The Biden administration has replaced 'build the wall' with 'the wall is being built'.
I think this is correct. but it's not just about continuity between administrations, it's also continuity between the geopolitical or whatever context in which they operate. just because obama or trump want to remove america from the middle east, the logic which caused it to be there in the first place (oil, for example) doesnt magically cease to apply and start working in the opposite direction. it's a kind of utopian thinking, in a way, to imagine that these problems can be made to disappear.I think there's always a certain amount of continuity between leaders, it's like turning an oil tanker I imagine. A new leader comes in and maybe he's campaigned against policy x of the previous guy. He hates x, he's told everyone x is terrible. He's gonna reverse or replace x the second he can. So probably if it is something that can be meaningfully changed he will make damn sure he does that - otherwise he'll look like a liar or an idiot.
But there are thousands of things kinda ticking along from the last administration and the one before that too. And most of them aren't gonna change themselves. So while the new leader is putting loads of effort very visibly keeping his campaign promise, it's hardly surprising that lots of other stuff just carries on the same with noone really looking at it of paying attention.
maybe, but that certainly doesnt answer the question I asked. would Putin have invaded russia if trump was in power? if not, why not?If Trump had let Putin invade Trump would have told Zelensky simply to surrender thereby saving the lives of millions.
I think this is correct. but it's not just about continuity between administrations, it's also continuity between the geopolitical or whatever context in which they operate. just because obama or trump want to remove america from the middle east, the logic which caused it to be there in the first place (oil, for example) doesnt magically cease to apply and start working in the opposite direction. it's a kind of utopian thinking, in a way, to imagine that these problems can be made to disappear.
the same argument applies for competitor powers - if the govt in China, or russia, or even, say, turkey changed, there would be a substantial amount of continuity, bc the geopolitical context those countries operate in would be the same - their geography would be the same, their energy requirements would be the same, their demography would be the same, their neighbours, etc etc.I think this is correct. but it's not just about continuity between administrations, it's also continuity between the geopolitical or whatever context in which they operate. just because obama or trump want to remove america from the middle east, the logic which caused it to be there in the first place (oil, for example) doesnt magically cease to apply and start working in the opposite direction. it's a kind of utopian thinking, in a way, to imagine that these problems can be made to disappear.
Biccies has been quite clear about this: Putin would definitely not even have dared to invade in the first place, and then once he'd invaded, Trump would have rendered Ukraine completely defenceless, thus avoiding any violence or other unpleasantness.maybe, but that certainly doesnt answer the question I asked. would Putin have invaded russia if trump was in power? if not, why not?
Colorado Supreme Court rules Trump can’t appear on 2024 ballot: Live
In an unprecedented and historic ruling, the former president and Republican front-runner is struck from the ballot in the Centennial State over his role in the January 6 Capitol riot
When Biden won, Trump said the stock market would collapse.
Under Biden, the stock market has now hit another all-time high.
yep. a classic double top.
"A double top is an extremely bearish technical reversal pattern that forms after an asset reaches a high price two consecutive times with a moderate decline between the two highs."