CMV: The US is going to war with China soon regardless of what anyone thinks.

Alright let's rip off the bandaid because regardless of what anyone thinks, the US is going to war with China soon. <br><br>I thought of this post a couple days ago when someone posted about Biden being caught with classified documents. Republicans were wanting to get his name attached to another scandal; Democrats were trying to defend this as being one minor misstep on his part. Both groups are going to try to spin this to their advantage, when in reality no one really cares about abused documents besides political insiders. <br><br>People are ambivalent about this because it's another political scandal, which has been every fucking Tuesday for the last decade. Republicans ambushed Obama regardless of what he did in office, and then the two parties got reversed when Trump got in. Biden's going to be attacked for everything he does, just like Trump was attacked for anything he did. <br><br>So Republicans should stop attacking Biden for this minor transgression and Democrats should stop defending him because people are going to ignore this and go about their day exactly the same they do every day.<br><br>That's because we're all ambivalent about it; because regardless of what Joe does, people have jobs and lives to attend to and they don't sit around all day worrying about this shit.<br><br>Which is a good thing because honestly I would have liked to see a Biden/Chao presidential contest because that would have been the clearest way to decide whether or not the US will go to war with China. <br><br>Anyway, what do I mean by war? These last 15 years have been bounty hunting the Middle East looking for terrorists. I'm envisioning something much more like the war against Iraq in the early 2000s. <br><br>Excluding Trump, the major portion of the last 60 years of presidential elections have focused on an electoral strategy known as "triangulation" against their opponents. Bill Clinton did this perfectly in the 90s and Republicans have since followed this strategy (as have some Democrats). <br><br>That's when two parties have a full disparity in opinions, with one party holding a conservative stance and one party holding a liberal stance. The idea is to take a beating stick to the conservative stance and the liberal stance; and then place yourself at the fulcrum of the parties to say, "I hold a moderate position as I'm beholden to neither party." <br><br>Obama did this by being a Democrat who advocated for cutting costs in Medicare and increasing penalties for people who get welfare benefits without seeking employment. Republicans can say this about them because they don't want to help people who don't help themselves. And Democrats can't attack this because Obama started the process to cut back on welfare benefits. <br><br>If you don't know who is triangulating in an election you just need to pay attention to the talking points. If a Democrat is advocating for cutbacks in social welfare benefits, and a Republican is talking about the importance of welfare benefits, that politician is triangulating their opponent when the two parties originally held the opposite stance on the issue. <br><br>A good example of triangulation is when Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2016 against Trump. With her two terms as Senator and eight years as Secretary of State, as well as her years in the White House and as a full-time lawyer, Hillary Clinton was one of the most experienced politicians to have ever run for president.<br><br>So if you think about her presidential campaigns, what do you think of her? What did she stand for? Beyond being a woman, what was her platform going into 2016? <br><br>Well, she's pro-choice, which Republicans are going to attack her for, but Democrats are going to support her for. She wants a full healthcare system, like Obama did, but Republicans will attack her for it. <br><br>Democrats are going to say she's got experience, but Republicans are going to say she doesn't have the business acumen for the job. <br><br>Democrats want to keep the estate tax in place. Republicans want to do away with it. Clinton said she's ok with an estate tax, but wants to reduce the tax burden to 45%. <br><br>So let's recap: Democratic view of Hillary (2016): Ex-Secretary of State, 3rd term Senator, former First Lady of the US, lawyer, and one of the most exceptional US presidential candidates in the past 250 years. <br><br>Republican view of Hillary (2016): Pro-choice, wants a universal healthcare system, former Secretary of State and Senator, and isn't a billionaire with business acumen. <br><br>So what do you think of regardless of whether you're a Republican or Democrat? Well, Hillary might be best in Washington, but it doesn't matter because she isn't a billionaire businessman like Trump.<br><br>Or Republicans might love her experience, but don't want to elect her because she's a Democratic pro-choice candidate who wants to tax inheritances.<br><br>The reason why people are ambivalent to Hillary is because, beyond her intelligence, she doesn't have any real stance beyond being a centrist candidate; and no one really cares about centrist candidates because they're the definition of inoffensive. So they are going to be attacked from both sides. <br><br>In contrast, what do you think of when someone mentions Trump? He fucking hates China and wanted to rip up trade agreements with every country on Earth. He wants to arrest US citizens who protest the government because he thinks they should be treated as terrorists. And God forbid you're a member of the media who tries to report on him because he hates journalists. <br><br>These are just a couple examples of his stances, but I'm sure you know exactly where he stands on any given issue. <br><br>When Biden and Trump ran in 2020, people were rabidly supporting one candidate or the other. They'll gladly die on the sword for Trump, or gladly die on the sword for Biden. <br><br>In contrast, prior to 2016 presidential elections have been very inoffensive and the candidates tend to avoid controversy by taking neutral stances; which is perfectly good enough to be elected president but terrible if you want to have any real power as the head of the executive branch because you'll be attacked from every angle. <br><br>In contrast, Biden and Trump have a lot of starch because they're unapologetic about what they believe in. No one would let it die that Biden abused classified documents, and no one would forget how Trump felt about China. <br><br>And that's where our politics are at now. When politicians are unapologetic about what they believe in, they can do a lot more as head of the executive branch because people will let it die if abused documents are found under his carseat. <br><br>Biden is this way because he tried running as a moderate before and his campaign turned to paste. Trump is this way because he isn't a political insider at all and has no experience beyond being a businessman and entertainer. <br><br>So Trump isn't afraid to take an unpopular stance for the sake of being right, which is what he felt about China. <br><br>And if you follow Trump's thinking on China, he quickly goes from "China is stealing jobs" to "China is stealing secrets" to "China is sending fentanyl into our communities" to abused documents.<br><br>The progression is natural; if a country is threatening our economy and monitoring us, and if they're trying to addict our children to drugs, and if they're trying to get their hands on our secrets, then the next step is to attack us.<br><br>Thanks for hanging in this long; I know it's been a weird read so far. <br><br>The reason why I'm saying we are bound for war with China is because it's going to be a repeat of the last 15 years but this time against China, not the Middle East. <br><br>What I mean is by that is when I was a kid, the major threat was Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. It was a big deal when we were warned of a potential terrorist threat to major cities; because they had wanted to do another 9/11 attack. <br><br>But that never happened because we hunted down their leaders and hounded them out of their strongholds in Afghanistan. <br><br>The same thing is going to happen against China. Republicans are going to attack Biden for being weak on China, and Democrats are going to say he's playing it right by trying to keep peace with them. <br><br>But the future presidential elections are going to be just as heated. And sooner or later, whether it's under Biden or another Republican president, the US is going to attack China. <br><br>It might be 2028 or 2032 or 2036, but sooner or later the US is going to attack China because we've already started attacking their economy.<br><br>Thanks for reading this post.