I was thinking that talking about who should have or could have won in 2016 is a great conversation for after the fascism is gone.
-
-
The competent one will definitely kill you when it is profitable to do so, but the incompetent one is out there being a yahoo....
-
if you give an incompetant warmonger a military it loses influence and has to focus on autonomy, competent leadership lets it grow quickly
-
True, true. But it also bombs a lot of people thanks to the inertia from the previous 44 warmongers
-
the global military dominance asserted by the us is currently precarious, but a decade of successfull interventionism could have cemented it
-
chance of 100yrs of ambient bombings and political assassination of foreign citizens is imo the most concerning thing re american politics
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And really, y'all should question the "competent" notion. DNC got hacked by spear phishing. Clinton campaign was compromised by same.
-
I think it is important to not lose sight of the fact that Trump is a monster RNC & DNC created. The DNC b/c they thought he was easy.
-
At what point in the thread did you decide the message switched from "Emily def. doesn't want to talk abt this" to "let's talk abt this"
-
My bad.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
General thought: Is it better to have an incompetent ally or a competent enemy?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.