d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Official Joe Biden 2020 Thread
Prev15875885895905911037Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 54,174
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Aug 16 2021 03:26pm
During the Trump presidency, a lot of political commentators noted the strong parallels between the Nixon and the Trump presidency.
Well, the parallels between the Carter and the Biden presidency are shaping up to be even more striking, aren't they?


Both Biden and Carter succeeded a Republican elected president who had left office in disgrace and scandal.
Both had elevated moral aspirations for their presidency.
Both struggle with surging inflation.
Both are struggling to cope with a shortage of oil and are being held by the balls by OPEC.
Both presided over the final stage of a long-standing, unpopular, unsuccessful war effort in a third world country.
Both vastly underestimated the speed with which the opponent would sweep the country after the withdrawal of American ground troops, and subsequently oversaw a disastrous, chaotic, humiliating evacuation.
Both of them presided over a sharp surge in urban crime.
Both tried to sell Americans on the idea of doing with less, Carter because he couldn't solve stagflation, Biden due to the climate.



Now, Biden still has time to turn things around, but the trajectory of his presidency is not looking good at all in recent weeks. Things weren't going smoothly before (see: https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=82747482&f=119&p=572419645#p572419645 ) and the very humiliating visuals of the collapse in Afghanistan are the cherry on top.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 16 2021 03:29pm
Member
Posts: 4,802
Joined: Feb 6 2020
Gold: 347.20
Aug 16 2021 03:32pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Aug 16 2021 05:26pm)
During the Trump presidency, a lot of political commentators noted the strong parallels between the Nixon and the Trump presidency.
Well, the parallels between the Carter and the Biden presidency are shaping up to be even more striking, aren't they?


Both Biden and Carter succeeded a Republican elected president who had left office in disgrace and scandal.
Both had elevated moral aspirations for their presidency.
Both struggle with surging inflation.
Both are struggling to cope with a shortage of oil and are being held by the balls by OPEC.
Both presided over the final stage of a long-standing, unpopular, unsuccessful war effort in a third world country.
Both vastly underestimated the speed with which the opponent would sweep the country after the withdrawal of American ground troops, and subsequently oversaw a disastrous, chaotic, humiliating evacuation.
Both of them presided over a sharp surge in urban crime.
Both tried to sell Americans on the idea of doing with less, Carter because he couldn't solve stagflation, Biden due to the climate.



Now, Biden still has time to turn things around, but the trajectory of his presidency is not looking good at all in recent weeks. Things weren't going smoothly before (see: https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=82747482&f=119&p=572419645#p572419645 ) and the very humiliating visuals of the collapse in Afghanistan are the cherry on top.


You guys voted for this corpse, y'all deal with the consequence. I'd start by forcing everyone who live inside to go to concentration camp to become grown men, i'd force people to aim for a specific IQ and forced to learn until they worthy otherwise concentration camp.

We have too many weak people on this planet and it make no sense.
Member
Posts: 54,174
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Aug 16 2021 04:56pm
Quote (thundercock @ 16 Aug 2021 07:14)
To me, nation building results in stability. A dictatorship is perfectly acceptable in certain circumstances IMO. As for troops, I think there's the concept of occupation where a nation is under subjugation and then theirs the aspect of relying on a foreign power for security and peacekeeping. Ultimately, I think a successful "built nation" is one that doesn't require foreign troops to resolve domestic disputes AND it's a nation that is decently friendly to the "builder."

For Afghanistan, it's pretty clear that democracy can't work and some sort of tribal council would have been a better option. Perhaps it would have been better to have a third party broker a deal as well. I'm sure this will be studied for decades.


Nation building must result in stability to be considered successful, sure. Agreed. But that does not answer my question: should any foreign intervention which ultimately ends in stability be considered nation building, even if there was no concerted effort to, for example, train and organize a local security force, construct schools and roads, build institutions or implement democracy? I, personally, don't think so. The mere presence of our troops in a foreign country is not sufficient to pat ourselves on the back and call it "nation building" if the country is able to turn the stability afforded by our troops into sustainable structures after decades of organic, self-created progress.


Maybe a silly analogy, but think of it like this: a farmer is keeping cattle, providing them with food, fencing and so on so that they can thrive and live safely. The cattle procreate randomly the way the animals see fit, they chose their partner, not the farmer. If there one day is a particularly impressive specimen among the offspring, should the farmer be allowed to call himself a successful breeder, even if he pursued no specific breeding efforts?

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 16 2021 04:58pm
Member
Posts: 4,802
Joined: Feb 6 2020
Gold: 347.20
Aug 16 2021 05:10pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Aug 16 2021 06:56pm)
Nation building must result in stability to be considered successful, sure. Agreed. But that does not answer my question: should any foreign intervention which ultimately ends in stability be considered nation building, even if there was no concerted effort to, for example, train and organize a local security force, construct schools and roads, build institutions or implement democracy? I, personally, don't think so. The mere presence of our troops in a foreign country is not sufficient to pat ourselves on the back and call it "nation building" if the country is able to turn the stability afforded by our troops into sustainable structures after decades of organic, self-created progress.


Maybe a silly analogy, but think of it like this: a farmer is keeping cattle, providing them with food, fencing and so on so that they can thrive and live safely. The cattle procreate randomly the way the animals see fit, they chose their partner, not the farmer. If there one day is a particularly impressive specimen among the offspring, should the farmer be allowed to call himself a successful breeder, even if he pursued no specific breeding efforts?


We called people who defended their backyard terrorist.

So if China invade America and we Canadian laugh bout the situation and bet on China.

Do we have to call the Americans shooting back at Chinese people terrorist for defending their land while we talk between us while we watch the show?

This post was edited by SunnyvaleTrailerPark on Aug 16 2021 05:10pm
Member
Posts: 54,174
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Aug 16 2021 05:17pm
A very good story from back in April about Biden's first trip to Afghanistan in 2002, and what he and the NYTimes reporter Thomas Friedman who accompanied him were seeing and experiencing:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/18/opinion/joe-biden-afghanistan-2002.html

Quote
Back in 2002 it was reasonable to hope that our invasion there to topple Osama bin Laden and his Taliban allies could be extended to help make that country a more stable, tolerant and decent place for its citizens — and less likely to host jihadist groups. But it was also reasonable to fear from the start that trying to graft a Western political culture onto such a deeply tribalized, male-dominated and Islamic fundamentalist culture like Afghanistan’s was a fool’s errand


Quote
My heart told me to write that America must remain here, for however long it takes, with however many troops it takes, to repair this country, and provide a minimum level of security so it can get on its feet again. It was the least we owed the place, having already abandoned it once after the Soviet withdrawal. [...]

“But while my heart kept pulling me in one direction, my head, and my eyes, kept encountering things that were deeply troubling. It started when I went along with Biden to meet the Minister of the Interior for the Interim Government, Yunus Qanooni, who is a Tajik. Behind his desk, where a minister should be hanging the picture of his president (Hamid Karzai, an ethnic Pashtun), he had a picture of Ahmed Shah Massoud (an ethnic Tajik), the leader of the Northern Alliance who was assassinated just before September 11.

“Tom Friedman’s first rule of politics: Never trust a country where a new minister has the picture of his favorite dead militia leader, not the country’s (interim) president, over his desk. It seemed to me that the tribal warrior culture ran so deep in this place, it would be hard for any neutral central government to sink real roots. As I contemplated that militia leader’s picture, I wondered to myself: ‘When were the good old days for government in Afghanistan? Before Genghis Khan? Before gunpowder?’”

Indeed, I wrote in my column that week that I lingered one evening in the famous bookstore of the Intercontinental Hotel, which had an amazing collection of books on Afghan history. As I perused the shelves, I wrote, “I was struck by how many books had ‘Afghan wars’ in the title. I picked up one called ‘A History of the War in Afghanistan’ and discovered it was part of a thick two-volume set that covered only the years 1800 to 1842.” I was also struck by the collection of postcards offered in that bookstore — one in particular. It was a two-part picture; one part was of a shell-ravaged building, and the other part of a damaged hallway, with the roof collapsed and rubble strewn all over the floor. The caption read: “Afghanistan, the looted and destroyed Kabul Museum.”

That is the sign of a country too long at war — when it is producing postcards of the rubble. And that was the question that Biden and I wrestled with throughout that trip: What were the foundations — physical, cultural, political, economic, religious and social — from which Afghans, with American and NATO help, might build a more decent, less corrupt, modern political system? Could the future bury the past there or would the past always bury the future?


This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 16 2021 05:18pm
Member
Posts: 4,802
Joined: Feb 6 2020
Gold: 347.20
Aug 16 2021 07:35pm
Biden says preventing terrorist attacks on our American homeland. Yet he leaves the border wide open so his allies the Talibans can come in.

Without Pakistan, there is no Taliban; without support of China, there is no Pakistan; without world wide support of cheap purchases, there is no China.

This post was edited by SunnyvaleTrailerPark on Aug 16 2021 07:56pm
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
Aug 16 2021 08:06pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Aug 16 2021 02:26pm)
During the Trump presidency, a lot of political commentators noted the strong parallels between the Nixon and the Trump presidency.
Well, the parallels between the Carter and the Biden presidency are shaping up to be even more striking, aren't they?


Both Biden and Carter succeeded a Republican elected president who had left office in disgrace and scandal.
Both had elevated moral aspirations for their presidency.
Both struggle with surging inflation.
Both are struggling to cope with a shortage of oil and are being held by the balls by OPEC.
Both presided over the final stage of a long-standing, unpopular, unsuccessful war effort in a third world country.
Both vastly underestimated the speed with which the opponent would sweep the country after the withdrawal of American ground troops, and subsequently oversaw a disastrous, chaotic, humiliating evacuation.
Both of them presided over a sharp surge in urban crime.
Both tried to sell Americans on the idea of doing with less, Carter because he couldn't solve stagflation, Biden due to the climate.



Now, Biden still has time to turn things around, but the trajectory of his presidency is not looking good at all in recent weeks. Things weren't going smoothly before (see: https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=82747482&f=119&p=572419645#p572419645 ) and the very humiliating visuals of the collapse in Afghanistan are the cherry on top.


The fall of Saigon occurred under Ford, not Carter. Ford was Nixon's successor and Carter succeeded Ford. I think the only real comparison is the perceived weakness of Biden and Carter. The other comparisons aren't even close because America under Carter was REALLY bad compared to what we have now.
Member
Posts: 54,174
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Aug 16 2021 10:30pm
Quote (thundercock @ 17 Aug 2021 04:06)
The fall of Saigon occurred under Ford, not Carter. Ford was Nixon's successor and Carter succeeded Ford. I think the only real comparison is the perceived weakness of Biden and Carter. The other comparisons aren't even close because America under Carter was REALLY bad compared to what we have now.


...
........

FML :wallbash:

But despite my little history fail, this actually exacerbates the comparison from Biden's POV. The Ford and Carter presidencies were perceived as failures - and just 7 months into his term, he's already plagued by the combined struggles of both of these "loser presidencies". Like I said, he still has time to turn things around, but if the current trajectory continues, it's gonna be really rough.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 16 2021 10:31pm
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
Aug 16 2021 10:43pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Aug 16 2021 09:30pm)
...
........

FML :wallbash:

But despite my little history fail, this actually exacerbates the comparison from Biden's POV. The Ford and Carter presidencies were perceived as failures - and just 7 months into his term, he's already plagued by the combined struggles of both of these "loser presidencies". Like I said, he still has time to turn things around, but if the current trajectory continues, it's gonna be really rough.


No one faults Ford for Vietnam. Hell, I don't think most people even know that he was President! The only real threat to Biden is inflation. If we have high inflation and wages don't keep up, the Dems are toast in 2022. Even if Biden passes all of his programs, it's going to take time for them to actually help people. Suppose that Medicare starts covering dental, vision, and hearing. Will all that be implemented prior to November 2022? Will enough people be able to take advantage of it for it to matter?
Member
Posts: 50,901
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 5,836.00
Aug 17 2021 12:15am
Joe Biden was untested on foreign policy until now. Trump's first real showdown was chemical weapons in Syria, and he passed with flying colors. He went on to have a successful run at foreign policy. Now Joe Biden got his first taste of foreign entanglement, and it was an unmitigated disaster, the worst handled crisis by the US in 20-40 years. I was hopeful that this would be one area Joe Biden could beat Obama at, given how low the bar was set with the Arab Spring and Libya and ISIS and Iraq withdrawal and Syria and Ukraine/Crimea and Egypt and damn it was a laundry list of failures.

Well its a hard race to the bottom yet Joe.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev15875885895905911037Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll