well, that's exactly what happened. the course for syria was set when Obama drew red lines in the sand and then failed to act once they were crossed. since that day, it was clear that Assad and Putin had the stronger interest in Syria than the U.S., and that the country would eventually fall into their hands. to turn this development around, Trump would have had to engage with force. investing a lot of resources and taking on big risk to do so would have gotten him far more flak than watching the Syrian civil war come to its conclusion from the sidelines. it wasnt glorious, it didnt get him good press, and it most likely wasnt motivated by noble motives - but it was the right thing to do.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 27 2020 06:01am

It's funny how "the great negotiation" who is responsible for "the art of the deal" that just "wants us to be friends" with Russia is left with only starting World War 3 because of an imaginary line Obama drew. oh wait no that's not funny, its just a failure of diplomacy by an antiwar candidate who claims to be able to negotiate peace in the middle east, a far larger task than just some lines in Syria. if at this point in my post you dont think trump is an utter stooge i just dont know what to say.

Trump lied and exaggerated his own ability, more news at 5.

It's simply a fact that Russia (and Iran) is willing to invest a lot more in Syria. This conflict wasnt solvable with diplomacy. Obama's red lines arent what's holding Trump back, they're what exposed the different stakes and willingness to take on risks and make sacrifices for the Syrian cause.

Of course Trump talked a far too big game when he said he could negotiate peace in the Middle East and stuff like that. My point is that he shouldnt be blasted for having failed to change the course of the Syrian civil war or to bring peace to the Middle East. More than that: given the geopolitical and strategic landscape in the region, Trump did the right thing by not even trying.

*stay in their hands. Syria has been a Russian client state my entire life.




Trump is a guy he will say whatever he has to to get what he wants.

He is not an anti war candidate because he is not an anything.

This post was edited by Skinned on May 27 2020 07:09am

Sherrod Brown, Ohio Senator.

He wins elections. He beat Dewine in Ohio for the senate and defeated two strong challengers since.

He is currently the only democrat in ohio elected to a state wide office.

This post was edited by Skinned on May 27 2020 07:41am

I disagree. He's not anti-war per se, but he genuinely is an isolationist. He doesnt see the deeper value in the U.S. playing the role of world police, he doesnt want America to expend lives and money in other people's wars.
He might not have many convictions, but the deeply-held belief that America is strongest when it focuses on itself and only interacts with the outside world if the incentive is high enough - that has been a constant in Trump's thinking for decades, long before he entered politics.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 27 2020 07:44am

Part of this is because of his record and history of standing with unions and worker rights and Ohioans know this , so the unions and working class will vote for him and push for him.

I don't know how he fares nationally , but he would definitely for sure beat someone like Trump though.

The only real weakness I could see is Republicans trying to call him anti-israel because he doesn't believe the US should kiss Israel's ass and let them do whatever they want with zero accountability.

Yes, now that you mention his name, I've heard about him before and he seems to be a super decent guy and a strong candidate. I just wonder if he's liberal/progressive enough for the Democratic party in a hypothetical 2024 environment.
The question essentially boils down to who will win the internal debate after a lost 2020 race: the progressives saying that Clinton and Biden lost because the party didnt move far enough to the left and nominated two uninspiring swamp creatures; or those saying that the party lost because it went too far in a sjw direction and should now emulate what Clinton (the successful one) did in 92 to break a Republican streak, i.e. tone certain things down and move to the center.

If the latter group prevails, Sherrod Brown might be a great candidate. If the "Bernie/AOC wing" of the party prevails, then god knows who would be a tier 1 representative from their ranks...

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 27 2020 07:53am

It's almost as if "being believably pro worker rights and neither a reactionary nor a sjw" is a winning formula...

We will have four more years of Trump metastasizing by then.