USA - США - SAD

KinderLad wrote:...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/11/elizabeth-warren-foreign-policy-trump-war

Warren’s foreign policy shows she’s missing why Trump was elected

...

Warren’s meaty article in Foreign Affairs is worth paying attention to, not so much because she is saying anything that others won’t. I imagine in fact that she is saying what all the Democrats will: end perpetual war, get out of Afghanistan and Iraq, “a foreign policy that works for all Americans”.

And I understand as well that the purpose of these articles is to cover a lot of ground and not be too far off the beaten path, perhaps to say something to appease the experts and the news media, but not to write some treatise that is set in stone.

Still I have very bad news for Warren: she will get none of it. And what is more, in laying blame at Donald Trump’s door, certainly red meat for her party loyalists, Warren doggedly misses why Trump was elected, and why under him, things have not changed and gotten worse.

...

She may not think it, but Warren is merely genuflecting before this deep state, declaring her allegiance to a “muscular military” and calling for “strong yet pragmatic security policies”. She of course offers a laundry list of things that must be preserved or strengthened that’s non-military – from technological superiority to diplomacy to strong alliances. And she decries the military and civilian policymakers who “seem [in]capable of defining success”. But in her innocence as to why we are stuck in seemingly endless wars she also seems oblivious to the fact that she is already capitulating to the very forces that ensure that we can’t change anything.

Warren’s tour of the world – a Russia that is “belligerent and resurgent”, a China that has “weaponized” everything, nuclear proliferation in North Korea, “looming unrest in the western hemisphere” – seems intent on proving herself neither a dove nor naive. Along the way she wants to “face down antidemocratic forces around the world”, end terrorism and deal with the “challenges” of cyber-attacks.

Dealing with it all, she says, requires “more than a strong military”. And so she wants multilateral arms control, more investments in diplomacy, increased foreign aid to advance US interests, strong and large alliances where our partners pay their fair share. Oh and she’s for peace, which she describes as “preventing problems from morphing into costly wars” and “not policing the world”, which somehow she twists to make an innovation after two years of Trump.

Trump campaigned against policing the world, for America first, against this permanent government, this swamp, and in his two years in office they have squarely subordinated him to be in “command” of nothing. It is of course Trump’s fault in his shallowness. But Barack Obama also experienced this crowd, and the full force of being unable to change hardly anything.

The American people, Warren says, “have less faith in their government today than at any other time in modern US history”. There’s no danger in saying it; it’s provable by polls. She doesn’t elaborate or name the culprits behind the many national security misfortunes she identifies. And in that is presidential weakness of the worst kind.

Gargamel wrote:^bs. ništa on tu nije razumeo.

ovo što je Voren napisala je u velikoj umivena i očešljana verzija pokliča "America First!". ne da je ona nekakva lepša verzija Trampa, već se radi o tome da se Vorenkin esej i ne bavi previše spoljnom politikom. svega par opštih mesta bez neke razrade.

američke porodice ovo, poštena radnička klasa ono, neravnopravnost u SAD ono treće...

And I understand as well that the purpose of these articles is to cover a lot of ground and not be too far off the beaten path, perhaps to say something to appease the experts and the news media, but not to write some treatise that is set in stone.

KinderLad wrote:Ma Warrenka bi što se spolj. politike tiče bila nešto kao Obama

Morning Consult interviewed 11,627 registered voters who indicated they may vote in the Democratic primary or caucus in their state. The firm said it will release updated results each week going forward.

According to the results, Biden is at 29 percent among Democrats nationwide. The former vice president is seriously considering running in 2020. So is Sanders, who stands at 22 percent in the survey. The independent senator from Vermont battled eventual nominee Hillary Clinton throughout the 2016 primaries.

Harris polls at 13 percent, with Warren at 8 percent. Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas – who’s considering a White House run – stands at 7 percent, with declared candidates Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey at 5 percent and Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota at 3 percent. None of the 12 other candidates or potential contenders listed in the survey topped 2 percent.

Bajdenu dajte mesec dana da za neku ženu, još bolje crnkinju, izgovori pandan onome first African American candidate who is clean and nice-looking 

KinderLad wrote:

Bajdenu dajte mesec dana da za neku ženu, još bolje crnkinju, izgovori pandan onome first African American candidate who is clean and nice-looking 

To je danas plus

KinderLad wrote:Salim se. 

Elem, Bajden je dovoljno dugo tu okolo negde da  je, da, vidjen kao "očinska figura", neko ko može da vrati "red" u "haos". Apsolutno sam ubeđen da bi dobio Trampa. Doduše, naravno, mislim da bi ga i Bernie dobio, samo na malo drugačiju foru. Harris ima nula šanse da dobije Trampa. Za Warren nisam siguran, mada mi je dublja strepnja nego nada.