Members tassojunior Posted August 6, 2019 Members Share Posted August 6, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamSmith Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 22 hours ago, tassojunior said: Do you really not understand that the Neo-libs who want foreign interventions and wars kill more people than those who are against foreign interventions and invasions? That those who supported the Iraq invasion killed more than those who opposed it? That was one million Iraqis we killed. Granted they had brown skin but they still count as people. Kamala and Buttgieg are clearly unquestioning puppets of AIPAC eager to kill as many dark skins as AIPAC wants. Biden is not only an AIPAC puppet but also a Chinese puppet, although the Chinese aren't currently on the genocide fad. Yet. Any of these three would have been willing to have an extra 1 million dead in Syria to help AIPAC and Israel. And these three are the most likely to actually go to war with Iran an advanced country of 80 million whose destruction would require killing maybe 10 million people. ( and thousands of American deaths, but not a single Saudi or Israeli death even though that war would be fought for them at their insistence). To some people killing 10 million people is bad, even if they are brown. They still count as people. Bernie, Tulsi, Yang and pretty much Warren are anti-war and foreign invasions and I don't see them ever converting to pro-war/invasions. All the others are more pro-war but are minor candidates. I wouldn't have been for Hitler even though he was great on social security or Mussolini even though he made the trains work well. But today killing millions of people is just another factor we consider along with other issues. So, Kamala, Buttigieg or Biden probably mean 1 to ten million more people we kill over Bernie, Yang, Warren or Tulsi. Very grateful for your articulating all of this. I knew some of it already but what you say here lays out the whole thing. (Note to readers: @tassojunior & I do not know each other in person. So this is not just an online blowjob. ) tassojunior 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nycman Posted August 7, 2019 Members Share Posted August 7, 2019 Anyone who can beat Trump. Which unfortunately eliminates all of the 20 + current democratic candidates..... Sigh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tassojunior Posted August 8, 2019 Members Share Posted August 8, 2019 4 hours ago, nycman said: Anyone who can beat Trump. Which unfortunately eliminates all of the 20 + current democratic candidates..... Sigh. I'm keeping optimistic on a wildcard combo of Bernie, Tulsi, Yang, even Bullock in some combination. Warren a little bit too. But I don't see the groundswell like Bernie had in 2016. Biden and somebody special is even a possibility evidently, though I can't see him as a winner. If the "Dem" wins it has to be someone more independent with a huge tidal wave of support of support for real change. Surprises happen, just like Obama in 2008 and Bernie in 2016. AdamSmith 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tassojunior Posted September 25, 2019 Members Share Posted September 25, 2019 stevenkesslar and AdamSmith 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
