were inspirational to the NVA. They changed their plans from a negotiated surrender and decided instead, they only needed to persevere for one more hour, day, week, month, eventually the protesters in American would help them to achieve a victory they knew they could not win on the battlefield. Thanks to Cronkite, we eventually lost a war that was no longer aimed at military victory, but invented the guerilla warfare aimed at the media.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #43 on: February 29, 2020, 08:52:54 AM »
Quote
Academics write academic materials, and they have a decided ideological slant.  You can certainly find opinion pieces on this topic (decline is US influence) every year.  That's not of course, empirical data, but there really isn't empirical data that would accurately measure something this squishy. 

I'm not talking about academics writing academic material, Serati.  I'm talking about polling done by Pew Research on foreign opinion of the United States by foreign nationals.  That seems pretty empirical to me. 

Quote
Fundamentally, ask yourself why we have to "persuade" other countries to do what is in their best interest?

It sounds like you are challenging the very idea that persuasion exists or should exist.  Have you never had to convince a child to eat their vegetables?  Convince a spouse to buy a mini-van instead of a Camero?  Convince Roosevelt to invade Sicily and Italy in 1943 instead of France?  Convince the UK to not use Huawei?  Persuade allies to commit troops to Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan?  Persuade allies to pay for the First Gulf War?   

The way it usually works, is that an individual, or individuals, have a vision of what is in their best interest.  Persuasion is made by replacing that vision with a different vision where their best interests are often a shared interest. 

Quote
They find him personally repugnant.

Other world leaders?  I don't know.  But if other world leaders and allies found The Perfect Caller to be personally repugnant, or untrustworthy, would it hurt the chances of convincing allies to follow the lead of the United States? 

Quote
No, not if your definition is true. We'd have to look at whether the policy is in their interest and we have to splain it to them to get them to go along.

Let's see how persuading allies that certain policies are in their best interests can lead to cooperation and help the United States and allies.  The current administration believed that the Iran deal is a bad deal, and that it should be abandoned and sanctions placed on Iran due to it's bad behavior.  The EU did not agree, though major allies in the ME agreed.  What if we could persuade members of the EU that the Iran deal was also against their best interests and that sanctioning Iran was in their best interests? 

You seem to intimate that all diplomacy is about bribes or strong-arm negotiations.  I disagree. 

Quote
Lifting the economic sanctions on Iran opened up cheap Iranian oil and new business deals for the EU (and they know they'll have an advantage over the US).  Normalizing Iran is 100% more in their interest than it is in ours.  By all reasonable account Iran has been using the economic freedom and free cash to fund regional terror campaigns, but hey those aren't Europeans dying, so that's not actually very much in their interest to stop.

I think this can be presented as a very short-sighted view of what is in Europe's best interests.  Iran uses it's money to finance terrorism and destabilize the region.  The creates humanitarian and refugee problems stemming from Syria and Yemen that can become Europe's problem, costing them $ in terms of humanitarian aid and immigration into Europe.  Destabilizing Saudi Arabia and Iraq will cause the price of oil to rise, erasing any benefit of cheap oil from Iran.  See, all these things and more arguments can be presented to these leaders as reasons why the Iran Plan wasn't in their best interests, and sanctions were. But you need to have trust and good relationships with these leaders, and you can't have that if you are constantly going on about how Europe is cheating the United States on TV and on Twitter. 

Quote
They would, if they weren't coupled (and then some) with EU anti-competetive practices that range all across the spectrum.

And isn't free trade and removal of tariffs in their best interest? 

Quote
The winner or loser there is almost not in anyone's best interest to decide.  I'd guess the Europeans would be perfectly happy to let the Turks rule the Kurds for the foreseeable future.  What you are really asking is that we bribe the Europeans with concessions on something else (our normal pattern) so they'll agree tod send soldiers to make ours look like they're not alone.

Pretty ridiculous.  Of course it's in lots of countries interests what happens to the Baltic states or what happens to the Kurds or who wins in Syria.  And what I'm asking is that we not bribe Turkey, but convince them that supporting NATO operations in Lithuania is in their interests, without having to sacrifice the Kurds. 

Quote
Didn't hear a lot of condemnation from them, but again, they couldn't care less about what Iran does to the locals.

Shouldn't they? 

Quote
That's literally your position when you define global standing as you did.  You basically define their role as to be too stupid to know their own interests without us telling them and then bribing them.

I think you missed my point.  Dismissing allies as stupid is what you do when you arn't trying to persuade them.  Bribing isn't persuasion.  Let's talk about sales.  A salesperson's job is to convince individuals that their interests can be furthered by an exchange.  Everyone gets something.  If you are selling the end, you don't need to bribe. 

You seem to have a very jaded view on human relationships and interaction, viewing all human motivation as being in self-interest.  It's just not the case. 

Quote
Yes.  Rather than bribing them he's actually telling them to act in their own interests.  That's exactly why he demanded they pay up in NATO.

Well there you go.  The Great Negotiator has something he wants. How is he doing at convincing them?  Is taking the ball and going home working out?  Is denigrating allies on TV and Twitter helping things?  Good relationships with allied leaders?  A lot of trust built up? 

Quote
Or to put it another way, does the rich kid at school still have bunches of friends when he stops buying them gifts all the time and paying for everything?

That's a very unique view of NATO.  Twisted and warped, really.  I could get into how our allies in Europe pull their fair share but I suppose we need to go back to talking about how Biden is senile. 

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #44 on: February 29, 2020, 09:01:35 AM »
The South Vietnam situation is... complicated to say the least. In that particular case, it is probably more correct to say we facilitated their ability to screw themselves before ultimately deciding we'd had enough.

What's complicated?  We got South Vietnam to agree to sign a peace treaty by promising them aid if the North attacked again.  When they did attack, we didn't help.  300,000 people were imprisoned, tortured, or executed. 

OrneryMod

  • Administrator
  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #45 on: February 29, 2020, 02:17:27 PM »
We're coming into the election seasons and tensions are starting to get high.  I'd like to remind everyone to please treat each other with kindness and respect.  Many of you are starting to approach or cross the appropriate line. Please stay far away from the line. If I have to temporarily ban a member during the election season, I may decide to have the ban last until November 5th.  I do not want to have to police every word you say. Please, be more kind and more respectful to one another.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #46 on: February 29, 2020, 05:03:22 PM »
Listening to President Trump at CPAC is hilarious. Please don't say he is not a great communicator, because every word strikes home and skewers his opponents with humor and incredible insight. He talked about "Crazy Bernie", "Sleepy Joe", "Pocahontas", "Alfred E.Newman", "Mini-Mike", and even Beto, who claimed he was born to run. The easy comeback by the Left is that he is divisive, however, he is pro-American and is responding to what his opponents have said. He said that many of Blumberg's higher-up advisors are taking him for a ride, talking him into putting out millions of dollars in a lost cause and taking their ten percent off the top for the ad buys. He comes out with fact after fact that is unreported in the Main Stream Media, just daring them to look the other way and not comment.

The crowd hangs on his every word, and listens to what he says. The media might nor report it correctly, but it is all out there like an elephant in the room. One can pretend not to see, but if so, gets stamped on. One story he talked about was the wall, and how the MSM created a meme that the wind blew his wall over. He just walked us through what happened: how the winds of 60+ MPH did blow over one section as it was being put in place, but that the construction crew just lifted it up and held it in place until the cement hardened. He then explained how little things like that become national news because "they have nothing else" they want to report on.

I suppose those who cannot bring themselves to give him any credit will continue to avoid doing so, but the more they do so, the more they create "white spots." (White spots are what we call what happens when a document is faked up with the original copy being erased, and forged disinformation printed over the new blank spot.) You can't tell it was changed, except for the white spot that tells the whole story.

He once again branded his opponents with a great performance using humor and fact in an entertaining way.
« Last Edit: February 29, 2020, 05:06:41 PM by wmLambert »

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #47 on: February 29, 2020, 06:56:05 PM »
I’ll go back to my boxing trainer analogy. The absolute worst thing you can do is diminish your opponent's talents and abilities, especially if they actually KO'd your fighter in the last fight. If it feels good to shout that they’re a no-talent bum, have at it. But it’s a horrible strategy for the rematch and indicates that your filter and situational awareness will not serve you well when the bell rings.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #48 on: March 01, 2020, 12:42:48 PM »
After a lengthy interview with Chris Wallace, Wallace thanks Biden for the time. Biden responds with, “Alright, thanks Chuck”.

Look, Biden often doesn’t know where he is and, obviously, struggles to know who he’s even talking to at times.

It’s at the point we should start calling it elder abuse.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« Reply #49 on: March 01, 2020, 01:20:20 PM »
The election season is heating up, which means that for some people (here and elsewhere, but definitely here) it's crunch time, so it's best not to try to tell them things they don't already know.