O/T:- Betting odds for US Election [The USA Politics Thread]

[i961pie]

I'm frustrated with the entire west's "backing" of Ukraine and agree, roughly, with your assessment, although "losing slowly" is kind of underestimating the "slowly" part. Russia's rate of advance would embarrass a WWI general at the moment, as would the cost in lives and material of said advance.

But the west's strategy, assuming it actually has a coherent one, appears to be to bleed Russia indefinitely with the war. I kinda hate that strategy on ethical grounds but I can't deny that it's working, and is likely to deter adventurous dictators so long as it's maintained. I don't see Israel's activities as relevant to the discussion really. A very different situation since I don't think they have any plan to keep Gaza and the land has negative strategic value for them.

And assuming that is the strategy, I do think it likely Trump will disrupt it to the detriment of everyone but Putin. Being pro-putin is one of the few things he's actually consistent about.

Well at least Andy will be happy😋

[drillerpie]

I'm frustrated with the entire west's "backing" of Ukraine and agree, roughly, with your assessment, although "losing slowly" is kind of underestimating the "slowly" part. Russia's rate of advance would embarrass a WWI general at the moment, as would the cost in lives and material of said advance.

But the west's strategy, assuming it actually has a coherent one, appears to be to bleed Russia indefinitely with the war. I kinda hate that strategy on ethical grounds but I can't deny that it's working, and is likely to deter adventurous dictators so long as it's maintained. I don't see Israel's activities as relevant to the discussion really. A very different situation since I don't think they have any plan to keep Gaza and the land has negative strategic value for them.

And assuming that is the strategy, I do think it likely Trump will disrupt it to the detriment of everyone but Putin. Being pro-putin is one of the few things he's actually consistent about.

I just mentioned Israel as an example of how the Biden administration doesn't even seem capable of influencing the actions of a totally dependant ally, never mind an adversary.

The strategy of bleeding Russia will work in the long run, but at a terrible cost in the meantime. The problem is that Putin does not care one bit. He's just thinking about his legacy and his place in the history of Russia going back centuries. He wants to be the guy who recreated imperial Russia and 20% inflation or 1000 casualties per day is not going to stop him.

The conventional wisdom is that Trump is pro-Putin, and his first administration certainly had an extraordinary number of people in important posts who had dealings with Russia. He looks to be continuing that with Tulsi Gabbard (referred to as 'our girlfriend' on Russian state TV) as head of intelligence.

But the non-mainstream point of view would be that despite paying lip-service to Putin, Trump did more in terms of arming Ukraine and sanctions on Russia than Obama, including the arms that allowed Ukraine to repel the initial invasion. His unpredictability may also dissuade Putin from taking any more risks. He may have also connected the dots between allowing Russia to take territory, and rolling out the red carpet for China to try to take Taiwan - which would explain why he stopped objecting to the bill arming Ukraine around January.

I'm sceptical, but trying to keep an open mind.

[i961pie]

His appointments seem strange even to members of his own party.
The guy in charge of defence has no experience whatsoever. JFK is a conspiracy theorists and anti vaccine but is in charge of health and that's only two. The next 4 years are going to be very interesting and hopefully not frightening.

[drillerpie]

His appointments seem strange even to members of his own party.
The guy in charge of defence has no experience whatsoever. JFK is a conspiracy theorists and anti vaccine but is in charge of health and that's only two. The next 4 years are going to be very interesting and hopefully not frightening.

One thing I like about JFK is that he wants to wean Americans off their unhealthy diet, which would be huge progress.

When Jamie Oliver tried to stop English kids eating **** food he ran into some resistance, and people thought he was talking down to them and saw him as a party proper, but JFK has full populist credentials and might be able to get people to believe in what he's doing.

About the vaccine stuff he seems to say different things to different audiences. As with some of the others I'm sceptical, but I'll try to keep an open mind and see what he does.

[andy6025]

Well at least Andy will be happy😋

While I admittedly haven?t paid much attention to this conversation, whatever awaits to increase my current elation has me rubbing my hands together in gleeful anticipation!

[Jampie]

But the non-mainstream point of view would be that despite paying lip-service to Putin, Trump did more in terms of arming Ukraine and sanctions on Russia than Obama, including the arms that allowed Ukraine to repel the initial invasion. His unpredictability may also dissuade Putin from taking any more risks. He may have also connected the dots between allowing Russia to take territory, and rolling out the red carpet for China to try to take Taiwan - which would explain why he stopped objecting to the bill arming Ukraine around January.

I'm sceptical, but trying to keep an open mind.

Trump's first impeachment was for illegally withholding those very weapons and demanding that the Ukrainians give him (non-existent) evidence of Biden's corruption. I do not for a moment believe any claim that Trump is secretly going to help the Ukrainians but would of course welcome the surprise.

As for Obama, yeah his entire foreign policy efforts were kind of a mess. He managed not to start any new wars which puts him ahead of his predecessor, but what did he actually achieve? Dubious, at best.

Still, the man most responsible for what's happening in Ukraine now is Putin.

[upthemaggies]

One thing I like about JFK is that he wants to wean Americans off their unhealthy diet, which would be huge progress.....
About the vaccine stuff he seems to say different things to different audiences.

From what I'm seeing from some people on my side of the fence, I'm under the impression JFK is compromised and won't do anything much of substance to reign in big pharma, I'm just hoping he can at least nudge governments and joe public into accepting that it has to be a matter of personal choice and that force (or coercion by sanctions) is not acceptable.

[BigFatPie]

One thing I like about JFK is that he wants to wean Americans off their unhealthy diet, which would be huge progress.

When Jamie Oliver tried to stop English kids eating **** food he ran into some resistance, and people thought he was talking down to them and saw him as a party proper, but JFK has full populist credentials and might be able to get people to believe in what he's doing.

About the vaccine stuff he seems to say different things to different audiences. As with some of the others I'm sceptical, but I'll try to keep an open mind and see what he does.

People in the scientific community have highlighted Kennedy?s idiocy on his positions from fluoride in water to vaccines for the best part of the last 20 years. If you had to pick some of the worst people in America to run a health department he?d be right at the front of the queue. The man is hopelessly anti-science.

The notion of a republican administration headed by Trump putting pressure on or increasing regulation on the food industry to make their products more healthy is very optimistic as well. It?ll more likely go the other way if anything. Those corporations will be rubbing their hands at the prospect of even looser regulation in the years to come.

[Jampie]

I'm not paying much attention but all of Trump's picks so far seem designed to destroy whatever institution they supposedly will be in charge of. He's always been the "burn it all down" candidate, so that all sort of makes sense to me.

God the media's milking it for all it's worth too. He doesn't take power until Jan 20th IIRC but it's still with the multiple headlines a day. He literally can't do a single thing yet.

[slack_pie]

I'm not paying much attention but all of Trump's picks so far seem designed to destroy whatever institution they supposedly will be in charge of. He's always been the "burn it all down" candidate, so that all sort of makes sense to me.

God the media's milking it for all it's worth too. He doesn't take power until Jan 20th IIRC but it's still with the multiple headlines a day. He literally can't do a single thing yet.

Speaking of burning it all down, the warmongers running the Dems - sorry, I mean "Biden" - look like they want to squeeze WW3 in before Trump's inauguration.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cjdl98dk40gt

Why not go out with a bang, eh?