Red Dreams
Full Member
might as well just give up then...I'll believe it when Bernie is invited onto Morning Joe to tell the Coffee Klatsch NY elites how he is going to implement M4A.
might as well just give up then...I'll believe it when Bernie is invited onto Morning Joe to tell the Coffee Klatsch NY elites how he is going to implement M4A.
I call bullshit on that. Its not even the same organization (PKK) . It was ethnic cleansing , simple as that.Sorry but as bone-headed as the manner in which Trump conducted that move certainly was, it was always on the cards no matter who the President was, and it was a result of Obama’s policy of allying with a group which has long been designated a terrorist organization by one of America’s most important NATO allies. No US President was ever ultimately going to severe relations with Turkey for the sake of Syrian Kurds.
The PKK and YPG are one and the same, and the YPG are the major force behind the SDF. This is a photo from downtown Raqqa after the US and SDF together liberated the city from ISIS:I call bullshit on that. Its not even the same organization (PKK) . It was ethnic cleansing , simple as that.
Like I said I'm open to discussing your broader question, but you don't need to re frame my question within that context and then suggest that was the context it was embedded into at the outset to get us there. It just wasn't.
Don't think that's an accurate description of what happened. For example, this post is quite obviously not about military/foreign policy issues, but about Obama's and Trump's presidencies in a broader sense:My analysis from the outset has been focused on objective and specific acts and consequences - primarily military.
I would never vote for Trump. But telling the people who might vote for him that he's a disaster waiting to happen and it's just good fortune that disaster hasn't yet happened carries a lot less weight than it did 4 years ago, when it was pure speculation. Now it's speculation mixed in with denial.
The president doesn't have that much power. The amount of restraints that exist everywhere he goes is the reason why despite huge differences in the people within the roles, the actions taken vary slightly, not hugely.
Obama was the change president that never was, because he never could be. Trump would've loved to drain the swamp and fill it up with his own swamp creatures but in the end he couldn't. They have the power for hugely influential individual acts but in aggregation, it's always much less than the opposition supporters speculate. And then they never correct themselves. Then parties switch and they believe the kind of fear mongering from the other side is absolutely outrageous.
Lots of people predicted specific war events that would be truly devastating in terms of loss of life, international and regional instability, etc. But somehow when those things don't happen it gets downgraded away from the objectively destructive stuff to the heavily subjective stuff, like "undermining the fundamental principles of our democracy and putting us all in danger" and all sorts, the kind of that has been said about every president from opposition supporters for decades...and then they say "what more could have happened?".
If you don't believe there were all sorts of doomsday scenarios predicted before and during his presidency that objectively have not come to fruition, I will sift them out for you. But I suspect you know it to be true deep down.
So rather than accepting my description of my argument and moving on with the broader discussion, you'd rather continue to tell me what my argument is. Cool.Don't think that's an accurate description of what happened. For example, this post is quite obviously not about military/foreign policy issues, but about Obama's and Trump's presidencies in a broader sense:
And here you explicitly dismiss concerns about the detoriation of inner-US political conditions as "heavily subjective", contrasting it with the supposedly more real & objective issues of foreign policy and war. Pretty much the focus I criticized as arbitrary:
That's the original context of the ensuing discussion. Hard not to see an underlying, more general stance in all of this.
I merely quoted your own posts, which I think make clear what the original context of the discussion was. We won't agree on this, so it's probably best to leave it alone and move on.And then again you fill in the blanks with your own assumptions.
Funny how it was tolerated before Trump? Also, is the SDF now a terrorist organisation according to the US , after all it is that to their ally Turkey , right ? It's not, because it doesn't matter who Turkey considers terrorist. They also do so for Gullen, why is he not extradited, after all such great allies the US and Turkey are...They got axed from the f35 program as well.The PKK and YPG are one and the same, and the YPG are the major force behind the SDF. This is a photo from downtown Raqqa after the US and SDF together liberated the city from ISIS:
Erdogan does have grander ambitions and agendas, but no Turkish leader would tolerate this, and ultimately no US President would abandon Ankara for the PKK. Many of us saw the betrayal of the Syrian Kurds coming even before Trump took office.
It was tolerated for over two years under Trump as well, because the focus was on defeating ISIS, and the Obama administration had chosen to partner with the SDF in order to achieve that. Trump continued with Obama’s policy until ISIS was considered defeated, and then, surprise surprise, the SDF were dropped.Funny how it was tolerated before Trump?
The US and Turkey are rather uneasy allies lately, and one of the reasons has been US support for the SDF, which has helped push Turkey into the arms of Putin (which in turn led to the controversy over the F35 program), when on paper Moscow and Ankara’s conflicting agendas in Syria and elsewhere should by all rights have pushed Turkey closer to the Americans. Again, any US President would have sought to improve relations after ISIS, and the SDF were always expendable (and Gulen may prove so too). Turkey remains a NATO member, and the US maintains crucial military infrastructure there. Erdogan will be gone one day, but the US will still have to deal with Turkey as an ally, as they have for over seven decades now.Also, is the SDF now a terrorist organisation according to the US , after all it is that to their ally Turkey , right ? It's not, because it doesn't matter who Turkey considers terrorist. They also do so for Gullen, why is he not extradited, after all such great allies the US and Turkey are...They got axed from the f35 program as well.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Account has been nukedTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
What did it say?Account has been nuked
You'd have to ask @berbatrick - I never saw it before it was taken down.What did it say?
It should be, SDF is the 2nd worst organization in Syria, after ISIS that is.Funny how it was tolerated before Trump? Also, is the SDF now a terrorist organisation according to the US , after all it is that to their ally Turkey , right ? It's not, because it doesn't matter who Turkey considers terrorist. They also do so for Gullen, why is he not extradited, after all such great allies the US and Turkey are...They got axed from the f35 program as well.
Geopolitics is complicated, and sometimes not each and everyone of your partners have aligned interests. Its simpleton such as Trump that view things in black and white.
Bernie Sanders is the Trump of the left, a useful idiot for Putin to influence America through, as proven by the fact he woke up early one morning and #PresidentSanders was trending. It's all a Russian conspiracyWhat did it say?
You know MSM, always pushing their corporate candida....ah wait...CNN are now at it.
CNN's Moment Of Clarity: "Bernie Has A Realistic Shot"
Ahh.. I had seen that tweet then, just not on here. Didn't realize they'd nuked that guy's account!Bernie Sanders is the Trump of the left, a useful idiot for Putin to influence America through, as proven by the fact he woke up early one morning and #PresidentSanders was trending. It's all a Russian conspiracy
Shame. It was some verified twitter user (self-proclaimed Russia/security expert) arguing that since #PresidentSanders was trending at 4AM, he was a Putin psyop. Last I checked it wasn't even ratioed (<300 replies, >500 likes) so I'm surprised it go taken down.Account has been nuked
He said it but I doubt he would ever realistically consider it.Biden must be on a windup . He as said that he would consider a Republican as a VP.
[Yang] sucks though.
Maybe in hindsight Lieberman would have been the better choice compared to who he did pick , probably one of the reasons for Trump. But i could see Biden considering it . He sees himself as the uniter in chief . And seems to be playing from the same playbook as Hillary .Trying to win over moderate Republicans.He said it but I doubt he would ever realistically consider it.
McCain considered Lieberman briefly iirc but never pursued it for obvious reasons.
Yang is full of shit.
Is that andrew yang? A chinese guys becoming a potus would be grand.Yang is full of shit.
He is no different from Butigieg.
Is that andrew yang? A chinese guys becoming a potus would be grand.
Yes he is, and I'd say he might even be worse, because he is duping a lot of progressives who think he is actually a progressive.Yang is full of shit.
He is no different from Butigieg.
I think that McCain said that he regretted listening to his advisers who urged him to not pick Lieberman.He said it but I doubt he would ever realistically consider it.
McCain considered Lieberman briefly iirc but never pursued it for obvious reasons.
It's really not.Yang's platform is very progressive. He does reek of a technocrat though.
Are there any indications he’s ready to ditch Pence? I’m not sure how crucial Pence is in securing the evangelical vote anymore, but given some recent grumblings you’d think it wouldn’t be something the Trump team would take lightly.Trump - Gabbard 2020
Seriously I think this is entirely possible. She’s positioned herself for it perfectly. He gets a Democrat who is already loved by Republicans for being the Democrat who parrots Republican narratives. He also gets a woman of colour which is hugely important as women are a demographic have been hugely turned off by Trump as obviously are PoCs.
Well he's a capitalist so of course he's not a true lefty but theres huge parts of his program that are progressive like his education policy and gun control and other things. Im not a big fan of his but I think he does get the economic ills affecting alot of people but its all rhetoric given hes got no political track record. I would never vote for him but I can see the appeal. On UBI the regressive tax part is a problem and he is naive if he thinks it will be a magic solution.It's really not.
That's a gem. To get his UBI, you have to opt out of several other programs. Moreover, not sure if its in this clip, he explicity says that UBI is a way to strip other social welfare benefits down the road, because UBI can be used as leverage.
He's not progressive. He's anti-establishment to an extent, but he's absolutely not a lefty like Sanders is.
Makes a lot of sense... He will always have pussy on hand to grab with his big hands on the campaign trailTrump - Gabbard 2020
Seriously I think this is entirely possible. She’s positioned herself for it perfectly. He gets a Democrat who is already loved by Republicans for being the Democrat who parrots Republican narratives. He also gets a woman of colour which is hugely important as women are a demographic have been hugely turned off by Trump as obviously are PoCs.
The same Andrew Yang who was born in AmericaIs that andrew yang? A chinese guys becoming a potus would be grand.
I don’t see him ditching Pence, and no one bar a few Bernie bros care about Gabbard.Trump - Gabbard 2020
Seriously I think this is entirely possible. She’s positioned herself for it perfectly. He gets a Democrat who is already loved by Republicans for being the Democrat who parrots Republican narratives. He also gets a woman of colour which is hugely important as women are a demographic have been hugely turned off by Trump as obviously are PoCs.
He is progressive but he is not a lefty like Sanders. His fiscal policies are a mix of left and right.It's really not.
That's a gem. To get his UBI, you have to opt out of several other programs. Moreover, not sure if its in this clip, he explicity says that UBI is a way to strip other social welfare benefits down the road, because UBI can be used as leverage.
He's not progressive. He's anti-establishment to an extent, but he's absolutely not a lefty like Sanders is.
For many other countries the line wasnt that clear. For what it's worth i dont think he'll win. I know he's a taiwanesse. But to many american he's just another chineseThe same Andrew Yang who was born in America
Who's parents came from Taiwan (china might consider that part of china but I'm pretty sure America does not)