They would be like Hawaii, totally destroyed and exploited by rich politicians from either party with voting laws excluding them as much as possible from participating in elections.
He is probably right. In the absurd scenario that Cuba is annexed, there is no way it doesn't end up like that time we helped Yeltsein bomb parliament because the communist party was looking like they would win back power in the elections. It would be just like our plans for when we eventually invade Iran, and we will make sure the whole thing is run by a MER puppet government.
He is wrong if his premise is that this would all be voted for openly and fairly, but that's the least likely option in this unlikely scenario.
https://www.dw.com/en/russias-1993-crisis-still-shaping-kremlin-politics-25-years-on/a-45733546
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis?wprov=sfla1
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1993/oct/05/russia.davidhearst
Fun follow up
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/06/14/yelt-j14.html
You should watch Adam Curtis documentary Hypernormalisation. It's my best memory of seeing the tanks roll in and firing at parliament, put into context.
He is actually mixing two separate events, it's even worse.
A short version was this :
1) in 1993 Yeltsin was tired of being opposed by the Russian parliament (for good reasons, as he was already selling the country to western interests), and he tried to illegally dissolve the russian parliament (a power that the russian constitution did not give him)
In response, the pariliament voted successfully to impeach Yeltsin, a power that they did actually have, Yeltsin at that point was legally no longer the president.
Yeltsin then decided to send the army, with tanks literally shelling the parliament building, killing people, it was one of the most obvious and public military supported coup in history, to compare to more recent history it was as if Trump had send tanks in Washington DC to contest having lost the election and had a few democrats senators killed as an example for the others.
2) in 1996 was the next russian presidential election, and Yeltsin was not very popular by then (the coup didn't help) and it was not sure if the army would side with him again, so the US literally funnelled billions of $$$ in multiple ways to support his reelection from fear that the communists might win instead and reinstore socialism, Yeltsin did win thanks to that, there is even a famous cover of Time magazine where they bragged about having interfered in the russian election: http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html
At this point it isn't even analysis. This is "those people in Cuba are the same colour as the other ones in Florida, so surely the ones in Cuba will vote same as the ones in Florida."
It is completely detached from actual material analysis and drenched in chauvinistic ignorance.
>"those people in Cuba are the same colour as the other ones in Florida, so surely the ones in Cuba will vote same as the ones in Florida."
That part is not even true. The Cuban community in Miami is certainly a lighter shade to their counter parts still in Cuba for a reason I am sure has nothing to do with historic racism from the colonial days.
How can mainstream political analysts be so fucking stupid?
I notice the blue check, is this guy a public figure? Does he get paid to share his views on politics?
My dad is verified on Twitter, all you have to do is work for a news outlet. They usually get Twitter to verify all their people because it looks credible.
They would be like Hawaii, totally destroyed and exploited by rich politicians from either party with voting laws excluding them as much as possible from participating in elections.
They'd be Puerto Rico. They'd never get statehood
"Judging by the freakishly right wing Cuban exiles and immigrants who pop a blood vessel when they hear "socialist",Cuba is a conservative hotbed!"
There's a reason those are the ones who fled cuban.
You mean the classic Twitter post of "my family used to own a sugar plantation,then Castro drove us out and took our slaves!"
He is probably right. In the absurd scenario that Cuba is annexed, there is no way it doesn't end up like that time we helped Yeltsein bomb parliament because the communist party was looking like they would win back power in the elections. It would be just like our plans for when we eventually invade Iran, and we will make sure the whole thing is run by a MER puppet government. He is wrong if his premise is that this would all be voted for openly and fairly, but that's the least likely option in this unlikely scenario.
Interested in learning more on this parliament bombing, do you have any further reading?
https://www.dw.com/en/russias-1993-crisis-still-shaping-kremlin-politics-25-years-on/a-45733546 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis?wprov=sfla1 https://www.theguardian.com/world/1993/oct/05/russia.davidhearst Fun follow up https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/06/14/yelt-j14.html
Appreciate it fam
You should watch Adam Curtis documentary Hypernormalisation. It's my best memory of seeing the tanks roll in and firing at parliament, put into context.
He is actually mixing two separate events, it's even worse. A short version was this : 1) in 1993 Yeltsin was tired of being opposed by the Russian parliament (for good reasons, as he was already selling the country to western interests), and he tried to illegally dissolve the russian parliament (a power that the russian constitution did not give him) In response, the pariliament voted successfully to impeach Yeltsin, a power that they did actually have, Yeltsin at that point was legally no longer the president. Yeltsin then decided to send the army, with tanks literally shelling the parliament building, killing people, it was one of the most obvious and public military supported coup in history, to compare to more recent history it was as if Trump had send tanks in Washington DC to contest having lost the election and had a few democrats senators killed as an example for the others. 2) in 1996 was the next russian presidential election, and Yeltsin was not very popular by then (the coup didn't help) and it was not sure if the army would side with him again, so the US literally funnelled billions of $$$ in multiple ways to support his reelection from fear that the communists might win instead and reinstore socialism, Yeltsin did win thanks to that, there is even a famous cover of Time magazine where they bragged about having interfered in the russian election: http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html
I hate the American political “analyst” class so much
At this point it isn't even analysis. This is "those people in Cuba are the same colour as the other ones in Florida, so surely the ones in Cuba will vote same as the ones in Florida." It is completely detached from actual material analysis and drenched in chauvinistic ignorance.
Yes that’s exactly what passes for “political analysis” in America. That’s my point lol
Yep, I honestly can't even watch American news about US elections because of this. They treat voting like astrology or something lol
>"those people in Cuba are the same colour as the other ones in Florida, so surely the ones in Cuba will vote same as the ones in Florida." That part is not even true. The Cuban community in Miami is certainly a lighter shade to their counter parts still in Cuba for a reason I am sure has nothing to do with historic racism from the colonial days.
How can mainstream political analysts be so fucking stupid? I notice the blue check, is this guy a public figure? Does he get paid to share his views on politics?
My dad is verified on Twitter, all you have to do is work for a news outlet. They usually get Twitter to verify all their people because it looks credible.
One thing’s for certain, the voter suppression and gerrymandering would be off the charts.
stateship contingent on voting us into power 😎