The Biden Presidency - 2020

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I have no links and am not really interested in looking for them - how likely prognosticators think it is that we would defend Taiwan militarily is not particularly interesting to me, and such writings tend to bogged down in irrelevancies.

The links are important because it shows third party analysis, theoretically more knowledgeable than you and me, that answers your original discussion topic below. I assume that has been asked and answered.

Why would (not defending) Taiwan lead to a greater loss of US credibility than Ukraine?

We are now, per your paragraph below, pivoting to how would we defend Taiwan and can we sustain the initial patriotic spike. On how the US will defend, I've read numerous articles but suffice to say there are plans. Weaponry & air/sea vs boots on the ground.

The only way we could even arguably do that is if we are willing to commit everything we have in our military to doing it. Right now as a complete abstraction the US public is split fairly evenly on the issue. If China seriously invaded, and we seriously tried to stop them, casualties would be extreme. To my mind it's simply highly self-evident that it would take less than two weeks of the resulting dead bodies piling up for the country to demand we pull out. I think as soon as it became clear to whoever was President at the time that China wasn't bluffing, we'd be gone.

Regarding body count, we're now in the realm of my opinion, so take it for what its worth ...

Whether or not the US public will support the continue defense with the likely US casualties depends on how it started/who was the aggressor, if US/Taiwan is winning the war, are allies helping, and of course, the body count. Using an admittedly extreme example, if the US has lost 20 planes and China has lost 200 planes and/or if US has lost 5 ships and China has lost 50 ships ... fair chance US public morale will still be good.

But yes, no doubt if the US has a high body count and seemingly losing the war, we'll limp home with tail between our legs ... ceding APAC to China for the next 40-50 years.

Where Ukraine is relevant is the commitment that we and Europe have. What we're wiling to do about it. If we won't even commit our air force to help Ukraine, why would anyone think we're willing to put everything including boots on the ground in whatever numbers are required to help Taiwan? How do you sell that to the average American, when you know that a nuclear attack is just Xi waking up on the wrong side of the bed/getting the wrong advice from his advisors away?

I don't think I've read an article that says US will put boots on the ground in Taiwan. Other than some advisors, trainers and like, the US will support by providing a ton of weaponry (anti-aircraft, anti-ship), using carrier groups/submarines to own the air and sea.

But the gist of your statement is why would the US help defend Taiwan when it's not willing to do same for Ukraine? I think this has been asked and answered. Taiwan is much more strategic to US than Ukraine is. And in a way, Ukraine is more of a Western Europe problem. I am sure Western Europe will feel the same that a Taiwan conflict is more of a US problem.

Taiwan is quite a bit more important, but also orders of magnitude more dangerous. Far more dangerous than it is more important, in other words. And the world has consistently shown, whether it's North Korea, whether it's Iran, that we don't have teeth when it comes to facing down nuclear powers. They get what they want almost every time. Positive signs today that we may be moving somewhat in the right direction here, but I'll believe that we've got the required backbone when I see it.

I agree that Taiwan/China is much more dangerous to the US. As far as "facing down" nuclear powers, sure we've had failures but lets not paint it as total failures. We faced down USSR in Cuba pretty well. We faced down USSR for the 30 years or so on the Cold War. We stalemated on NK. I can concede we've lost/stalemated on Ukraine. Unsure about Iran, don't think they are a nuclear power yet but even if they were, I'll call that a stalemate.



The bottom line to me in our back and forth is

(1) Should the US defend Taiwan if China attacks militarily. Yes (but the more likely scenario is China will do non-military things to eventually own Taiwan).
(2) Can the US sustain a conventional war effort supporting Taiwan vs China. This is TBD. There is a point where the US will cut our losses. But I can also see where China, if punch in it's nose enough times, will cut their losses too.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The more I think about it, the more I think China does not want to act right now. I could be wrong. Xi certainly wants things like a less stable dollar. But he may be very much against war, and his interests would be better served if everyone kept pretending Taiwan was part of China.

Right now Xi must know they are trending up quicker than the US. Why rock the boat unless Taiwan decides to declare independence. Everything I've read says China plays the long game and, given time, there are other ways to "take over" Taiwan than just militarily.

[Flasch186]

Indeed

The new normal is not like the old tactics

Slower, from the inside out, and like a parasite eventually the host dies and that is how they get it

Putin just got impatient with will be the potential miscalculation

If Putin gets the whole then like Crimea a lesson will be taught to him and the world that the parasite can be a launching pad eventually for an impatient military take over but either way… eventually, the parasite wins in this scenario we’ve watched play it the last ten years (crimea).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

I haven't watched the State of the Union live in quite some time (way too much clapping after every other second or third sentence. But may have to watch on Tue.

Hope he shares additional stuff we'll do to help out.

On Tuesday, Biden is expected to use this unique opportunity to elaborate on the U.S. response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the most severe blow to the security of Europe and the NATO alliance in the 77 years since World War II.

While Americans are struggling with a two-year-old pandemic and economic stresses of their own, the return of war in Europe adds a dire portent to the proceedings not seen in many years.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

We are now, per your paragraph below, pivoting to how would we defend Taiwan and can we sustain the initial patriotic spike.

I don't think I'm the one who pivoted. I think that happened in your post referencing the Diplomat article.

Originally Posted by Edward64

the gist of your statement is why would the US help defend Taiwan when it's not willing to do same for Ukraine?

No it isn't. I think we're at a point of just not understanding what's actually being written at this stage.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I don't think I'm the one who pivoted. I think that happened in your post referencing the Diplomat article.

No it isn't. I think we're at a point of just not understanding what's actually being written at this stage.

That's fine. We'll agree to disagree on who pivoted when and different interpretations on what the Diplomat article says.

[sterlingice]

It's so weird - it's like the first time in like 10 years that the SotU doesn't feel so frigid.

SI

[Edward64]

Biden is off to a good start.

[Edward64]

Lots of bipartisanship clapping as Ukraine was first up on the agenda.

Now back to the normal Dem clapping and GOP staying quiet.

[Lathum]

How much more of Boeberts shit is McCarthy gonna put up with?

[RainMaker]

Speech seemed fine. Did laugh at the oligarch part because he will never do that.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Lathum

How much more of Boeberts shit is McCarthy gonna put up with?

That's a feature not a bug. She can say stuff that speaks to the substantial crazy wing of the base and he and his ilk can pretend to be more like "standard" and "reasonable" politicians, even when they operate like anything but.

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

How much more of Boeberts shit is McCarthy gonna put up with?

I still think it's weird she is married to a convicted child sex offender and it doesn't get brought up much.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Lathum

How much more of Boeberts shit is McCarthy gonna put up with?

I feel Biden missed an opportunity there to call out McCarthy to control his caucus.

[albionmoonlight]

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

I think the WH is playing Manchin right. Whatever you think of his politics, the guy is as addicted to attention as a 12-year-old girl on TikTok. So just let him “win.” Stop trying to get his vote. And then he stops being the center of attention. And, lo and behold, he comes back to the table and back into the spotlight.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

I think the WH is playing Manchin right. Whatever you think of his politics, the guy is as addicted to attention as a 12-year-old girl on TikTok. So just let him “win.” Stop trying to get his vote. And then he stops being the center of attention. And, lo and behold, he comes back to the table and back into the spotlight.

West Virginia Presidential Election Voting History - 270toWin

He's in a unique situation. He thinks of himself as a Democrat because he grew up as solidly Democrat as they come. But West Virginia's interests have shifted in a way no other state has shifted because of the coal industry.

So he can't get himself to switch parties because it's in his DNA and there's plenty he doesn't share with the Republicans (hence, his voting record). On the other hand, the state has shifted and that's placed his own politics more on the Republican side.

He also comes from a time when the Senate was supposed be the place where compromises were ironed out and everything moved slowly. He doesn't think of himself as Democrats probably do today, but invariably, he gets into the spotlight because of the math. So did Susan Collins not that long ago. There are probably 10-12 senators who could conceivably wind up in these positions based on ideology, but I think Manchin's case is the most unusual. Sinema could presumably play a similar role, but I don't think she has the voting base to maintain it for more than a term.

[Edward64]

Biden has gotten a little bump. From recent low of 40.4 on Feb 27 to now 42.6 on Mar 4.

How Popular Is Joe Biden? | FiveThirtyEight

[Edward64]

Good for you Pence.

Pence: There's no room in GOP for "apologists for Putin"

“There is no room in this party for apologists" for Russian President Vladimir Putin former Vice President Mike Pence plans to tell top Republican donors during a speech in New Orleans on Friday.

Why it matters: The excerpted remarks appear to be the most forceful separation yet between the former vice president and his ex-boss, Donald Trump.

He does not mention Trump by name in the portions of the speech shared in advance.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Biden has gotten a little bump. From recent low of 40.4 on Feb 27 to now 42.6 on Mar 4.

How Popular Is Joe Biden? | FiveThirtyEight

I'm rooting for the Dems in 2022, but this feels like SOTU + Rally Around the Flag bump that will be gone by the mid-terms.

Still, I guess better than a negative bump from a shitty speech and a shitty response to Russia.

[albionmoonlight]

dola: In this polarized environment, it feels like the only type of politician that could ever consistently break that ~45% ceiling on approval would be a moderate Republican. But I don't see a moderate Republican making it through the GOP primary process anytime soon. So we seem stuck with Biden/Trump approval levels for a while.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Good for you Pence.

Pence: There's no room in GOP for "apologists for Putin"

He doesn't get on ounce of credit from me.

Perhaps had he mentioned Trump by name hi would get a smidge, but he is still too much a coward to do it.

[Edward64]

Drove to Home Depot and noticed unleaded at $4.10, up from $3.20'ish. A significant increase from a couple weeks ago.

Not sure how much of that is the war vs inflation.

[Lathum]

I noticed it went from 3.99 to 4.19 overnight here, also on the way to Home Depot.

I don't think it is the war or inflation. I think it is opportunistic oil companies making a huge profit.

[bronconick]

It's also time for the annual bullshit around spring where they switch refineries to the "summer blend" which leads to a hike.

[stevew]

Diesel up about $1 this week. Went from 4.49 to 4.95 overnight at this one station. Not sure what the top is here, but it could be $3 more before this is over.

[Edward64]

I guess that's why Biden is reluctant to stop buying Russian oil.

We need to find alternate sources or increase supply.

[Edward64]

Check Zillow every other week or so. No surprise that house value has increased but a surprisingly big jump from past couple of weeks.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I guess that's why Biden is reluctant to stop buying Russian oil.

We need to find alternate sources or increase supply.

We have over 9K permits not being used by oil companies. They ability is there, they would rather make huge profits than increase capacity.

[PilotMan]

Capitalism baby!

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Capitalism baby!

But the big oil men promised Biden they wouldn't raise rates to take advantage of the situation. Are you saying they lied? /s

SI

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

But the big oil men promised Biden they wouldn't raise rates to take advantage of the situation. Are you saying they lied? /s

SI

They are not raising rates. They are choosing to restrict supply to keep prices high. Which is smart business.

If the Dems can't/won't get the truth out there, then why should the oil companies care?

[Solecismic]

I know that's been quoted a lot this week, but what's the reality? There's a massive Gulf of Mexico lease sale that was canceled by Biden, reinstated by the court, took place, and is now being challenged again.

So if all these leases are available, why is that an issue at all? Why is anyone buying or trying to buy those Gulf leases.

It's just a question. But it seems the issue is a lot more complex than just there are leases available, so the oil companies are just evil.

What I do know is that it takes about a decade for a lease to result in a working well. Reasons for a particular lease not being worked could be expense (an oil company must pay for it while exploring it), the determination that it's unlikely to produce oil, any number of things. A lot of leases were canceled when Biden took office. Why? What stage were they in?

When we're importing a net 4 million barrels of crude oil a day and Russia is exporting a net 5 million barrels a day (and that gets shipped between countries, so those aren't direct sales - most of Russia's shipments go to the EU), I think it's a serious issue.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

When we're importing a net 4 million barrels of crude oil a day and Russia is exporting a net 5 million barrels a day (and that gets shipped between countries, so those aren't direct sales - most of Russia's shipments go to the EU), I think it's a serious issue.

Two weeks ago, it was good business. Two weeks and a new war later, it's bad foreign policy. Just like how in the last month there were debates in this very thread about how renewables are too expensive and unreliable and market forces should help dictate where we go. Right until we are reminded that a bunch of our oil comes from Russia and the Middle East. Never mind that in one case, we're talking about the whole of US production and on the other, we're talking about individual companies.

Just going to add this to the thread so we can point to it sometime in the next decade: Getting practically all of our semiconductors from Taiwan is also almost certainly going to be a very serious issue soon. (But god forbid we have to pay more for iPhones or keep them longer than 2 years or put wifi in everything from our fridges to microwaves for some stupid reason or way too many electronic controls in cars)

SI

[Solecismic]

No, it wasn't good business two weeks ago. Last summer, I kept reading that canceling new leases and canceling Keystone XL made Russia a lot more powerful for this exact reason. Germany closing down its nuclear reactors, EU countries shutting down natural gas production. All these decisions made Putin more powerful. Unfortunately, no one knew what he had planned (other than those who read his rambling histories of tsar-era Russia). That's the new part of this, but it has nothing to do with oil companies.

Sure, semiconductor reliance on Taiwan isn't great, either. And those factories are expensive and can't be built in two weeks and the raw materials needed for those chips come from places we'd rather not mention. We've had a chip shortage for a year now. And while we're at it, we can talk about rare earth metals. Trade is essential, but if you're mostly importing and doing far less exporting, you're not doing it right.

[RainMaker]

Much of that potential oil people are citing wouldn't stay here. It would be exported, if they actually drill for it. And that's a big if because part of the strategy is to sit on the land so others can't drill (and thus decreasing supply).

The dirty little secret is our oil refineries are outdated and can only handle heavy crude. So much of what we gained from the shale revolution can't even be used here. And much of the oil we drill for here can't even be used here.

If the issue is about oil independence (it's not), then the push would be to build new refineries that can handle the oil we actually have. But that's an expensive investment and at this time, it's cheaper to export it all and import the heavy stuff. Shareholders aren't looking 5 years down the line, they need that next quarter to be up, and building new refineries isn't in the cards.

[RainMaker]

Also worth mentioning that a few years ago the Saudis got into a fight with Russia and cranked up their oil production. It led to that weird time where oil futures went negative. The United States asked the Saudis to cut back on oil. A move that greatly benefited Russia.

Just remember that the people who are screaming about high prices were the one's who's actions led to them.

[Solecismic]

The US can certainly send it to Europe. Also, we can reduce the red tape related to building a new refinery - the reason we don't have new ones (I think the first new refinery in more than 40 years went online a couple of years ago, targeted at the light oil) is the regulation and the constant lawsuits. We'd have Keystone XL by now without all that as well, which would greatly increase refining efficiency.

I think at this point we need to increase production as quickly as possible and get development and investment costs lower. It's not corporate greed, it's bureaucracy and legal fights driving costs up that's given Russia the ability to do this. We just can't expect the Middle East to bail us out. Or go to Venezuela and expect Maduro to suddenly become our best friend. We are importing about five million barrels a day and that must change.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I think at this point we need to increase production as quickly as possible and get development and investment costs lower. It's not corporate greed, it's bureaucracy and legal fights driving costs up that's given Russia the ability to do this. We just can't expect the Middle East to bail us out. Or go to Venezuela and expect Maduro to suddenly become our best friend. We are importing about five million barrels a day and that must change.

In the short term < 2 years, apply pressure on frenemies to increase oil production for the heavy crude. In the long term, help grow the alternative energy (subsidize electric vehicles, build those charging stations etc.).

In any case, oil prices are going to go up in the short term.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Edward64

In the short term < 2 years, apply pressure on frenemies to increase oil production for the heavy crude. In the long term, help grow the alternative energy (subsidize electric vehicles, build those charging stations etc.).

In any case, oil prices are going to go up in the short term.

They will.

However, EV's make up about 3% of what's on the road and 4-5% of new car sales. A disproportionate percentage of that on the West Coast (where there already are more charging stations). And for many people, EVs don't meet their daily needs. For many more, they don't live in homes that could even support a charging station.

Given the chip shortage and the increase in the price of new cars, change isn't a realistic goal. Plus any switch to renewable is a bet on long-term benefits. It takes an awful lot of energy to make batteries and everything else that goes into a new car. And, while it's of long-term benefit to the equation, EVs do require electricity, which then adds to the need to generate electricity.

Even the long-term plans are suspect. In the UK, which is further down this road and far fewer people need a longer-running car, plans will require EV connections that discharge into the grid during peak demand because of the above problem. That, in term, would reduce the life of the battery by a large percentage, likely making the entire EV investment a large negative one when it comes to energy versus oil-powered.

I would love for the world to move past digging up dead life and burning it as a source of energy. But we are dependent on a stable electric grid and battery technology isn't even close to what we need to make this transition.

Russia realized this, has so far avoided even making vague commitments to a standard we can't possibly entertain as realistic (net zero), and found wealth and power in doubling down in its role as providing oil so that people in the EU and the US could feel better about not burning it themselves. But when you outsource this kind of thing, you're outsourcing power and strength. So here we are.

[Solecismic]

As for pressuring the unfriendly countries of Iran and Venezuela... why give even more power to countries that will absolutely choose China and Russia over us in any conflict? And with Iran run by a theocracy that is determined to eliminate Israel and control its region, removing sanctions is reckless. Iran right now... not even frenemy. Dangerous and not much question how they feel about the US.

[Edward64]

I'm a glass half full guy (especially when drinking some whiskey on a Sun night). But I sure as heck hope this comes true.

That 40 mile (?) convoy is stuck. Ukraine had a good day shooting down Russian air assets yesterday. 16K foreign fighters inbound (suspect this is overstated), seemingly news everyday about NATO member donating weapons, and the big news about Biden greenlighting Poland to give their Migs to Ukraine.

Russian forces are 'decimated' says top UK general | Daily Mail Online

Vladimir Putin's 'decimated' forces could lose the war in Ukraine, the UK's top military commander has suggested.

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin said Russia's troops were 'in a mess' and the invasion was 'not going well'.

His comments yesterday represent the most optimistic assessment yet of how the conflict may end – but came on another bleak day, with Russian forces firing on families as they fled the fighting.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

As for pressuring the unfriendly countries of Iran and Venezuela... why give even more power to countries that will absolutely choose China and Russia over us in any conflict? And with Iran run by a theocracy that is determined to eliminate Israel and control its region, removing sanctions is reckless. Iran right now... not even frenemy. Dangerous and not much question how they feel about the US.

Definitely wasn't talking about China or Iran. Thinking more about SA and rest of the gulf states as frenemies.

Specifically for Venezuela, any power will be a shorter term. It will fill their pockets with $ and will buy them some goodwill from US and western Europe, but that's about it for "power".

Why not, the critical stage for Maduro has come and passed. Arguably one can say that increase oil sales will help Maduro but that is moot. We had a chance to really support the other guy but bailed on him (for whatever frakkin reason) and Maduro look like he'll be hanging around for a while.

[RainMaker]

For those concerned about energy prices, why not pass a bill that would accelerate alternative energy sources and provide a gas tax holiday? You can use the foreign currency reserves of Russia's that are currently being frozen to pay for it.

[Atocep]

The keystone pipeline has to be right up there with CRT as the most misunderstood issues the right wing is crying about.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The keystone pipeline has to be right up there with CRT as the most misunderstood issues the right wing is crying about.

It is the perfect example of how the right wing media uses faux outrage to keep the uneducated in check. The thing is these people don't even want to be educated because they need something to be angry about.

[GrantDawg]

I was just saying to my wife this morning that I really don't know a group now that is not in constant outrage.

[Solecismic]

It seems to make people feel better to call "right wing" anything their preferred media is against. Pipelines are important because they distribute crude (in this case the heavier varieties) quickly and efficiently. Keystone wouldn't lower prices tomorrow or even a year from now (it would take a year or so to finish, unless newer construction regulations hold it up further). But it is an important part of the overall energy independence picture.

There's no quick way to get there. Unfortunately, for those who think wind and solar are the only way to get there, the technologies to make that even possible have yet to be invented. That's why Germany is in a lot worse shape than we are.

Surely by now people are beginning to understand that if we don't do this, all we're doing is sending out the laundry and having Russia and China burn the fuels for us. Which is why we can't save Ukraine. We can only hope stories of the Russian army's incompetence and obsolescence are true and that they won't just become more and more brutal in this invasion to compensate.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It seems to make people feel better to call "right wing" anything their preferred media is against.

Do you not consider Fox News, OAN, Newsmax, patriot radio, infowars, Briebart, and the various personalities associated with those programs right wing?

I put patriot radio on today to get some other perspective and the host was screaming abut how the radical democrats only goal is to control the fuel and they don't care if you run out.

We heard about caravans of immigrants overrunning the border, rapists, drug dealers, human traffickers, etc...Your kids will learn about anal sex in school, they will be taught to feel bad about themselves for being white, they will make you take the covid shot and use it to control you, your freedoms are being stolen by minorities and illegals, your jobs, you schools, etc...cities overrun with crime like we live in some dystopian society, it goes on and on. All of it from right wing media, so yes, they traffic in fear to keep their audience in check. Their audience is in constant state of fear and anger, and it is a powerful and addictive drug. I lived with my in laws for over a year while we were buying our house and Fox News was ALWAYS on, I heard it every day.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

But it is an important part of the overall energy independence picture.

The oil comes from another country. It is also oil we are currently getting delivered anyways. No increase in supply at all in this deal.

Also, the expansion is primarily from tar sands. A type we don't refine much of and would simply export to other countries.

Adding this kind of oil does nothing to help us unless there are some new refineries built. And those are incredibly expensive and companies have been reluctant to invest in it.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Do you not consider Fox News, OAN, Newsmax, patriot radio, infowars, Briebart, and the various personalities associated with those programs right wing?

Various degrees, but yes. Just as I consider The NYT, WaPo, CNN, PBS and the broadcast networks and their various personalities left wing, by various degrees.

I try to read a variety of sources, but I do not claim to have all the answers. Sometimes, even Brietbart is probably right, though you have to wade through a lot of bs if you go there. Sometimes, even CNN is right, though all they run in the evenings seems extreme.

I'm just a person. I don't want to align myself with a brand or a news channel or a web site. The world seems more complex than that.

In this case, trying to read as much as I can, I think we've gotten ourselves into this for three reasons. One, because people seem to think it's OK to let countries in Asia (and for this purpose I'll include the majority of Russia's territory, which is in Asia) burn our fossil fuels for us. You don't have to be an expert on Hegel's philosophies to understand that transfers a lot of political power.

Two, because we insist on looking at the world through a US lens. That worked for a long time, because we pretty much saved the world 75 years ago. And awful foreign policy decisions, particularly since the Cold War ended (but Vietnam would count) has squandered that. Putin gave us some insight into his lens last year and it's a scary look - not one that we can ignore today. He simply doesn't care about the Ukrainian people, or, really, his own people.

And three, because we are so divided as a people right now. We let our media and our politicians divide us over issues that really shouldn't be that bad. If we are concerned about increasing crime, then one side calls us names and the other side uses the crime to accuse the other side of wanting to destroy society. The result being we can't talk about crime at all. If we're afraid to talk about anything except in these extremes, our lenses are quite astigmatic. As is Putin's, but in a different way.

TLR - I think we're fucked.