|
Kibayasu posted:Potentially the longest time frame a toxx has ever had. If I get banned when I'm 90 for being wrong in this thread, it will be the greatest honor I could ever hope for. Also, who is the designee to inform the forum that I won in the event that I die first? Preferably it would be someone who is both glad that I am dead but upset that I was right.
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 19:06 |
|
|
KillHour posted:Then let me be very clear about my argument. Anarchism couldn't do it no, but there is no reason a planned economy would have to forsake big complicated things, and it would in fact open the horizons of the possible up to stuff that is both big and complicated and not profitable like new antibiotics and actually addressing climate change Smartphones are an interesting example because not only are they the result of lots of public research and spending, but they are in fact made almost exclusively on centrally planned economies. Capitalism isnt the reason we have them here, shipping is
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 21:46
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Companies compete with capital for the things they need to get that large. now youre just moving the goalposts. are we talking about an economy where the workers have seized the means of production or not? also, there would still be administrators under a planned economy so the rest of this post is pretty off the mark.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 21:51
|
|
|
I know you're talking mostly about China but South Korea and Japan both have strong capital sectors. Even China is a hybrid at most and uses the strong central government to keep themselves in power and do ethnic cleansing, not usher in an egalitarian utopia. All of them have currency and capital trade underpinning their economies.punishedkissinger posted:now youre just moving the goalposts. are we talking about an economy where the workers have seized the means of production or not? If you go back to my earlier post I made it clear that I was asking about non-market socialist economies and how that would work. i.e., ones without money. I admit that the conversation has kind of been all over the place. KillHour fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Nov 27, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 21:52
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I know you're talking mostly about China but South Korea and Japan both have strong capital sectors. Even China is a hybrid at most and uses the strong central government to keep themselves in power and do ethnic cleansing, not usher in an egalitarian utopia. All of them have currency and capital trade underpinning their economies. Capital is an asset used for producing a good or service that can be traded or sold. The problem with capital is that the benefits from the produced commodity go primarily to the capital owner who did nothing rather than the laborers who actually put in time and effort to produce the commodity with the capital.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 22:10
|
|
|
Right but I was asking about this:Wikipedia posted:Socialist systems are divided into non-market and market forms. Non-market socialism substitutes factor markets and money with integrated economic planning and engineering or technical criteria based on calculation performed in-kind, thereby producing a different economic mechanism that functions according to different economic laws and dynamics than those of capitalism. I realize I'm not being exactly fair but I'm also debating the thread's id as half a dozen people tag team in and out making different arguments and sometimes calling me rude names so something has to give and I have to try to narrow the scope of the discussion or I literally can't have a coherent thought.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 22:14
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I know you're talking mostly about China but South Korea and Japan both have strong capital sectors. Even China is a hybrid at most and uses the strong central government to keep themselves in power and do ethnic cleansing, not usher in an egalitarian utopia. All of them have currency and capital trade underpinning their economies. I mean if you want to spitball I'd expect the most likely future option to be a centrally planned economy supported through computer simulations and testing, automation being used to support labor, and a planned obsolescence of money as part of your planning design. Honestly I think one of the strongest arguments for why capitalism will inevitably fall apart, either through global warming or by human hands, is that it's incredibly obvious now that the markets are not rational and does not make the most efficient allocation of resources. Our ability to have more data and a wider view and understanding of what we're doing is literally part of the idea that capitalism's contradictions will make it collapse. We can do this better and we now have the ability to do that math. It's also not really about money, it's about financial coercion. The idea that everyone would just sit around in a society that didn't force you to work is a capitalist myth to justify financial coercion into labor you do not want to do. Again, we have many examples from history and science to show that humans are naturally social animals that want to play a role in their society and identify themselves with their work. We love to work. We hate doing work we don't find useful. There will also still probably be organizational hierarchy in these systems. Not bosses but people who's role it is to plan and organize.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 22:21
|
|
|
^^^ As a computer toucher I'd strongly encourage people to not place too much faith in simulations/algorithms/AI/etc. They can be very useful tools in specific circumstances but they are not a substitute for human beings making informed decisions. So for example your simulation might be able to predict that you will need X tons of rice next year in areas A B and C but it can't account for a flood causing area C's residents to move to areas A and B and throwing all your calculations off. And that's not even accounting for the weird ethical issues that can pop up when people start using algorithms to justify lovely political decisions (hey district X just needs more of this super high quality merchandise OK!?). KillHour posted:Now I'm curious. Does anyone here advocate for actual non-market planned socialism and believe we should completely get rid of capital/money as a concept? How do you see that working? How would goods be allocated? If there's no financial motivation to take a job do you assign them somehow or would people just pick what they want to do? Genuinely want to know what a post-capital America might look like there. I think it's a good thought experiment for thinking of ways to solve problems without relying on the market but ultimately, no, I don't think it's possible at a global scale. In general I advocate for a world where the essentials are provided by the state for free/very cheap (housing, banking, healthcare, internet, common products, certain food staples, etc) and the rest is left to a market that's intentionally kept small and strictly regulated to serve human need, not to generate wealth. All businesses would be forced to operate as non-profit worker co-ops and any wealth accumulated by individuals progressively taxed with a 100% wealth cap in place once you've accumulated enough cash to retire forever (so a few million probably). There are other aspects I could dig into as well like a strong welfare state, breaking down/rebuilding undemocratic institutions like the police and the senate, and making politics in general more democratic, but you get the idea. Move away from profit and towards the human need whenever reasonably possible and let the markets pick up whatever scraps are left to fill in the gaps. I like this model because it takes the best aspects of socialism but lets people still do stuff like be a soundcloud rapper if they want. People can still chase their dreams if they want, they just wouldn't be able to get rich doing it. D: Oh and money still exists and people still need to work for a living in case that's not clear. There's just better pay, fewer expenses, a shorter work day and people have much more ownership over how their labor is used. Toilets get cleaned because jobs pay enough to make those tasks worth doing. readingatwork fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Nov 27, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 22:25
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:Capital is not the same thing as money. Communism can still have money. Money is just a socially accepted medium of exchange. The benefit is derived equally by the producer and the consumers of the efficiently produced goods and services. Benefit to the producers occurs grossly and benefit to society is marginally distributed across many individuals. You can’t ignore this side of the equation. Capital isn’t deployed in a vacuum, it’s deployed in a competitive environment that rewards production of the highest quality goods for the lowest possible price, and there’s a tremendous amount of risk involved. Deployment of capital and free markets in China has revolutionized the country and brought millions out of poverty. If you think central planning is driving China’s economy, I don’t know what to tell you. It’s the albatross around their neck right now if anything
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 22:37
|
|
|
Let me try to break this up because there's a lot of meat here. quote:I mean if you want to spitball I'd expect the most likely future option to be a centrally planned economy supported through computer simulations and testing, automation being used to support labor, and a planned obsolescence of money as part of your planning design. This is an interesting topic and I'd really like an expert to start a thread on it because my understanding is that economic models behave similarly to navier-stokes in that you can solve for the discrete case but the continuous case is both unsolvable and obeys chaos theory so you only have very limited predictive capabilities. But I'm not even close to an expert. Would be interesting to learn about the cutting edge. quote:Honestly I think one of the strongest arguments for why capitalism will inevitably fall apart, either through global warming or by human hands, is that it's incredibly obvious now that the markets are not rational and does not make the most efficient allocation of resources. Our ability to have more data and a wider view and understanding of what we're doing is literally part of the idea that capitalism's contradictions will make it collapse. We can do this better and we now have the ability to do that math. I think your fatal assumption is that we will be able to agree as a society on what "optimal" means. Unless we have a single party state that is able to keep a long term budget goal in mind, the economy could quickly become like the US budget with tons of pork to get votes and individual aspects would be either an entrenched, impossible to excise tumor like the military or fleeting, unreliable and chaotic investments into different areas that get made and cancelled every time the party changes hands like everything not the military. Who decides what's optimal? How often is that reevaluated? What happens when someone decides they don't like x and starts campaigning against funding it? Capitalism is a bunch of different ideas at the same time and a bunch of them are garbage. Centralized planning in a democracy is a few ideas at a time but only for 4 years at a time. Centralized planning in a single party system is one idea ever and if you don't like it, tough poo poo. I'm not advocating for any one of those, btw. They're all kind of garbage. quote:It's also not really about money, it's about financial coercion. The idea that everyone would just sit around in a society that didn't force you to work is a capitalist myth to justify financial coercion into labor you do not want to do. Again, we have many examples from history and science to show that humans are naturally social animals that want to play a role in their society and identify themselves with their work. We love to work. We hate doing work we don't find useful. There will also still probably be organizational hierarchy in these systems. Not bosses but people who's role it is to plan and organize. If you go back to an earlier post where I say I'm in favor of a UBI that would allow you to live comfortably without working, you'll see that I never made this argument and that it's a straw man. I agree with this entirely, but it doesn't need socialism or any particular economic system to work - just a strong social safety net. readingatwork posted:
this is very close to where I'm at so feel free to assume I agree with basically all of this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 22:42
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:I think it's a good thought experiment for thinking of ways to solve problems without relying on the market but ultimately, no, I don't think it's possible at a global scale. This is pretty much the idealized world that I would hope for, within the framework of my own expectations of what's possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 23:56
|
|
|
This new variant appears to be worse than Delta, though we are still trying to figure out just how bad it really is. I appreciate the federal government imposing some travel restrictions to...buy us time. But it looks like the vaccines aren't nearly as effective with Omicron (name of the next Marvel villain), and I fear that we are in for a brutal winter with how much fatigue there is with COVID in the United States. Be safe everyone!
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 23:57
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:lol The pull out with the Taliban was negotiated under the Trump administration with a pull out date of May, 2021. The Taliban were abiding by this agreement until Joe Biden announced he was extending our time in Afghanistan by 3 months and then made a complete hash out of the withdrawal. Biden doesn't get the credit for pulling out of Afghanistan anymore than he gets credit for removing troops from Iraq. If you don't remember, the Obama administration put Joe in charge of the withdrawal from Iraq and did not leave any troops to deal with any possible contingencies that might arise, blaming the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated under the Bush administration. Shortly thereafter ISIS nearly overran the whole country and the US had to send troops back in to stabilize the area. I know because I was there. Biden wants the credit for something that was already negotiated, but none of the blame for the cockups that happened while it was executed. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 23:58
|
|
|
Kirios posted:This new variant appears to be worse than Delta, though we are still trying to figure out just how bad it really is. I appreciate the federal government imposing some travel restrictions to...buy us time. But it looks like the vaccines aren't nearly as effective with Omicron (name of the next Marvel villain), and I fear that we are in for a brutal winter with how much fatigue there is with COVID in the United States. Be safe everyone! Bolded is simply not true based on what we know of the mRNA vaccines and how they work. A few people are speculating worst case scenarios about the new variant but vaccinated people are still thus far still largely protected from hospitalization and death from the new variant. It's still fairly early to say definitively how effective they will continue to be, but work is already being done to tailor the existing vaccines to the new variants.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 00:33
|
|
|
the one true guideline / truth for covid for the last 2 years has been "dunno check back in 2 weeks when we have measurements/data."
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 00:37
|
|
|
KillHour posted:
Whoops people voted against the interest of capital no more voting allowed election was rigged.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 00:42
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:^^^ As a computer toucher I'd strongly encourage people to not place too much faith in simulations/algorithms/AI/etc. They can be very useful tools in specific circumstances but they are not a substitute for human beings making informed decisions. So for example your simulation might be able to predict that you will need X tons of rice next year in areas A B and C but it can't account for a flood causing area C's residents to move to areas A and B and throwing all your calculations off. And that's not even accounting for the weird ethical issues that can pop up when people start using algorithms to justify lovely political decisions (hey district X just needs more of this super high quality merchandise OK!?). I agree with you. Let’s take over the DSA and advocate for this and build a Social Democratic Labour Party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 00:51
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:The pull out with the Taliban was negotiated under the Trump administration with a pull out date of May, 2021. The Taliban were abiding by this agreement until Joe Biden announced he was extending our time in Afghanistan by 3 months and then made a complete hash out of the withdrawal. Firstly most of what I give Biden credit for is not backing out. Literally everyone in media and many of the war hawks were trying to slow walk it on the scale of YEARS or get it canceled outright. I do not believe Trump would have gone through with it with the pressure campaign that turned against him, if he even planed to go through with it at all. That, and the cock-up belongs with the planning. No one actually had a plan, and three months was needed to turn around the situation as cleanly as it happened. Frankly it looks like a political split take, where you blame him for withdrawing and failing arr troops brave sacrifices or for canceling the withdrawal because arr troops are still out there. Largely this was such a disaster because for the most part the government of Afghanistan was transparently a fiction used to not portray 20 years of low intensity war as a colonial occupation. They were never independent, trusted, capable, or honest. They never really represented much of anyone. Afghanistan is a fiction, a hole on the map between several other post colonial states. Its politics have been disrupted by decades of war and occupation. It has no real identity, everyone still looks to local tribal leadership and law. We crushed the militias on out way in to replace the mas the regional power, and so lost much of the existing political forces. You cant dump it all on the last man, it speaks to just not liking the person who got stuck with the bag. Make a real suggestion on a specific point and how you think it could have been done differently. Start 20 years ago, because that's when we started digging the money-pit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 00:58
|
|
|
Barrel Cactaur posted:You cant dump it all on the last man, it speaks to just not liking the person who got stuck with the bag. Make a real suggestion on a specific point and how you think it could have been done differently. Start 20 years ago, because that's when we started digging the money-pit. And be prepared to be ignored, dismissed, and cursed at in this alternate reality because it doesn't matter how good the idea was, people were way WAY too pissed off about 9/11 to listen to anything beyond "Spill blood and wreck poo poo."
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 01:46
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:The pull out with the Taliban was negotiated under the Trump administration with a pull out date of May, 2021. The Taliban were abiding by this agreement until Joe Biden announced he was extending our time in Afghanistan by 3 months and then made a complete hash out of the withdrawal. Trump already straight up said "The negotiations were not serious" and you know what, I think for once he wasn't lying. I suspect Trump wouldn't have pulled out from Afghanistan entirely because, again, that's commitment and Trump sucks at committing to anything. This is a man who walked back or failed to uphold on nearly every negotiation he ever made in his life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 01:51
|
|
|
Trump's opinions and declarations flopped about in the breeze of public opinion like a loving flag in a hurricane. Consistency and staying the course? Really? When every cable news channel was melting down over actually leaving Afghanistan you really think Trump would have held firm? gently caress no.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 01:58
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Trump already straight up said "The negotiations were not serious" and you know what, I think for once he wasn't lying. I suspect Trump wouldn't have pulled out from Afghanistan entirely because, again, that's commitment and Trump sucks at committing to anything. All he ever cared about throughout the Mueller report and its fallout was for his AGs to go in front of the cameras and say he wasn't under investigation. All he wanted from Ukraine was for them to say Hunter Biden was under investigation. Actually doing anything never mattered to him, it's only ever "get important person to say they're doing the thing, that's what makes number go up"
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 01:58
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:I don't think I am the one that has any assumptions but clearly you do. Lol typical. You asked a question and I literally just answered it: the data is not very good and can't really answer your question with any real confidence. However, the data that there is shows the opposite of what you hoped. That's all. I didn't take any position at all, just did some very quick and rough research and reported back. Then you post a link that literally never even mentions counting deaths due to uninsurance, nor does it mention underinsurance. Like, you might as well have just posted goatse or rickroll to support your claims. And then this weird assertion that I'm the one with assumptions (because I tried to help you out by answering your question?). And the weirder assertion that you have no assumptions at all. If you're too lazy to look up evidence for the poo poo you post, fine. But don't be lovely to the people who do take time to look things up before they post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 02:02
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:All he ever cared about throughout the Mueller report and its fallout was for his AGs to go in front of the cameras and say he wasn't under investigation. All he wanted from Ukraine was for them to say Hunter Biden was under investigation. And near the end, after it finally dawned on him that he lost the election, it was all about loving up everything more for the next administration. Anybody throwing Trump a bone over Afghanistan is full of poo poo. The deal with the Taliban was just the deal of the day for him to tout as an achievement like his failed deals with North Korea and "Peace in the Middle East". CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Nov 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 02:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This is a man who walked back or failed to uphold on nearly every negotiation he ever made in his life. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 02:39
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Trump already straight up said "The negotiations were not serious" and you know what, I think for once he wasn't lying. I suspect Trump wouldn't have pulled out from Afghanistan entirely because, again, that's commitment and Trump sucks at committing to anything. Trump was horrible and I won't forgive him for continuing the long US tradition of loving over the Kurds, but I don't have to give Biden the benefit of the doubt either. The Taliban apparently thought the negotiations were serious though, and even if Trump wasn't going to abide by it, the US had already made a commitment that Biden did not follow through on. I still think he extended it so he could declare an end to operations on 9/11 for the symbolism of an even 20 years but couldn't do it because Afghanistan collapsed sooner than he thought it would, but I can't prove that. Has the Biden administration made any comments regarding Russia and Poland? PeterCat fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Nov 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 03:48
|
|
|
Srice posted:I think a lot about how the Clinton response to the slogan "Make America Great Again" was "America is already great". I can't think of a worse response than that, especially for the demographic you're talking about. Clinton really did encapsulate drat near every single reason why people voted for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 03:50
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:Trump was horrible and I won't forgive him for continuing the long US tradition of loving over the Kurds, but I don't have to give Biden the benefit of the doubt either. Yes, again, Biden followed through. There's no reason to believe Trump would have. That's the point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 03:53
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:Trump was horrible and I won't forgive him for continuing the long US tradition of loving over the Kurds, but I don't have to give Biden the benefit of the doubt either. You don't have to give Biden the benefit of the doubt, you have to give him credit. He followed through, he pulled us out of Afghanistan. We are no longer in Afghanistan because of his leadership. Trump would have caved and kept us there, because he abhors bad press and he abhors looking weak. e: yet you don't seem to care that Trump had 4 years to pull out and didn't? Why didn't Trump pull out of Afghanistan in his first 6 months in office, like Joe Biden somehow managed to do? vvvvvv How are u fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Nov 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 04:07
|
|
|
Barrel Cactaur posted:You cant dump it all on the last man, it speaks to just not liking the person who got stuck with the bag. Make a real suggestion on a specific point and how you think it could have been done differently. Start 20 years ago, because that's when we started digging the money-pit. One thing omitted from this is the Obama-Biden administration had 8 years to pull out of Afghanistan and didn't do it, which makes me loath to give any credit to Biden, especially since I was part of the forces sent to deal with the fallout of pulling out of Iraq. We still have 2500 troops in Iraq and Syria, though no one has talked about them since Trump had the Iranian general killed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 04:08
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yes, again, Biden followed through. There's no reason to believe Trump would have. That's the point. Hey, if we're playing fantasy would-have politics, can I choose a different Dem nominee for president? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 04:12
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Hey, if we're playing fantasy would-have politics, can I choose a different Dem nominee for president? I guess the question is do you really believe Trump failing to follow through is "fantasy", but of course you can.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 05:04
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:I mean, Trump at least followed through on no TPP, ending the war in Afghanistan & getting rid of the mandate penalty, which is a higher percentage of truth-to-lies than the Dems have managed (so far) on their own election promises to increase the minimum wage, forgive student-loan debt, have a public option for health insurance, and lower the cost of prescription drugs across the board for all consumers. Nice bait post. For anyone actually curious on campaign promises, I'll just leave these two links here: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/?ruling=true, https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/?ruling=true
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 05:07
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Nice bait post. For anyone actually curious on campaign promises, I'll just leave these two links here: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/?ruling=true, https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/?ruling=true I have to give you this, Joe Biden didn't promise anything and is following through on those promises.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 05:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yes, again, Biden followed through. There's no reason to believe Trump would have. That's the point. I mean, short of a newly refreshed invasion force they didnt really have a choice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 05:44
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yes, again, Biden followed through. There's no reason to believe Trump would have. That's the point. No, my point is Biden delayed the pull out for 3 months for political reasons. As far as Biden's promises kept, let's look at the Supreme Court. According to Politifact, he promised to "Create a bipartisan commission to consider reforms to the Supreme Court". https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/promise/1539/create-bipartisan-commission-consider-reforms-supr/ What he actually said was this: "Just over a week shy of Election Day, the Senate on Monday is planning a confirmation vote for Judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court. O'Donnell asked Mr. Biden if he would add more justices to the nation's top court if he were elected. Joe Biden responded that he would put together a national, bipartisan commission of constitutional scholars to make recommendations on how to reform the system for selecting Supreme Court justices." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-60-minutes-interview-highlights-2020-10-25/ Which, short of amending the Constitution, doesn't actually mean anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 05:51
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:No, my point is Biden delayed the pull out for 3 months for political reasons. I dunno man, 3 months? I feel like the generals were set to be all, nope we're not pulling out! Then once Biden was like, no we are pulling out, they asked for more time to make it slightly less of a clusterfuck than it ended up being. If it had happened on time, in your opinion, would it have been more or less of the clusterfuck than it was? Please consider that nobody with a functioning brain considered Trump's words to be realistic..
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 06:09
|
|
|
Sekhmnet posted:I dunno man, 3 months? I feel like the generals were set to be all, nope we're not pulling out! Then once Biden was like, no we are pulling out, they asked for more time to make it slightly less of a clusterfuck than it ended up being. If it had happened on time, in your opinion, would it have been more or less of the clusterfuck than it was? Please consider that nobody with a functioning brain considered Trump's words to be realistic.. Furthermore, did Trump do anything to execute on his agreement with the Taliban? It's one thing to blame Biden for needlessly delaying or botching an operation that was already in progress, it seems rather asinine to blame him if (as seems rather likely) Trump left office with an inked agreement, a looming deadline, and no progress made toward actual withdrawal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 06:21
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Hey, if we're playing fantasy would-have politics, can I choose a different Dem nominee for president? I don't understand. You started us down the fantasy would have path by arguing Trump would've pulled out of Afghanistan. It's your circus do what you'd like!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 06:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 19:06 |
|
|
No; I pointed out that Biden executed the agreement that Trump made, albeit later than Trump's agreed-to end date. That's different from ideating about Pres. Trump reneging in 2021 his promise made in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 06:53
|
|