I think the wheel of history turns on a greater axle than a presidential election. Look at Europe, and the rest of the global north. The machine of neoliberal imperialism has created global instability and climate crisis, and the rich are locking down their spoils with right wing nationalism.
Trump was a fluke, he’d have had more bites at the apple in 2020/2024 and eventually get a win. If not him, then some evangelical fascist.
Absolutely. We’re seeing a return of authoritarian candidates in many first world nations. The people that witnessed Hitler’s rise are mostly gone, leaving many to overlook or minimize similar patterns of behavior.
As far as the US is concerned, Trump made the hat. Someone else will put it on.
The dominance of the far-right in France’s elections and in European elections in general this cycle is really frightening. That being said, I think a lot of their success comes from tactics inspired by Trump’s… Trump became an internet icon, he was turned into a piece of popular culture. The European far-right are doing the same, they’re REALLY good at social media propoganda and utilising social media to get young people to vote for them. Looking at 2019 vs 2024, the difference in young voters’ attitudes would be unbelievable then.
The machine of neoliberal imperialism has created global instability and climate crisis, and the rich are locking down their spoils with right wing nationalism.
I want this on my tombstone so the alien archeologists that eventually visit our ruined husk of a world can know what happened.
More like people were betrayed by the DNC and rejected an unpopular candidate that was thrusted onto them.
The dnc really ought to let voters nominate their own candidates, instead of force feeding us their choice.
That is far too democratic to ever be a thing in your country. The political system is financed and thus owned by the capital, so they will never permit a not capitalist to have any political success. Bernie, a by all objective measures very moderate leftist, is the furthest the spectrum goes, and he is more tolerated as a sort of token minority than realistically able to affect any real change.
If people were able to select and push their own candidates the whole big money oligarchy collapses.
I saw a Michael Moore documentary that claims Bernie actually had the votes for the nomination and the DNC lied and said he lost in a state where he actually won.
Not sure if that’s true 100%
whether it’s true or not, DNC’s reputation makes it so believably probable – we got to watch as they backstabbed anyone slightly progressive, watched as they primaried anyone they couldn’t openly sabotage, and now they’re holding this year’s primary in Chicago claiming it won’t be a repeat of 1968 as they massively increase police presence …
The dnc really ought to let voters nominate their own candidates, instead of force feeding us their choice.
The biggest hurdle for potential candidates is name recognition and funding for getting those signatures. Even after getting the signatures, it’s very hard to challenge an incumbent, like was proven by Dean Phillips and Marriane Williamson.
You must not remember the 2016 primaries.
That’s why I said kind of.
Establishment/center right Dem influence on the primary happens through endorsements and media connections. While the actual primary is actually rather free, it’s not very fair as the establishment gets the first say over the narrative, though this is weakening incredibly over time with more social media and independent media influence.
The American supreme courts massive and 180 turn from the previous decades of law is the textbook definition of tyranny. America used to have a grand tradition of what to do with tyrants.
America always had big propaganda against other people’s tyrants, never against their own.
And Truman would have something to say about all of the Russian-bought members of Congress. History is cyclical, and we’re approaching another authoritarian period for global powers.
I’m glad I’m not the only one seeing this happen all over the world. All over the world we have feckless neoliberal parties failing to represent their people and getting replaced with populist right-wingers.
All over the world
Showing your bias here, because really this is only happening in Europe and the Anglosphere.
Not just Europe and the anglosphere. It’s also happening in Latin America (ecuador), and that’s basically all the regions where democracy used to be prevalent.
The middle east is still as dictatorial as it always was. Asia is still as dictatorial as it always has. Africa is still as dictatorial as it always has. I know all of these regions are huge and diverse, and that there are democracies. But none of them I can think of has gained democracy.
So the places that had democracy are turning less democratic, and the places that had little democracy still have little democracy. I’d say that’s an “All over the world” thing.
At least there’s Lula in Brazil. And I’m sure someone could come and tell me something bad about him, but not being Bolsonaro is a huge improvement, and I’ve heard other good things. In fact I believe the majority of Latin America is under leaders to the left of the US Democrats. And no I’m not counting non democracies like Venezuela or Cuba.
Because in a lot of other places, or was already the case.
Americans are fucking up their own country, Americans are the ones that collapsed the government in Russia, re-wrote their economy, pushed in Yeltzin then invested in all the criminals there. Americans created this entire problem, as they are the worldwide empire with trillions of dollars and an agenda. It is cope to think that Russia has anything to do with it, if anything its their chickens coming home to roost.
I’m not defending America’s actions. I’m stating that many members of US Congress are funded by Russian oligarchs.
The influence was apparent when Republicans withheld aid from Ukraine until they were forced to choose between funding Ukraine along with Israel, or leaving Israel without weapons.
Does that sound like a government body that is representing its constituents?
I think you misunderstand world politics, Russian oligarchs are funded by Americans and work for them in international crime.
OK, but sending weapons to either of these places is bad, both for the people whose wealth is being wasted to blow up people on the other side of the world, mostly civilians (almost entirely civilians in Israel’s case) and the people getting blown up
Supplying Ukraine with the weapons needed to defend themselves against a Russian invasion is bad?!?
The US is not supplying Ukraine with weapons because they have any interest in the well-being of the people in Ukraine. They are supplying the weapons to extend a war as long as possible to weaken Russia, at the expense of hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded Ukrainians and millions displaced.
This is infinitely worse for the people living there than if Russia won a quick victory or if we’d taken literally any off-ramp in the last decade.
Fucking what?
It doesn’t matter what the US supplies Ukraine. It’s Ukraines fight. It’s up to Ukraine to decide to forfeit the fight or to keep fighting.
By your logic we (humanity) should just let any country invade any other country and take over it’s people just because “it’s easier to give in than fight.” Giving in would be for the benefit of the people, right? That’s what you’re saying? Fuck right off.
Russia should not have invaded Ukraine in the first place.
If you haven’t yet, I recommend watching Traumazone. All 7 hours of it offers a beautiful insight in USSR 1980’s to 1999.
Yes, USA supported shitty stuff. But the system rotted itself out first with corruption and production mismatching demand while fighting pointless war in Afghanistan, which created the power vacuum and collapse.
The USSR failed because US caught them in a cold war specifically to bankrupt them. The Soviet Union fell not because of rot and mismanagement at the end but because they were attacked from the outside every second of its existence since 1917 for daring to stand up against business. This same external pressure is not true for the US. Russia wasn’t and isn’t attacking the US now. If anything “the Russians” work for certain Americans and not the other way around.
The west sure did buy a FUCKTON of oil from the Soviet Union for people who were apparently trying to bankrupt them since 1917
Bro this isn’t some conspiracy, it is the Kissinger Doctrine
Oh, but the West only gave the money in order to bankrupt the Soviets, you see
Yes, his name was Andrew Jackson, and he told the Supreme Court to go fuck itself, and we survived him too. This stuff changes and evolves.
America used to have a grand tradition of what to do with tyrants.
Which is the same playbook as democratically elected leaders of foreign nations. Bombs, drones and CIA-soonsored assassinations
a grand tradition of what to do with tyrants.
America as a nation was created by a subset of landed gentry who didn’t like paying taxes. They wanted to make Washington king. The founding fathers were basically the Megamind meme where Tighten (yes, it’s spelled Tighten, not “Titan”) says to the Mayor of the city: “More like under new management.”
The founders were not a monolith and had mega-disagreements about how to proceed from day 1.
“okay, we’re not gonna have political parties, right guys?”
Immediately form federalist and anti-federalist factions
Sure, and they still managed to pass the alien and sedition acts. Saying they weren’t a monolith is a way of dismissing the mountain of evidence that suggests that, for most of them, participation in the democratic process of an inchoate American republic was intended only for a small segment of the population - literate (i.e. wealthy) white men. I’d suggest A People’s History of the United States if you want a better perspective on that.
Says the people who swallowed the genocide every year they’ve been alive but decided to get unproductively upset at the moment it will help conservatives most.
Not in 2000. Republicans win when Democrats abstain or vote third-party. I’m not judging, but sharing personal experience. I voted for Nader along with plenty of others. In turn, we had Bush respond to 9/11 and decide how to address climate change instead of Gore.
Yes in 2000, third party didn’t cede yhe election to Bush.
There were much more influential factors.
- Disenfranchisement of democratically leaning voters, voting machines literally being relocated for no reason on election Day.
These " random, unforeseeable" technical problems across many states coincidentally disenfranchised black and white voters 10 to 1 vote.
-
Before the votes were counted, katherine Harris, who worked for Jeb Bush, the governor of California and George Bush’s brother, requested that at that specific moment, while George Bush had a lead in the number of Florida votes recounted, Florida election officials be allowed to stop counting votes(If they kept counting, the projection was for Gore to win the count a second time)
-
That went to the supreme Court, who said “yea, election officials shouldn’t be made to count every vote if they don’t want to”, so George Bush ended up winning in his Governor brother’s state.
Those travesties had a much greater impact, a magnitude greater, than your perfectly legitimate vote for Nader.
In every election, you should vote for the candidate than most aligns with your views.
I’m voting for Biden because he has an impressive executive track record on civil rights, the environment, sustainable technology in his first term and I hope he does the same in the second.
No other candidate that I’m aware of is more likely to do as much for the issues I think should be most urgently addressed.
Anyone voting for the green party or any third party should not be dissuaded from doing so because the American election system is broken.
By voting for a third party, they’re fixing that break.
Don’t forget that the ballots in Florida were really poorly designed, and caused Pat Buchanan to get a very high number of Democratic votes.
Thanks, I’m glad you brought it up.
Please explain how voting third-party fixes anything when a third-party candidate has never received even one electoral vote
in the history of our nationsince 1968.George Wallace got some electoral college votes because he was a flagrant racist.
I didn’t know that! I knew he was a famously bad candidate, but I just looked it up, and you’re right. Turns out he won 46 votes. Not bad.
In first world countries, voting third parties is called" “voting”, where you vote for the preferred candidate.
Voting for a third party fixes The way that Americans think voting is supposed to work, that you choose the color you like the best and bleed for them regardless of what you believe in.
That’s nice and all, but in the US we use the Electoral College to vote for President. They are in no way obligated to follow the popular vote. Candidates need 270 electoral votes to become President. A third-party candidate has never received even one electoral vote since 1968.
Also, the US is no longer a first-world country due to wealth inequality and lack of accessible healthcare nationwide. We have been downgraded to a developing nation.
Yes, those are both of my points from the previous comment.
The voting system in the US is broken and people need to start voting correctly.
They are too afraid to.
As I’ve mentioned, the US is not a first world nation. That’s why I said that first world countries know how to vote, while the US does not.
Why are you framing my own points defensively?
The voting system in the US is broken and people need to start voting correctly
You’re missing the point. As long as the electoral college and first past the post remain, third party candidates will never win. Never. It has nothing at all to do with people being “too afraid”.
The last time a 3rd-party candidate got ANY electoral votes(despite what the other person said, it has happened) was in 1968, and that was literally only because it was during the tail end of the civil rights movement and Nixon wasn’t quite racist enough for the south compared to the full blown white supremacist George Wallace.
The ONLY time a 3rd-party candidate has done better than one of the two major parties was over 100 years ago in 1912. The only reason for that is because the candidate in question was 2x former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, running as a 3rd-party specifically to oppose his handpicked successor turned rival Taft, who had become immensely unpopular with Rooseveltian Republicans. Well, two reasons: surviving an assassination attempt & giving a speech leaking blood with the bullet still in him like a total badass, just weeks before the election, probably helped too. Guess what though, it caused a huge spoiler effect that gave Woodrow Wilson a landslide 81.9% of the electoral vote despite only getting 41.8% of the popular vote.
Third parties are just inherently incompatible with our current election system. We need to adopt ranked choice voting and ditch the electoral college first.
Republicans win close races via fuckery. While US Americans are all distracted by the presidential race, republicans around the country are plotting all kinds of fuckery to rig the congressional races, the ones that are collectively far more important than the presidency.
Everyone is focused on Joe Biden, but the reality is that, without a democratic congressional majority, very little will continue to happen. Even with a majority in both the house and senate, i don’t think Democrats will fix (or want to fix) many of the broken parts of the system, like Citizen’s United, FISA, Copyright, DMCA, healthcare, supreme court expansion, gerrymandering, anti-trust and regulations, regulating Wall Street, regulating banks, fixing the housing market, taking power back from the supreme court, etc.
It’s not fuckery. It’s voter disengagement. Republicans know that they have limited numbers, but they vote with party loyalty. All they need to do is sour the left on their candidate to win. The largest historical Democratic turnout was 2020.
Brooks brothers riot was absolutely republican fuckery.
That’s fair. I should’ve written it’s not exclusively fuckery.
Regardless, voter disenfranchisement has been their main play for decades. They keep doing it because it works without having to speak to the good qualities of their own candidate.
Voter disengagement helped along by media consolidation. It’s not profitable to cover House races anymore unless something crazy is happening, so people aren’t made aware of it. State and local elections are even worse. Sometimes the only information about a candidate I can find is their private Facebook profile.
100%. Many fly under the radar and hope to catch a downballot win.
I’m referring to Jan 6th, the widespread election deniers, and the fake elector’s plot. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot
Bad take.
You get genocide either way; one is a guy trying to stop the genocide that’s been negotiating behind the scenes for months (and yes, also giving the Israelis arms), and the other guy wants to accelerate the genocide while also ending democracy.
one is a guy trying to stop the genocide that’s been negotiating behind the scenes for months
I don’t believe you. Or more accurately, I don’t believe the alleged “leaks” from the White House about how mad Joe Biden is but it’s behind closed doors just trust me bro. This guy has been hard in the pocket for Israel his entire career, why wouldn’t he be now?
Mostly because Netanyahu has been souring on Biden real fast. Biden held up a delivery of bombs to Israel back in May, citing Israel’s plans to bomb Rafah. Netanyahu announced he was pushing forward anyway, and there was a big public spat about it. That sort of thing has been happening since Oct 7.
I mean one could say it’s all an act or something, but that strains credulity to me.
I’m not saying Biden is doing great here, I’d much prefer he take Bernie Sanders’ advice on this and stop weapon deliveries altogether. But it’s certainly fair to assess that Biden wants the genocide to stop, but is not doing enough to stop it.
It’s not the leaks, it’s the fact that Anthony Blinken has been holding talks in Cairo to try and negotiate a peace settlement.
It’s not a bad take. The post didn’t imply that there was a no-Genocide option
Bad take.
It’s a return2ozma post. Of course it’s a bad take.
Or. Just maybe. We could actually care enough to pressure Biden.
No? Just going to shove your head in the ground and pretend politics is an immutable object?
I can’t imagine why Biden was already in so much polling trouble. It can’t possibly be the cult like atmosphere around him preventing him from contacting reality.
…And exactly, EXACTLY, how do you pressure him in a way that doesn’t actively risk making things far, far worse, not just in Israel, but here in the US as well? Because if your answer is, “don’t vote for him”, well, congrats, you’re going to make things worse.
You let them know. You don’t just sit on it. The one thing that will move a politician is knowing they can’t get elected again if they keep doing something. By throwing “But Trump!” at us, no matter how obliquely, you’re just protecting a genocide.
Are you not reading anything you just wrote?
one thing that will move a politician is knowing they can’t get elected again
If you do that with Biden, that means that Trump gets elected, and shit gets a whole helluva lot worse. Not just in Palestine, but everywhere. Of course, you’re going to say that I’m "throwing ‘But Trump!’ at you, but that’s not me - that’s the system that we live in.
You have a functionally binary choice. You can try to minimize damage, or not.
It’s your choice whether you, personally, do what you are capable of doing to minimize damage. And I hope that you have the intestinal fortitude to tell your LGBTQ+ friends to their face what you did, and why you did it, if it all goes the way I expect it will.
Yes, he’ll learn a lot by not being in office anymore. Then someone else will have the power to aid Isreal explicitly to carry out a genocide. But Biden will know. He’ll never hold office again , but hay. He’ll know. As the Supreme Court sactions the legalism of a Trump dictatorship and approve a continuation of the Japanese Internment Act. Expanded to all the other not-white people. Just as they argued during his first term, but Biden will know. Biden will have learned his lesson. While he has no political power of any kind. And when they’re shoving people in trucks and on boats without sufficient supplies to be dummped into places they aren’t from and have no resources to survive, and Biden will be sitting at home having fully learned his lesson.
Israel controls one of the largest political lobbies in America. No president who goes against the interests of the Israeli government will ever be elected until this changes.
AIPAC has only won one house race this year, and that was an already vulnerable incumbent. They’re nothing like titans like the NRA.
Ah yes. The insular Biden cult. I don’t know how deluded you need to be to buy this. No one, Not one person is in a cult of personality for Unkie Joe. No one. Why do you think this?
It’s difficult to defend the idea that Biden has been trying to end the genocide. He’s had that power from day 1. If you give Israel a bullet, you have solid awareness that there is a good chance it will be used against a non-combatant. That’s hard reality. If Biden was not supportive of genocide he would place an embargo on the weapons being poured into the massacre. He also wouldn’t sanction the ICC when they attempted to call out the primary actors in the genocide. He has given enabling support to the campaign in multiple ways.
Biden is not a good man as he is portrayed, he is complex obviously, but the reality is that Hitler still petted his dog and was nice to his friends and family. Biden should be joining Netanyahu at the Hague, not sabotaging democracy by being virtually un-electable while at the same time working to make it even more obvious that the international order is only there to punish certain war criminals.
Anyway, I think the take is pretty on point.
He’s had that power from day 1
Not as such, no. When congress appropriates funds, the president is legally obligated to disburse those funds for the purpose that they were appropriated for. This is a law, and it’s not something that’s up for debate. That was part of the underlying crime that Trump was first impeached for; he attempted to withhold funds corruptly. Could he have vetoed that? Sure. It also would have vetoed funding for Ukraine though. (And, just pointing out here that Trump would have vetoed assistance for Ukraine, while helping Israel kill more Palestinians faster.)
You can–and should–condemn his rhetoric, because he has been supportive of Israel waging war in Gaza. But he’s also been working behind the scenes, trying to negotiate a peace that Hamas will accept, and that Israel will accept. Even when he’s supporting Israel in public, it’s been clear that he’s been working to negotiate a truce.
This is a law
The US also has laws against providing arms to military units that have been credibly accused of war crimes, but in Israel (also Ukraine) they simply don’t investigate allegations in order to keep the arms flowing. If Biden wants a legal casus belli to deny Israel arms, he has many to choose from, but he is actively choosing not to employ them.
He would need some kind of finding of fact in the US to support that, and that hasn’t happened AFAIK yet. The ICC has made that finding, but it wouldn’t be legally supportable to use that finding to withhold appropriated funding.
Yeah the US isn’t even a member of the ICC.
In fact the US is so NOT a member of the ICC that it’s currently federal law that if a US soldier was being held at the Hague, the US military would be obligated to invade The Netherlands in order to recover them
People who think our presidential elections are only recently fucked up are morons. Since basically day 1 the politics and seedyness and bullshit going on behind the scenes has always been insane.
There’s some kind of narcissistic selfishness that constantly has a need for THIS time, OUR time to be the worst ever.
I mean, for the majority of the country’s history, huge portions of its population had literally no democracy due to no right to vote. But I guess we’ll ignore that.
We had portions of our history that were rocky as hell due to shifting balances of power between the federal branches, especially in the first 100 years.
We literally had a fucking civil war.
It’s always so interesting to me how people just ignore how bad it’s always been, and how many times the country did not, in fact, literally end, and yet they STILL gin up end of the country fearmongering constantly in every election cycle.
None of this is truly new.
They said most influential in the past 100 years, the civil war was 160 years ago.
100 years ago everyone had the right to vote (though Jim Crow laws limited voting access in many states for people of color, something that’s beginning to be reimplemented to an extent).
I think FDR might have been more influential, but he won in a landslide. Trump got millions fewer votes than his opponent and only won by a couple thousand votes in certain swing states. I think in the past 100 years it was probably the most influential presidential election in the sense that so few votes held so much influence on history.
I think the biggest factor is we have media covering everything 24/7 and when the smallest little detail comes out about something bad it’s blown way up and made to be a huge deal. It’s easy to get sucked into thinking we are in the worst point of history. No political figure can take a shit without some news outlet telling us that’s where they were plotting to blow up the entire world.
I mean, for the majority of the country’s history, huge portions of its population had literally no democracy due to no right to vote. But I guess we’ll ignore that.
Don’t forget the millions of felons who still don’t. In Florida they passed a direct referendum to give them their franchise back, but the state government employed legal fuckery to prevent it from working as intended.
I wouldn’t say they ignore it, it’s just that they’re too stupid to realize it, or they simply never learned/forgot American history from school.
The quiet part is out loud now and the dems are acting just as fascist as they yell at us that only they can save us from fascists.
So… People tell me an election year is no time to talk about electoral reform. Every US election year. But! After the election, they scurry away under the refrigerator and stay there for 4 years. I know you have to hold your nose while you vote this time, but catch these weird centrists before they disappear and hold their feet to the fire to influence change. You deserve better than this “I’m not voting for _, I’m voting against _” nonsense. Your government is hurting all of us. Stop it, please.
3 SCOTUS picks in 4 years and a lot of the shit happening now is the direct result of that.
Imagine what a 7-2 (or 8-1) Conservative Supreme Court would do…
It’ll be worse than that. If Trump wins in the fall, it’ll be due to Democratic abstentions. The downballot effects would likely result in Republican control of Congress.
They’ll be able to expand and pack the court all they’d like with Senate and House majority.
They won’t even need to pack the court, although nothing would surprise me. They would use their position to further suppress the votes of the less wealthy, making it less likely for them to lose power. They would further dismantle education creating a less educated population to keep them in power forever.
No thanks
People still clamoring for Clinton are why we ended up with Trump and not two terms of Bernie.
Uhhh and today the SCOTUS decided that Trump can never be prosecuted for anything he did or will do whilst president, so actually, democracy died today. Biden won’t abuse this. Trump will, and there will be nothing to stop him from enacting his dictator plans. About that, and the political assassinations, and the president for life, I think Trump is serious.
Y—…you guys think Israel being an apartheid state is less than 8 years old?
That’s not what this is saying, no.
My point is, you think this Israel situation hasn’t been on the ballot our entire lives? Because it always has been. Things have gotten worse, sure. But the US has been supporting Israel’s abuse of the Palestinian people, with our votes, since we’ve had the chance to vote. This isn’t new. It’s always been this situation, it’s just changed back and forth between bad and worse.
Perhaps in some primaries you had the odd candidate here and there who opposed continued weapons sales to Israel, but the presidential election has absolutely not had it ‘on the the ballot’ because that would imply you had one candidate who had a significantly different stance on the issue to the other.
What’s happening in Gaza now has been happening a long time, as President Carter said people weren’t demanding change or horrified in general because ‘‘they don’t know, they don’t want to know’’. The passive approval has been there a long long time. Biden may actually respond to pressure, Trump will be directed by his evangelical base to stoke all out unilateral war, and he’ll approve it.
Nothing here is simple, Biden doesn’t control Isreal, and neither will Trump or anyone else, Trump used ‘Palestinian’ as a slur, an insult. He also expressed his stance against Biden as Biden not aiding Isreal MORE. Who do you think is going to effect change in the direction of ending the genocide?
If you’re against the genocide, why in the world would you let the very pro genocide candidate win?
Bernie always had the commie stamp. I doubt he would have won against Trump
As opposed to all the well known stamps that Trump has!?
We’ll never know for sure, but polls had him beating Trump by a wider margin than Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020.
Could you though
If it wasn’t for Hillary and her DNC, yes.
As much of a Berniebro that I was, I’ve come to realize that the Democratic party is horrifically balkanized. There’s this expectation that the progressive wing of the party is supposed to hold its nose every year and vote for the neoliberal candidate. The problem is that this is not a two way street. Your hardliner party supporters that wanted a Clinton presidency wouldn’t have voted for Bernie. I knew some of them in real life. The DNC actively and aggressively poisoned that particular well early on. Bernie wasn’t a “potential candidate” - he was an enemy of Clinton. Plain and simple. They all said that if Bernie had gotten the nomination, they would have stayed home on election day.
If it wasn’t for the people and things that currently exist, things would be different!
One of the opinions of all time
“I don’t like the butcher of Yugoslavia, Libya, and Syria’s vibes” is a bit of an understatement.
I can only attribute the fact that we didn’t go to war with Iran after Iran’s response to blowing up the guy who beat ISIS while he was on a peace mission to historical coincidence, since it definitely wasn’t Trump’s character, but 0% chance Hillary would have called off the attack at the last minute.
If Hillary had won, we’d have started a war with Iran the year Covid was starting. And then maybe had Trump in 2020 instead of 2016
Edit: Anyone downvoting me wanna say why they think the person who was so proud of facilitating the brutal murder of Qaddafi would have pulled back from the brink of war?
the personal disciple of war criminal Henry Kissinger starting more wars? nah …
