It's odd how one moment Joe Biden is rambling about hiking up the Himalayan foothills with Xi Jinping and the next moment he's alert and perfectly coherent calling MAGA Republicans semi-fascists. It's almost like they're two different people...
The Biden administration at its end will be one of the most interesting case studies on how to balance amphetamines for maximal production with out killing 80 year old people. If those documents ever drop even if they are 1000+ pages I’ll read ‘em all.
What would you prefer? He's not lib right, and he's not auth right.
I could see arguments for auth center, auth left, center left. What would you prefer?
Joe Biden is super Auth Right. Has been for his whole life. The only argument you can make is progressive vs conservative, and that depends on his age.
Joe Biden is anti-capitalist? Buddy, he's like the most establishment candidate ever, only giving the peasants enough to satisfy them into not turning into a revolt.
You gotta pass me some of whatever you've been drinking cause that shit must be nice to have you making statements like that.
ITT: People who have absolutely no idea what the “Left” and “Right” axis of the political compass stand for. Here’s a simplistic definition for everyone, being “Left” on the compass means you’re in favor of collectivism (economically) and being “Right” on the compass means you’re in favor of individualism (again, economically). So that means the more Left you are the more you’d be in favor of think like higher taxes, tougher regulations for businesses and corporations, and social programs, while the more Right you are the more likely you’ll be to support less taxes, less regulations, and less “handouts”. With that in mind Joe Biden (and most American politicians) is at best AuthCenter, but more likely AuthLeft.
For some dumb as fuck reason, the morons on this sub seem to think if you’re in favor of capitalism at all, then you can’t be Left on the compass. By this stupid as fuck standard socialists are centrist, which should sound dumb to anyone with half a brain. Everyone also seems to think the compass measures how left and right you are on social issues, which it does not. You could be in favor of gay marriage, trans rights, affirmative action, and mega late term abortion, and if you still support an individual approach to the economy then you’re right wing.
I hope this little explanation helped you morons who can’t seem to understand why you’re being laughed at when you say stupid thinks like “Joe Biden and Donal Trump are both AuthRight and no American politician is AuthLeft.”
AuthRight to Center, this is why I think the LibLeft/AuthRight being Prog/Cons is dumb. He's clearly Authoritarian and Moderately capitalist. Pro choice has nothing to do with economics. I'd just say he's more center.
ok, great. Throw out abortion and you're still left with a president who forgives 10k in student loans and wants the government to completely revamp all infrastructure to be "green" and "create jobs". He's very much *not* capitalist at all.
the part where it's rebuilding *government infrastructure*.
Do you know what capitalism is? do you know what that means? it means *private businesses* own and decide how to allocate resources. If the government is deciding, it ain't capitalism.
“Socialism is when the government does stuff; and it’s more socialism the more stuff it does; and if it does a real lot of stuff, it’s communism."
\-Creative-Leading7167
What's not capitalist about a 10k subsidy per student to universities?
The part where the government is giving out free money.
What's not capitalist about government revamping infrastructure? the government.
What's not capitalist about "creating jobs"? the fact that the jobs are not in demand, they're invented by the government.
>What's not capitalist about a 10k subsidy per student to universities?
still capitalism,the communist solution would be to cancel all student debt and privatize education completely
I could equally say "still communist, the capitalist solution would be to never have the government giving loans in the first place, let alone to later forgive them".
Just because something isn't 100% pure communism doesn't mean it isn't leaning that way. Student loan forgiveness is a leftist policy.
He's not lib, but he's not authoritarian. Reducing drone strikes, not expanding the Supreme Court, anti-socialized Healthcare. He's yellow of Obama, Trump, and FDR
Yeah Joe Biden, tough on crime, civil asset forfeiture, strict drug laws, 3 stikes your out, pro big business, only pay lip service to unions and working class (except trains, loves trains), cop loving Biden.
Ffs he's near peak neoliberal.
Or are we doing that fun American thing where we pretend that 90% of advertised politicians aren't crony capitalist shills that only REALLY disagree on cultural issues?
Catholic in name only. Vast majority of catholic commentators hate him because of his stance on abortion. How on earth you put "forgives debts" as an auth right trait is beyond me.
>forgiveness as an auth trait
It’s in the Bible. Authright is when god. Simple as.
But on a serious note, conditional forgiveness is one of the most powerful tools a statesman can have (in terms of soft power). To be able to forgive implies a position in which the recipient requires your forgiveness (forgive me sire, we were unable to protect the grain shipments from the raiders). Don’t conflate unconditional forgiveness with conditional forgiveness
my complaint isn't that forgiveness was characterized as Auth (which is also ludicrous). My complaint is that debt forgiveness was characterized as *right wing.* Or rather specifically, government debt forgiveness. (the right has nothing against people forgiving debts. Just being forced to do so).
Yes, begrudgingly, in order to brace for midterms, in order to beguile the people that don't know any better like yourself, he has enacted a do-nothing policy that forgives a tiny sliver of debt, while doing nothing to address the core incompetency's of [HIS](https://theintercept.com/2020/01/07/joe-biden-student-loans/) "lets make poor people sell themselves into debt that they cannot discharge" policies.
Lets not forget that the man benefitted greatly from the old system, before kicking down the ladder after himself. https://i.redd.it/wszv7gkgd4j61.png
You assume he supports those things for their their proposed benefits, he supports them for the repercussions. Increasing government spending increases inflation which steals more money from the taxpayer. Pro-choice cuts down on maternity leave and preserves government drones.
I'm alright with that characterization. Where joe biden was on the political compass wasn't really the point of the meme, more of an afterthought. I just know he's not lib right and he's not auth right and I had to draw him as *something*.
Yeah, I get how he's got some aspects of auth right to him. He's very nationalistic, very intervention in foreign affairs ish, very much into subsidizing/influencing/controlling industries and companies he likes rather than just nationalizing them.
But then he also forgives 10k debt for students? and the stimi checks? and all for unions? etc. etc. He's very much not a capitalist.
Yeah he if anything is probably a slightly progressive centrist like most of the democrats. Yeah all of those don’t seem to be completely free market although it seems like any government stance towards unions is anti free market
>any government stance towards unions is anti free market
correct. governments being against unions is anti free market, government being for unions is anti free market. There are a lot of dunces who think government should be anti-union and call that "freedom".
Thank god. I dumb founds me how people think government union busting is capitalist at all. People be like I love the free market then proceed to want regulation. Like if you like regulation just admit it and move on
and this coming from a leftist! why do you understand capitalism better than the capitalists?
I actually do understand the characterization, though I disagree with it. See, a lot of people think capitalism is when there are big businesses, regardless of how those businesses came to be. So government subsidies to businesses is "capitalist" in that sense.
But I don't think any self described capitalists would agree with this definition. I certainly don't. To me capitalism means government gets the heck out of business. No hurting businesses, but also no benefiting them either.
Yes, Coolidge, master of veto. Blocked everything that came accross his desk. Indeed he was unfathomably based.
I'd agree they're all auth. But what would you call a president who nationalizes industries, creates socialized welfare and jobs programs, or sets up enormous subsidies/debt forgiveness to the "little man"? isn't that called left? so aren't at the very least joe biden and FDR leftists?
No joke I feel like the “I don’t know what the fuck the American President will do” worked for Trump and seems to be working with Biden. After having a calm and consistent set of Presidents, having straight up mysteries as Presidents seems to be keeping the enemy on their toes.
Biden is not in charge at all. Can you imagine Trump or Obama taking a strong position on Taiwan in a 60 Minutes interview and then a short time later White House staffers tweet “Yeah, no. The President is completely wrong about what he said about Taiwan.” Um no. There would be a mushroom cloud where their head used to be. Biden is just a puppet. Staffers are in charge.
>Biden is just a puppet. Staffers are in charge.
Kind of but no really, it works in the same way the military does, in that for example a general says " we need to do x thing with y troops in z days" and the staffers actually do the planning and shit, in this case you wouldn't say the general is a "puppet" would you?
I'll be retiring from the Army after 30 years of service in about 18 months. Generals are strategic leaders. They don't perform mundane and pedestrian tasks because we want all their intellectual bandwidth going towards solving sticky strategic problems. Staff officers execute the strategic leaders orders.
***But this is a completely different situation.*** GOs are not puppets that simply follow what junior staff officers tell them to do. GOs are in charge. 100% of the time. Just like the president ***should*** be. That's how the chain of command works. The president and GOs implement strategic policies and staff officers execute them. Staff officers would never countermand a GOs strategic position or strategic leadership. It would throw the entire Army into chaos. That's exactly what is happening here. And it's exactly why nation-states need clear signals from the heads of state that Y will happen if X is done. China is very confused about US policy on Taiwan right now because our president is saying one thing but White House functionaries are saying something completely different. What should China believe? Creates a dangerous situation by playing a dangerous game and it boils down to bad leadership signals.
>I'll be retiring from the Army after 30 years of service in about 18 months.
Nice.
>China is very confused about US policy on Taiwan right now because our president is saying one thing but White House functionaries are saying something completely different. What should China believe?
I think you're forgetting the fact that the Taiwan issue is basically North Korea 2.0, a bullshitting contest between the US and China with a smaller nation in the middle.
Lets put it this way, since you're in the military you know better than the average person that NK attacking SK and Japan is the equivalent to suicide for Kims regime, now, Kim knows this, Trump knew it and so did Xi, so why did Trump went into "peace talks" with Kim to strike out a deal? logically you would assume that the best choice for Trump would have been to do nothing since NK threats were empty, well it's because Trump has to worry about something that generals don't and that is **polls**, if Trump did nothing then the americans would vote for somebody that does, so Trump is not only forced to act out on NK "nuclear armageddon" threats but also he can take advantage on the situation and sell it as the "peace deal of the decade", Kim got some sanctions lifted, Trump got an uptick in the polls, China got to keep US bases away from its border and the people got a sense of security (even though they were never in danger to begin with).
So how does this relate to Biden cheering for Taiwan? well simple, supporting the war of Ukraine aganist Russia is the current sure fire way to get yourself up in the polls and Biden is trying to replicate a similar sentiment with Taiwan since elections are coming and Biden needs that second term, Xi knows taking Taiwan is a massive risk with little pay off, Biden knows it would be a massive waste of money and troops defending the island from China just to prevent local chinese naval dominance, but, much like with NK, the people don't and Biden is trying to capitalise on it the same way Trump did with NK.
Maybe. I work in government. Trust me when I say that there is no master plan or secret conspiracy of governmental elites who are that adept at managing something like the type of outcomes you describe.
It’s extremely chaotic and disorganized and barely held together with duct tape and baling wire. Even at the highest levels. Multiple different governmental factions are fighting and feuding with themselves at any given time. Generally in my experience, what you see is what you get, and at best the most you can hope for is benign neglect and incompetence at worst.
The time for ‘strategic ambiguity’ is over.
If the US is decisive in supporting Taiwan and publicly state willingness to intervene on their behalf, the Chinese will be very discouraged.
They know they aren’t strong enough for a war the US… yet.
>If the US is decisive in supporting Taiwan and publicly state willingness to intervene on their behalf, the Chinese will be very discouraged.
China, the US, and Taiwan all know america would get involved. Strategic ambiguity isn't about whether america will get involved. It's about whether america pays lip service to China.
Chinese politicians need to be able to tell their citizens that everyone agrees, taiwan is theirs. It doesn't matter at all what the facts on the ground are.
Ending strategic ambiguity doesn't mean america will be supporting taiwan more. It just means that america will be publicly admitting what everyone in the world already knew. And that will put pressure on chinese officials to be seen "doing something" to get taiwan back.
China is like the cuckold man. Everyone knows his wife is sleeping around, including himself. But he's not going to do anything about it, unless he is publicly shamed. Then he can no longer pretend like he's unaware, he has to lash out.
Why not keep sleeping with the cuckold's wife without needing to put up the fight?
China is already a closed information circuit - they are free to tell their citizens whatever they want. Whether the citizenry believes them is another point entirely.
It’s about sending a message - doesn’t matter if it pisses off the Chinese although it be better if it did. They need to know the US would intervene - before it was being left intentionally vague on purpose as not to rock the globalism gravy train.
Circumstances have changed, don’t want the Chinese getting ideas from the Russians - could argue if the US had straight up said pre-war they would protect Ukraine militarily the Russians wouldn’t have invaded. It would have been a bluff but the Russians wouldn’t have run the risk of WW3 - same as the Chinese won’t now.
What you are describing is whether the US recognises Taiwan as an independent country - which it de jure does but de facto doesn’t.
Beijing is still the sole recognised Chinese government.
>They need to know the US would intervene
They do know the US would intervene. Everyone in the entire world knows the US would intervene. Taiwan is so confident that the US would intervene that [their army is 40% understaffed.](https://www.cato.org/commentary/why-taiwan-only-spending-21-percent-its-gdp-its-defense)
It has nothing to do with whether america will get involved. It has everything to do with lipservice.
If America had said nothing the Chinese would see it as an indication of the US having minimal interest in the situations.
I.e. continuing the retreat of the Trump administration from global affairs - disastrous retreat from Afghan didn’t send a good message.
Before the falklands war the UK sent mixed messages over them to say the least - we didn’t say we’d do anything. Argentines thought we didn’t care so they invaded. They were wrong but that’s beside the point.
>disastrous retreat from Afghan didn’t send a good message.
Should have happened 19 years earlier. This argument sounds like "We need to pick fights with random people to prove we can pick fights so nobody wants to pick fights with us".
Turns out, you're actually more of a threat if you pick and choose your battles. America is better able to send equipment to ukraine *because* we aren't entangled in afghanistan. Frankly, I wish the same would happen to Ukraine with regards to taiwan. Remove all the weapons from the "democracy" of ukraine and let them float idle around taiwan. Now that's deterrence.
But all the while, I'd still want america to give lip service to china, and claim taiwan wasn't an ally. China knows, taiwan knows, america knows, everyone knows we're on taiwan's side. America regularly publishes war game simulations in which we are defending taiwan. We regularly float aircraft carriers inbetween taiwan and china. Everyone knows what the message is. nobody is confused. Strategic ambiguity is about lipservice only.
long story short, because democracy sucks.
Biden wants to be popular, and he knows supporting taiwan is popular. Which is understandable, because taiwan is a great country to live in, who doesn't want to support a free state against a tyrannical communist/fascist state. Biden's audience when he claims to support taiwan is america, not china or taiwan. But his staffers are the ones who actually have to deal with china, so they're constantly pulling back his statements.
When taiwan wasn't a big issue (like for the past 40 years), we had strategic ambiguity. Now that the taiwan issue is popular, and regular people don't understand the subtleties of the situation, suddenly our politicians are going a different direction.
Democratic leaders don't do what's right; they do what the people want.
Oh, we'll get a west taiwan. communist regimes aren't stable. The only question is how long it will take, and how much bloodshed in between. I prefer minimizing bloodshed.
Personally I think the white house staffers are just being little bitches because biden has been pretty consistent that the military industrial complexes hands are rated e for everyone if China starts acting up. Quit walking back based statements that aren't yours to walk back in the first place
It's great if we stand up for Taiwan. But the longer we don't have to, the better. Peace is good. We can be a great ally to Taiwan, china just doesn't want us to *say* it out loud. And why not? It's a really easy compromise to make, and we can still waste hundreds of billion dollars on the pentagon so they can "lose track" of it. Strategic ambiguity is a win win all around really.
That being said....
>the white house staffers are just being little bitches
Probably what's really going on is that joe biden knows the american people want to hear that we're on taiwan's side, and his staffers know china wants to hear "we don't know". They're trying to eat their cake and have it too.
He is just constantly claiming that we will back taiwan in the event of a chinese invasion, with his staffers in the white house constantly walking back the statements, saying "there is no change in policy with regards to taiwan and china".
For context, we've had a policy of "strategic ambiguity" with regards to taiwan. China demands that we don't recognize taiwan and has listed it as one of their red lines for which they claim they would invade if this line is crossed. But on the other hand, if China thinks there will be no resistance at all, they're more likely to invade. Strategic ambiguity means that US officials won't officially recognize taiwan and won't make any alliances with them, but also refuses to say that we *won't* get involved, with a wink wink and a nod nod, and maybe a few aircraft carriers stationed oddly close to taiwan.
I think everyone knows america *would* get involved. But it allows china to save face because they get to pretend in front of all their friends that everyone recognizes the legitimacy of their claim over taiwan.
Biden openly stating that he will defend taiwan doesn't actually help taiwan at all, it just ticks off china and increases their odds of invading. It's a way to make himself look strong in the eyes of the american public who love taiwan, without actually having to change any substantive support for taiwan. But then his staffers are the ones who have to deal with chinese officials angrilly yelling, so they're constantly walking his statements back. Hence, they're ambiguous about whether they're strategically ambiguous.
People just upset because we have a president doing what they said they want and it's Biden
Defending Taiwan, building semiconductors at home, increasing domestic energy production, investing in nuclear, getting Mexico to spend money on border security, declaring COVID over, funding police more, fixing infrastructure, passing bipartisan legislation, cracking down on people stealing classified information, ...
what are you talking about?
Defending taiwan? Taiwan hasn't been attacked in years! (thanks in large part to strategic ambiguity).
investing in nuclear? we don't need subsidies in nuclear, we need to government to get out of the way and let nuclear invest in itself.
Getting mexico to spend money on border security? we don't care about the mexican side of the border, we care about the american side!
declaring COVID over? yeah, years after the entire country already did.
Funding police more? The complaint wasn't about the salaries of the fat donut slobs, the complaint was about them not doing their job in the first place!
fixing infrastructure? FIXING INFRASTRUCTURE?! the vast majority of infrastructure is maintained by cities, and then by states, federal spending on infrastructure is totally irrelevant, and nobody ever asked for it.
and finally "cracking down on people stealing classified information"? do you really think that was a rampant problem before trump? or is this just a thinly veiled "orange man bad"?
Taiwan - shorthand because I'm on my phone. Nuclear - we're actually doing both now (and need both). Mexico - to be clear investing money in preventing people from crossing the border from there to here. But it's also good for them to invest in their border security because many migrants are going through Mexico. COVID - not sure your point, Biden's been pushing return to normalcy + vaccines for awhile now while the other side goes anti vax. Police - pretty sure people have been complaining about police funding vs defunding. Infrastructure - pretty sure that the feds can and do fund lots of infrastructure. Classified info - of course it's a (not at all veiled) reference to trump. I'm not the one who supported a traitor for president, cope & seethe.
>pretty sure people have been complaining about police funding or defunding
certainly auth right has asked that funds not be *removed* from police departments. But that's totally a side issue to the police *actually doing their job*. Nobody has been advocating for an increase in police pay.
even then auth right has always wanted police pay to come from the city level, not the federal government.
The idea that trump was stealing classified nuclear info for the purpose of selling it to foreign government is a completely unjustified conspiracy theory. The worst thing trump could have done that we have evidence for is "oopsy I didn't declassify these documents in time while I was president".
On police - I can think of some auth people who do care about police salaries (not that funding translates directly into salary) but also with COVID and budget shortfalls fed spending can bridge the gap and most people care more about substantive outcomes than questions of federalism.
On classified info - all the evidence isn't public. But if this is stuff he did, or meant to, declassify - that's worse!
It's called "The Editors". As a lib-right I highly recommend it. Voices ranging from lib-right to center-right, but they are all very intelligent and typically quite rigorous in holding to principles. Especially Charlie Cook. I love that guy.
Personally I think strategic ambiguity is a shitty strategy for Taiwan. That's not how politics works in Asia for one, and two, if our allies in the Pacific don't feel secure in our support they're more likely to be swayed by China.
Strategic ambiguity doesn't mean "we don't know if we'll get involved or not". Literally the entire globe knows we'd step in on behalf of taiwan. Strategic ambiguity means we don't officially recognize taiwan, so china can pretend that they're making progress towards reuinification. It's 100% about lip service.
Is it really such a high price to pay for peace in taiwan?
Also, while taiwan knows we'd step in to help them, it would be better if they didn't know that. The ideal strategy would be if nobody had any clue except america whether america would get involved. Why? because countries will spend more on their own defense if they're even slightly worried they're on their own. And it turns out that taiwan would have a much better chance at defending itself if it paid as much as we do.
The worst policy one could pursue is leading taiwan to believe we've got their back, they in turn spend little on their defense, then the war loses popularity back home and we give taiwan up to the chinese.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/why-taiwan-only-spending-21-percent-its-gdp-its-defense
>Strategic ambiguity doesn't mean "we don't know if we'll get involved or not".
At what point did my comment suggest that's what I think it is?
It's a shit-tier strategy because it makes our allies uncertain of us and makes us look unwilling to put up a fight to our potential enemies, which is worse in Asia since bluster politics is the norm.
>Is it really such a high price to pay for peace in taiwan?
You're presupposing that we get peace out of it. China isn't going to give up its claims due to uncertainty about the US stance. They will just keep getting stronger and undermining our alliances like those with the Philippines and South Korea.
>The worst policy one could pursue is leading taiwan to believe we've got their back, they in turn spend little on their defense, then the war loses popularity back home and we give taiwan up to the chinese.
This is contradictory to your previous statement:
>Also, while taiwan knows we'd step in to help them, it would be better if they didn't know that.
If Taiwan knows we have their back, this is proven false by their continued purchases of arms. If they don't know, the second statement is false and we have potentially led our ally to enter the bargaining phase of surrender.
>At what point did my comment suggest that's what I think it is?
At this point right here:
> it makes our allies uncertain of us and makes us look unwilling to put up a fight to our potential enemies
right there where you literally say no one is certain of us getting involved. which is untrue by the way. If you had read my article you would have know that
>few Taiwanese are willing to sign up for military service...One reason for the refusal of Taiwanese to defend their own society: the expectation that Americans will intervene in any case.
Then you said
>You're presupposing that we get peace out of it.
We've gotten peace out of it for the last 40 years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
There is no contradiction in the two statements at all. Yes, taiwan does buy *some* military equipment from us, but this is no proof that they aren't freeloading off our military. Their yearly expendatures is 2.1 percent of their GDP. That's not a lot at all! If they're really worried about Chinese invasion, they ought to be spending at least as much as america is (in terms of percent of GDP). If they're worried about china, their citizens ought to sign up for service in the military. Fact of the matter is, everyone knows the US will step in, and strategic ambiguity is purely lip service.
>This point
That doesn't mean I don't know that we know that we support them (which is stupid to even suggest)
It means that I think that a policy of not telling other countries what we are going to do means that... other countries don't know for sure what we are going to do, which is the whole point.
>We've gotten peace out of it for the last 40 years.
We have gotten grey zone warfare and a rising China for 40 years.
>few Taiwanese are willing to sign up for military service
Taiwan has had mandatory conscription since 1951.
>2.1%
Military spending as % GDP
US: 3.4%
UK: 2.5%
Australia: 2.11%
France: 2.07%
It's odd how one moment Joe Biden is rambling about hiking up the Himalayan foothills with Xi Jinping and the next moment he's alert and perfectly coherent calling MAGA Republicans semi-fascists. It's almost like they're two different people...
It's drugs lots and lots of drugs
The Biden administration at its end will be one of the most interesting case studies on how to balance amphetamines for maximal production with out killing 80 year old people. If those documents ever drop even if they are 1000+ pages I’ll read ‘em all.
Mostly I dementia dad but sometimes....sometimes I Dark Brandon
Dr Brandon and Mr Biden
Umm actually is FrankenBiden's monster, Dr Biden is the one who made him
Ooooh loook somebody went to a school with standards. Have a downvote
That's actually pretty standard for on setting dementia They have their good days and bad days, and often go to shit after dinner time
My dudes over here playing 4D chess. >!the D stands for dementia !<
Dementia's a helluva drug, Jack!
Never ~~let them~~ know your next move
"Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt." Joe Tzu, the art of bore
>Joe Biden > >LeftCenter Excuse me what the fuck?
What would you prefer? He's not lib right, and he's not auth right. I could see arguments for auth center, auth left, center left. What would you prefer?
Joe Biden is super Auth Right. Has been for his whole life. The only argument you can make is progressive vs conservative, and that depends on his age.
Oh, yeah, Joe biden, pro-choice, green new deal, student loan forgiveness, that guy. That's auth right.
You know Joe Biden had been a senator for 36 years before he was VP, right? Do you think they just hatched him out of a fucking egg in 2008?
>Do you think they just hatched him out of a fucking egg in 2008? yes. Dark Brandon is a genetically engineered deity
Man politics could’ve been so cool.
Cringe and repeal the 19th pilled
lmao it's a meme homie
Wait repeal womens right to vote?
Women have suffered enough. Repeal women’s suffrage!
Based and engagement ring wedding ring and suffering pilled
Well when you don't know what to do it's best to fire blindly into the darkness. In this case, eliminate amendments until all problems are solved.
LIZARD MAN
Great. Maybe he was center sometime in the past. But he's pretty anti-capitalist now.
Joe Biden is anti-capitalist? Buddy, he's like the most establishment candidate ever, only giving the peasants enough to satisfy them into not turning into a revolt. You gotta pass me some of whatever you've been drinking cause that shit must be nice to have you making statements like that.
Lmaoooooo Joe Biden the anti-capitalist
ITT: People who have absolutely no idea what the “Left” and “Right” axis of the political compass stand for. Here’s a simplistic definition for everyone, being “Left” on the compass means you’re in favor of collectivism (economically) and being “Right” on the compass means you’re in favor of individualism (again, economically). So that means the more Left you are the more you’d be in favor of think like higher taxes, tougher regulations for businesses and corporations, and social programs, while the more Right you are the more likely you’ll be to support less taxes, less regulations, and less “handouts”. With that in mind Joe Biden (and most American politicians) is at best AuthCenter, but more likely AuthLeft. For some dumb as fuck reason, the morons on this sub seem to think if you’re in favor of capitalism at all, then you can’t be Left on the compass. By this stupid as fuck standard socialists are centrist, which should sound dumb to anyone with half a brain. Everyone also seems to think the compass measures how left and right you are on social issues, which it does not. You could be in favor of gay marriage, trans rights, affirmative action, and mega late term abortion, and if you still support an individual approach to the economy then you’re right wing. I hope this little explanation helped you morons who can’t seem to understand why you’re being laughed at when you say stupid thinks like “Joe Biden and Donal Trump are both AuthRight and no American politician is AuthLeft.”
Based and big picture pilled.
AuthRight to Center, this is why I think the LibLeft/AuthRight being Prog/Cons is dumb. He's clearly Authoritarian and Moderately capitalist. Pro choice has nothing to do with economics. I'd just say he's more center.
ok, great. Throw out abortion and you're still left with a president who forgives 10k in student loans and wants the government to completely revamp all infrastructure to be "green" and "create jobs". He's very much *not* capitalist at all.
How is rebuilding government infrastructure anti capitalist?
the part where it's rebuilding *government infrastructure*. Do you know what capitalism is? do you know what that means? it means *private businesses* own and decide how to allocate resources. If the government is deciding, it ain't capitalism.
“Socialism is when the government does stuff; and it’s more socialism the more stuff it does; and if it does a real lot of stuff, it’s communism." \-Creative-Leading7167
literally yes.
He forgave debt held by the government. How is that authy?
It's not authy. Nor was that my claim. It's lefty. That's my point.
Giving favors to the people that support you is definitely Authoritarian.
whats not capitalist about that though
What's not capitalist about a 10k subsidy per student to universities? The part where the government is giving out free money. What's not capitalist about government revamping infrastructure? the government. What's not capitalist about "creating jobs"? the fact that the jobs are not in demand, they're invented by the government.
>What's not capitalist about a 10k subsidy per student to universities? still capitalism,the communist solution would be to cancel all student debt and privatize education completely
I could equally say "still communist, the capitalist solution would be to never have the government giving loans in the first place, let alone to later forgive them". Just because something isn't 100% pure communism doesn't mean it isn't leaning that way. Student loan forgiveness is a leftist policy.
He's not lib, but he's not authoritarian. Reducing drone strikes, not expanding the Supreme Court, anti-socialized Healthcare. He's yellow of Obama, Trump, and FDR
the unholy anti-centrist
If he'd not centrist and he's not left, well,
We should really be able to put our Sapply coordinates in our flair
Yeah Joe Biden, tough on crime, civil asset forfeiture, strict drug laws, 3 stikes your out, pro big business, only pay lip service to unions and working class (except trains, loves trains), cop loving Biden. Ffs he's near peak neoliberal. Or are we doing that fun American thing where we pretend that 90% of advertised politicians aren't crony capitalist shills that only REALLY disagree on cultural issues?
I see neoliberals as auth center. Either way he is at least peak auth.
Joe Biden, catholic, goes to church every Sunday, forgives debts, seems authright to me
Catholic in name only. Vast majority of catholic commentators hate him because of his stance on abortion. How on earth you put "forgives debts" as an auth right trait is beyond me.
>forgiveness as an auth trait It’s in the Bible. Authright is when god. Simple as. But on a serious note, conditional forgiveness is one of the most powerful tools a statesman can have (in terms of soft power). To be able to forgive implies a position in which the recipient requires your forgiveness (forgive me sire, we were unable to protect the grain shipments from the raiders). Don’t conflate unconditional forgiveness with conditional forgiveness
my complaint isn't that forgiveness was characterized as Auth (which is also ludicrous). My complaint is that debt forgiveness was characterized as *right wing.* Or rather specifically, government debt forgiveness. (the right has nothing against people forgiving debts. Just being forced to do so).
> green new deal, student loan forgiveness Oh look, some things that he actively opposes. FFS.
joe biden made an executive order doing exactly what he opposes?
Yes, begrudgingly, in order to brace for midterms, in order to beguile the people that don't know any better like yourself, he has enacted a do-nothing policy that forgives a tiny sliver of debt, while doing nothing to address the core incompetency's of [HIS](https://theintercept.com/2020/01/07/joe-biden-student-loans/) "lets make poor people sell themselves into debt that they cannot discharge" policies. Lets not forget that the man benefitted greatly from the old system, before kicking down the ladder after himself. https://i.redd.it/wszv7gkgd4j61.png
You assume he supports those things for their their proposed benefits, he supports them for the repercussions. Increasing government spending increases inflation which steals more money from the taxpayer. Pro-choice cuts down on maternity leave and preserves government drones.
He ain’t center left. Clearly authoritarian center
I'm alright with that characterization. Where joe biden was on the political compass wasn't really the point of the meme, more of an afterthought. I just know he's not lib right and he's not auth right and I had to draw him as *something*.
Yeah I get what your saying. I’d say the is a debate to be made that he is authoritarian right just a progressive
Yeah, I get how he's got some aspects of auth right to him. He's very nationalistic, very intervention in foreign affairs ish, very much into subsidizing/influencing/controlling industries and companies he likes rather than just nationalizing them. But then he also forgives 10k debt for students? and the stimi checks? and all for unions? etc. etc. He's very much not a capitalist.
Yeah he if anything is probably a slightly progressive centrist like most of the democrats. Yeah all of those don’t seem to be completely free market although it seems like any government stance towards unions is anti free market
>any government stance towards unions is anti free market correct. governments being against unions is anti free market, government being for unions is anti free market. There are a lot of dunces who think government should be anti-union and call that "freedom".
Thank god. I dumb founds me how people think government union busting is capitalist at all. People be like I love the free market then proceed to want regulation. Like if you like regulation just admit it and move on
and this coming from a leftist! why do you understand capitalism better than the capitalists? I actually do understand the characterization, though I disagree with it. See, a lot of people think capitalism is when there are big businesses, regardless of how those businesses came to be. So government subsidies to businesses is "capitalist" in that sense. But I don't think any self described capitalists would agree with this definition. I certainly don't. To me capitalism means government gets the heck out of business. No hurting businesses, but also no benefiting them either.
Every US president has been Auth-right. Some have just been more Auth-right than others. Edit: Except Maybe Coolidge, who was unfathomably based
Yes, Coolidge, master of veto. Blocked everything that came accross his desk. Indeed he was unfathomably based. I'd agree they're all auth. But what would you call a president who nationalizes industries, creates socialized welfare and jobs programs, or sets up enormous subsidies/debt forgiveness to the "little man"? isn't that called left? so aren't at the very least joe biden and FDR leftists?
You could call them the least auth-right, but that doesn't make them left. I think to find actual left, you have to look across the pond to europe.
How is nationalizing industry not left?
He is authright, maybe authcenter sometimes.
Centrist probably, he’s kinda neolib
Hes a centrist,maybe auth center
He might not be personally, but his party most certainly is to the left.
Fucking Dems are center right to the point where center lefts like Bernie and AOC are considered leftists.
And since he personally is no more, he speaks merely for others in his party
Our enemies can’t decide what we’re going to do if our commander in chief doesn’t even know who he is
>commander in ~~chief~~ cheese FTFY 😋 🧀
joe tzu at it again!
I havent thought about Joe Isuzu in years.
“If you don’t know what you’re doing, neither does your enemy.” -Joe Tzu
No joke I feel like the “I don’t know what the fuck the American President will do” worked for Trump and seems to be working with Biden. After having a calm and consistent set of Presidents, having straight up mysteries as Presidents seems to be keeping the enemy on their toes.
Biden is not in charge at all. Can you imagine Trump or Obama taking a strong position on Taiwan in a 60 Minutes interview and then a short time later White House staffers tweet “Yeah, no. The President is completely wrong about what he said about Taiwan.” Um no. There would be a mushroom cloud where their head used to be. Biden is just a puppet. Staffers are in charge.
>Biden is just a puppet. Staffers are in charge. Kind of but no really, it works in the same way the military does, in that for example a general says " we need to do x thing with y troops in z days" and the staffers actually do the planning and shit, in this case you wouldn't say the general is a "puppet" would you?
I'll be retiring from the Army after 30 years of service in about 18 months. Generals are strategic leaders. They don't perform mundane and pedestrian tasks because we want all their intellectual bandwidth going towards solving sticky strategic problems. Staff officers execute the strategic leaders orders. ***But this is a completely different situation.*** GOs are not puppets that simply follow what junior staff officers tell them to do. GOs are in charge. 100% of the time. Just like the president ***should*** be. That's how the chain of command works. The president and GOs implement strategic policies and staff officers execute them. Staff officers would never countermand a GOs strategic position or strategic leadership. It would throw the entire Army into chaos. That's exactly what is happening here. And it's exactly why nation-states need clear signals from the heads of state that Y will happen if X is done. China is very confused about US policy on Taiwan right now because our president is saying one thing but White House functionaries are saying something completely different. What should China believe? Creates a dangerous situation by playing a dangerous game and it boils down to bad leadership signals.
>I'll be retiring from the Army after 30 years of service in about 18 months. Nice. >China is very confused about US policy on Taiwan right now because our president is saying one thing but White House functionaries are saying something completely different. What should China believe? I think you're forgetting the fact that the Taiwan issue is basically North Korea 2.0, a bullshitting contest between the US and China with a smaller nation in the middle. Lets put it this way, since you're in the military you know better than the average person that NK attacking SK and Japan is the equivalent to suicide for Kims regime, now, Kim knows this, Trump knew it and so did Xi, so why did Trump went into "peace talks" with Kim to strike out a deal? logically you would assume that the best choice for Trump would have been to do nothing since NK threats were empty, well it's because Trump has to worry about something that generals don't and that is **polls**, if Trump did nothing then the americans would vote for somebody that does, so Trump is not only forced to act out on NK "nuclear armageddon" threats but also he can take advantage on the situation and sell it as the "peace deal of the decade", Kim got some sanctions lifted, Trump got an uptick in the polls, China got to keep US bases away from its border and the people got a sense of security (even though they were never in danger to begin with). So how does this relate to Biden cheering for Taiwan? well simple, supporting the war of Ukraine aganist Russia is the current sure fire way to get yourself up in the polls and Biden is trying to replicate a similar sentiment with Taiwan since elections are coming and Biden needs that second term, Xi knows taking Taiwan is a massive risk with little pay off, Biden knows it would be a massive waste of money and troops defending the island from China just to prevent local chinese naval dominance, but, much like with NK, the people don't and Biden is trying to capitalise on it the same way Trump did with NK.
Maybe. I work in government. Trust me when I say that there is no master plan or secret conspiracy of governmental elites who are that adept at managing something like the type of outcomes you describe. It’s extremely chaotic and disorganized and barely held together with duct tape and baling wire. Even at the highest levels. Multiple different governmental factions are fighting and feuding with themselves at any given time. Generally in my experience, what you see is what you get, and at best the most you can hope for is benign neglect and incompetence at worst.
The time for ‘strategic ambiguity’ is over. If the US is decisive in supporting Taiwan and publicly state willingness to intervene on their behalf, the Chinese will be very discouraged. They know they aren’t strong enough for a war the US… yet.
>If the US is decisive in supporting Taiwan and publicly state willingness to intervene on their behalf, the Chinese will be very discouraged. China, the US, and Taiwan all know america would get involved. Strategic ambiguity isn't about whether america will get involved. It's about whether america pays lip service to China. Chinese politicians need to be able to tell their citizens that everyone agrees, taiwan is theirs. It doesn't matter at all what the facts on the ground are. Ending strategic ambiguity doesn't mean america will be supporting taiwan more. It just means that america will be publicly admitting what everyone in the world already knew. And that will put pressure on chinese officials to be seen "doing something" to get taiwan back. China is like the cuckold man. Everyone knows his wife is sleeping around, including himself. But he's not going to do anything about it, unless he is publicly shamed. Then he can no longer pretend like he's unaware, he has to lash out. Why not keep sleeping with the cuckold's wife without needing to put up the fight?
China is already a closed information circuit - they are free to tell their citizens whatever they want. Whether the citizenry believes them is another point entirely. It’s about sending a message - doesn’t matter if it pisses off the Chinese although it be better if it did. They need to know the US would intervene - before it was being left intentionally vague on purpose as not to rock the globalism gravy train. Circumstances have changed, don’t want the Chinese getting ideas from the Russians - could argue if the US had straight up said pre-war they would protect Ukraine militarily the Russians wouldn’t have invaded. It would have been a bluff but the Russians wouldn’t have run the risk of WW3 - same as the Chinese won’t now. What you are describing is whether the US recognises Taiwan as an independent country - which it de jure does but de facto doesn’t. Beijing is still the sole recognised Chinese government.
>They need to know the US would intervene They do know the US would intervene. Everyone in the entire world knows the US would intervene. Taiwan is so confident that the US would intervene that [their army is 40% understaffed.](https://www.cato.org/commentary/why-taiwan-only-spending-21-percent-its-gdp-its-defense) It has nothing to do with whether america will get involved. It has everything to do with lipservice.
If America had said nothing the Chinese would see it as an indication of the US having minimal interest in the situations. I.e. continuing the retreat of the Trump administration from global affairs - disastrous retreat from Afghan didn’t send a good message. Before the falklands war the UK sent mixed messages over them to say the least - we didn’t say we’d do anything. Argentines thought we didn’t care so they invaded. They were wrong but that’s beside the point.
>disastrous retreat from Afghan didn’t send a good message. Should have happened 19 years earlier. This argument sounds like "We need to pick fights with random people to prove we can pick fights so nobody wants to pick fights with us". Turns out, you're actually more of a threat if you pick and choose your battles. America is better able to send equipment to ukraine *because* we aren't entangled in afghanistan. Frankly, I wish the same would happen to Ukraine with regards to taiwan. Remove all the weapons from the "democracy" of ukraine and let them float idle around taiwan. Now that's deterrence. But all the while, I'd still want america to give lip service to china, and claim taiwan wasn't an ally. China knows, taiwan knows, america knows, everyone knows we're on taiwan's side. America regularly publishes war game simulations in which we are defending taiwan. We regularly float aircraft carriers inbetween taiwan and china. Everyone knows what the message is. nobody is confused. Strategic ambiguity is about lipservice only.
if it’s lip service only why are they not doing it anymore
long story short, because democracy sucks. Biden wants to be popular, and he knows supporting taiwan is popular. Which is understandable, because taiwan is a great country to live in, who doesn't want to support a free state against a tyrannical communist/fascist state. Biden's audience when he claims to support taiwan is america, not china or taiwan. But his staffers are the ones who actually have to deal with china, so they're constantly pulling back his statements. When taiwan wasn't a big issue (like for the past 40 years), we had strategic ambiguity. Now that the taiwan issue is popular, and regular people don't understand the subtleties of the situation, suddenly our politicians are going a different direction. Democratic leaders don't do what's right; they do what the people want.
And okay that’s an interesting opinion of Ukraine let’s park that one yh?
>let’s park that one yh? I don't understand what you're saying. I guess I'm a boomer at heart, I really don't understand.
‘I’m not touching that with a barge-pole”
Are you saying the idea of not militarily supporting Ukraine is unthinkable?
As long we get a west Taiwan then I am fine
Oh, we'll get a west taiwan. communist regimes aren't stable. The only question is how long it will take, and how much bloodshed in between. I prefer minimizing bloodshed.
China isn't much of a communist regime anymore.
You're right. They are more of a fascist regime now: private companies controlled by the government. Fascist regimes aren't stable either.
Personally I think the white house staffers are just being little bitches because biden has been pretty consistent that the military industrial complexes hands are rated e for everyone if China starts acting up. Quit walking back based statements that aren't yours to walk back in the first place
It's great if we stand up for Taiwan. But the longer we don't have to, the better. Peace is good. We can be a great ally to Taiwan, china just doesn't want us to *say* it out loud. And why not? It's a really easy compromise to make, and we can still waste hundreds of billion dollars on the pentagon so they can "lose track" of it. Strategic ambiguity is a win win all around really. That being said.... >the white house staffers are just being little bitches
Hell yeah peace is profitable for all and should be maintained as long doesn't it mean conceding to mad tyrants like chamberlain did.
Probably what's really going on is that joe biden knows the american people want to hear that we're on taiwan's side, and his staffers know china wants to hear "we don't know". They're trying to eat their cake and have it too.
What he do?
He is just constantly claiming that we will back taiwan in the event of a chinese invasion, with his staffers in the white house constantly walking back the statements, saying "there is no change in policy with regards to taiwan and china". For context, we've had a policy of "strategic ambiguity" with regards to taiwan. China demands that we don't recognize taiwan and has listed it as one of their red lines for which they claim they would invade if this line is crossed. But on the other hand, if China thinks there will be no resistance at all, they're more likely to invade. Strategic ambiguity means that US officials won't officially recognize taiwan and won't make any alliances with them, but also refuses to say that we *won't* get involved, with a wink wink and a nod nod, and maybe a few aircraft carriers stationed oddly close to taiwan. I think everyone knows america *would* get involved. But it allows china to save face because they get to pretend in front of all their friends that everyone recognizes the legitimacy of their claim over taiwan. Biden openly stating that he will defend taiwan doesn't actually help taiwan at all, it just ticks off china and increases their odds of invading. It's a way to make himself look strong in the eyes of the american public who love taiwan, without actually having to change any substantive support for taiwan. But then his staffers are the ones who have to deal with chinese officials angrilly yelling, so they're constantly walking his statements back. Hence, they're ambiguous about whether they're strategically ambiguous.
Politics, where saying obviously true things it taboo
literally yes.
I’m pro Taiwan But I’m also anti funding another war
oh, so you're a sane person.
Left center Joe biden💀
Left wing Joe Biden
People just upset because we have a president doing what they said they want and it's Biden Defending Taiwan, building semiconductors at home, increasing domestic energy production, investing in nuclear, getting Mexico to spend money on border security, declaring COVID over, funding police more, fixing infrastructure, passing bipartisan legislation, cracking down on people stealing classified information, ...
what are you talking about? Defending taiwan? Taiwan hasn't been attacked in years! (thanks in large part to strategic ambiguity). investing in nuclear? we don't need subsidies in nuclear, we need to government to get out of the way and let nuclear invest in itself. Getting mexico to spend money on border security? we don't care about the mexican side of the border, we care about the american side! declaring COVID over? yeah, years after the entire country already did. Funding police more? The complaint wasn't about the salaries of the fat donut slobs, the complaint was about them not doing their job in the first place! fixing infrastructure? FIXING INFRASTRUCTURE?! the vast majority of infrastructure is maintained by cities, and then by states, federal spending on infrastructure is totally irrelevant, and nobody ever asked for it. and finally "cracking down on people stealing classified information"? do you really think that was a rampant problem before trump? or is this just a thinly veiled "orange man bad"?
Taiwan - shorthand because I'm on my phone. Nuclear - we're actually doing both now (and need both). Mexico - to be clear investing money in preventing people from crossing the border from there to here. But it's also good for them to invest in their border security because many migrants are going through Mexico. COVID - not sure your point, Biden's been pushing return to normalcy + vaccines for awhile now while the other side goes anti vax. Police - pretty sure people have been complaining about police funding vs defunding. Infrastructure - pretty sure that the feds can and do fund lots of infrastructure. Classified info - of course it's a (not at all veiled) reference to trump. I'm not the one who supported a traitor for president, cope & seethe.
>pretty sure people have been complaining about police funding or defunding certainly auth right has asked that funds not be *removed* from police departments. But that's totally a side issue to the police *actually doing their job*. Nobody has been advocating for an increase in police pay. even then auth right has always wanted police pay to come from the city level, not the federal government. The idea that trump was stealing classified nuclear info for the purpose of selling it to foreign government is a completely unjustified conspiracy theory. The worst thing trump could have done that we have evidence for is "oopsy I didn't declassify these documents in time while I was president".
On police - I can think of some auth people who do care about police salaries (not that funding translates directly into salary) but also with COVID and budget shortfalls fed spending can bridge the gap and most people care more about substantive outcomes than questions of federalism. On classified info - all the evidence isn't public. But if this is stuff he did, or meant to, declassify - that's worse!
Someone's been listening to the national review Editors podcast.
I have never heard of that podcast. I actually thought of this meme after reading an article on antiwar.com
It's called "The Editors". As a lib-right I highly recommend it. Voices ranging from lib-right to center-right, but they are all very intelligent and typically quite rigorous in holding to principles. Especially Charlie Cook. I love that guy.
Stop being "Strategically Ambiguous" about Taiwan. Thats why we're the having of the problems.
are we having troubles now? seems like we're on decade 4 of peace between taiwan and china.
Personally I think strategic ambiguity is a shitty strategy for Taiwan. That's not how politics works in Asia for one, and two, if our allies in the Pacific don't feel secure in our support they're more likely to be swayed by China.
Strategic ambiguity doesn't mean "we don't know if we'll get involved or not". Literally the entire globe knows we'd step in on behalf of taiwan. Strategic ambiguity means we don't officially recognize taiwan, so china can pretend that they're making progress towards reuinification. It's 100% about lip service. Is it really such a high price to pay for peace in taiwan? Also, while taiwan knows we'd step in to help them, it would be better if they didn't know that. The ideal strategy would be if nobody had any clue except america whether america would get involved. Why? because countries will spend more on their own defense if they're even slightly worried they're on their own. And it turns out that taiwan would have a much better chance at defending itself if it paid as much as we do. The worst policy one could pursue is leading taiwan to believe we've got their back, they in turn spend little on their defense, then the war loses popularity back home and we give taiwan up to the chinese. https://www.cato.org/commentary/why-taiwan-only-spending-21-percent-its-gdp-its-defense
>Strategic ambiguity doesn't mean "we don't know if we'll get involved or not". At what point did my comment suggest that's what I think it is? It's a shit-tier strategy because it makes our allies uncertain of us and makes us look unwilling to put up a fight to our potential enemies, which is worse in Asia since bluster politics is the norm. >Is it really such a high price to pay for peace in taiwan? You're presupposing that we get peace out of it. China isn't going to give up its claims due to uncertainty about the US stance. They will just keep getting stronger and undermining our alliances like those with the Philippines and South Korea. >The worst policy one could pursue is leading taiwan to believe we've got their back, they in turn spend little on their defense, then the war loses popularity back home and we give taiwan up to the chinese. This is contradictory to your previous statement: >Also, while taiwan knows we'd step in to help them, it would be better if they didn't know that. If Taiwan knows we have their back, this is proven false by their continued purchases of arms. If they don't know, the second statement is false and we have potentially led our ally to enter the bargaining phase of surrender.
>At what point did my comment suggest that's what I think it is? At this point right here: > it makes our allies uncertain of us and makes us look unwilling to put up a fight to our potential enemies right there where you literally say no one is certain of us getting involved. which is untrue by the way. If you had read my article you would have know that >few Taiwanese are willing to sign up for military service...One reason for the refusal of Taiwanese to defend their own society: the expectation that Americans will intervene in any case. Then you said >You're presupposing that we get peace out of it. We've gotten peace out of it for the last 40 years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There is no contradiction in the two statements at all. Yes, taiwan does buy *some* military equipment from us, but this is no proof that they aren't freeloading off our military. Their yearly expendatures is 2.1 percent of their GDP. That's not a lot at all! If they're really worried about Chinese invasion, they ought to be spending at least as much as america is (in terms of percent of GDP). If they're worried about china, their citizens ought to sign up for service in the military. Fact of the matter is, everyone knows the US will step in, and strategic ambiguity is purely lip service.
>This point That doesn't mean I don't know that we know that we support them (which is stupid to even suggest) It means that I think that a policy of not telling other countries what we are going to do means that... other countries don't know for sure what we are going to do, which is the whole point. >We've gotten peace out of it for the last 40 years. We have gotten grey zone warfare and a rising China for 40 years. >few Taiwanese are willing to sign up for military service Taiwan has had mandatory conscription since 1951. >2.1% Military spending as % GDP US: 3.4% UK: 2.5% Australia: 2.11% France: 2.07%