Jump to content
270soft Forum
Patine

Fictititious Future 2028 United States - Divergent Point Prequel

Recommended Posts

@vcczar @jvikings1 @Reagan04 @Dallas @Sanser2016 @CalebsParadox @lok1999 @jnewt @ThePotatoWalrus  @SiorafasNaCillini @servo75 @Presidentinsertname @Falcon @Take Me to La Riva @TheMiddlePolitical @Zach @Sunnymentoaddict @streiner @Conservative Elector 2 @Jayavarman @SeanFKennedy @QuickHead555 @goTBrays @warren2016 @victor1313 @TheLiberalKitten @Biden Should've Run @wolves @Socialist Bernie @Mordechai @michaelsdiamonds @chunkbuster11 @admin_270 @VanMav @pilight @Bruce Fischer @LegolasRedbard   @republicaninnyc @TeamEhmling

Although this isn't necessarily the current project, this would be the scenario (at least U.S. one) where the big divergent point leading to my fictitious timeline really gets going.

President Marco Rubio's hold on power going into the 2028 election is tenuous at best. Being largely a compromise candidate in the 2024 election, and having visibly agonized before choosing Ted Cruz as his running over Rand Paul in hopes of achieving party unity, he scraped by a General Election victory largely and greatly helped by a nasty scandal from the past coming up to plague his main opponent, former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. His legislative platform doesn't fully please either the social conservative or the more libertarian camps of the Republican Party, and certainly not the Democratic caucus, and thus little gets passed without major compromising concessions. Jeb Bush, his choice of Secretary of State, comes to mark him in public opinion of falling more and more under the Bush Family's foreign policy agenda. Now, going into the 2028 primaries, the Republicans seem no more united than in 2024, and it's even uncertain if Rubio will be re-nominated. The Democrats are hoping to rally a better candidate than last election, and build off their gains in the 2026 mid-terms (largely off the back of Republican division and lack of progress in Rubio's first two years in office), and the Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Reform, Peace and Justice, and Socialist Worker's Parties are hoping not to drop the ball on a possible window for success like they did in 2016. However, in October 2027, a convention at the New York Hilton Hotel hosted by Massachusetts multi-billionaire telecommunications tycoon Arthur Greene, about whom little is previously known, as he has had little notable public visibility before hand, founds the Restoration Party, a party built on playing on bipartisan division and the failures of the two main parties, backed by his own and some of his associates' vast monetary warchest and advertising resources they themselves own - effectively a second Ross Perot, but with much more charisma and eloquence in pointing out how the two main parties have failed the nation, but also being very skillfully circumspect about making few campaign promises of his own directly, but speaking in such a way that only the most perceptive and insightful actually pick that up in the short-term.

That's the initial setup of this particular scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume Trump won re-election in 2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like it'll be a fun scenario to play

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Patine said:

@vcczar @jvikings1 @Reagan04 @Dallas @Sanser2016 @CalebsParadox @lok1999 @jnewt @ThePotatoWalrus  @SiorafasNaCillini @servo75 @Presidentinsertname @Falcon @Take Me to La Riva @TheMiddlePolitical @Zach @Sunnymentoaddict @streiner @Conservative Elector 2 @Jayavarman @SeanFKennedy @QuickHead555 @goTBrays @warren2016 @victor1313 @TheLiberalKitten @Biden Should've Run @wolves @Socialist Bernie @Mordechai @michaelsdiamonds @chunkbuster11 @admin_270 @VanMav @pilight @Bruce Fischer @LegolasRedbard   @republicaninnyc @TeamEhmling

Although this isn't necessarily the current project, this would be the scenario (at least U.S. one) where the big divergent point leading to my fictitious timeline really gets going.

President Marco Rubio's hold on power going into the 2028 election is tenuous at best. Being largely a compromise candidate in the 2024 election, and having visibly agonized before choosing Ted Cruz as his running over Rand Paul in hopes of achieving party unity, he scraped by a General Election victory largely and greatly helped by a nasty scandal from the past coming up to plague his main opponent, former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. His legislative platform doesn't fully please either the social conservative or the more libertarian camps of the Republican Party, and certainly not the Democratic caucus, and thus little gets passed without major compromising concessions. Jeb Bush, his choice of Secretary of State, comes to mark him in public opinion of falling more and more under the Bush Family's foreign policy agenda. Now, going into the 2028 primaries, the Republicans seem no more united than in 2024, and it's even uncertain if Rubio will be re-nominated. The Democrats are hoping to rally a better candidate than last election, and build off their gains in the 2026 mid-terms (largely off the back of Republican division and lack of progress in Rubio's first two years in office), and the Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Reform, Peace and Justice, and Socialist Worker's Parties are hoping not to drop the ball on a possible window for success like they did in 2016. However, in October 2027, a convention at the New York Hilton Hotel hosted by Massachusetts multi-billionaire telecommunications tycoon Arthur Greene, about whom little is previously known, as he has had little notable public visibility before hand, founds the Restoration Party, a party built on playing on bipartisan division and the failures of the two main parties, backed by his own and some of his associates' vast monetary warchest and advertising resources they themselves own - effectively a second Ross Perot, but with much more charisma and eloquence in pointing out how the two main parties have failed the nation, but also being very skillfully circumspect about making few campaign promises of his own directly, but speaking in such a way that only the most perceptive and insightful actually pick that up in the short-term.

That's the initial setup of this particular scenario.

This is interesting. Here are some comments. 

While I definitely see Rubio, Cruz and Rand Paul as major figures in 10 years. I think Cuomo's time will have passed by then, since I think the Democratic party is changing as we speak. Cruz and Paul are change candidates now, so they'll either be mainstream then, or will still be change candidates. Rubio is less likely to endure unless he really evolves. I'm curious with Cruz though, since his power will depend on what issues are important in 2028.

Cuomo will be 70 years old in 2028 and pretty much a dinosaur in politics and in his ideology. He would be safe, provided the Democratic Party doesn't change, but I think it will, and it is. More likely, you will have someone like Kamala Harris, Tammy Duckworth, John P Kennedy III, Tulsi Gabbard, Gavin Newsom, Peter Buttigieg, Kyrstin Sinema, or other young politicians with little national recognition at this point being the nominee. I think the most mainstream person I can see still being powerful in 2028 is Cory Booker. I would suggest someone other than Cuomo. 

Jeb Bush at state would be an odd choice, considering he has almost no foreign policy experience, and he doesn't seem to be acquiring any at the moment. Also, he's 75 in 2028. I do think there may be a role for him in the cabinet, but probably not at State, Treasury, Attorney General, or Defense. Basically, he'd get one of the less prestigious cabinet spots. 

I think your invention of Arthur Greene is good. I think you should also invent some other politicians for all the parties. 

Also interesting would be the return of some scandal-ridden politicians, like Chris Christie, who will be about 65 in 2028. He could have lost weight, made a name for himself in the private sector, and is removed from his scandals, and perhaps has atoned for them and improved his reputation. He would run as a centrist, probably more centrist socially than he was as governor, but maybe more pro-business and pro-law enforcement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, vcczar said:

This is interesting. Here are some comments. 

While I definitely see Rubio, Cruz and Rand Paul as major figures in 10 years. I think Cuomo's time will have passed by then, since I think the Democratic party is changing as we speak. Cruz and Paul are change candidates now, so they'll either be mainstream then, or will still be change candidates. Rubio is less likely to endure unless he really evolves. I'm curious with Cruz though, since his power will depend on what issues are important in 2028.

Cuomo will be 70 years old in 2028 and pretty much a dinosaur in politics and in his ideology. He would be safe, provided the Democratic Party doesn't change, but I think it will, and it is. More likely, you will have someone like Kamala Harris, Tammy Duckworth, John P Kennedy III, Tulsi Gabbard, Gavin Newsom, Peter Buttigieg, Kyrstin Sinema, or other young politicians with little national recognition at this point being the nominee. I think the most mainstream person I can see still being powerful in 2028 is Cory Booker. I would suggest someone other than Cuomo. 

Jeb Bush at state would be an odd choice, considering he has almost no foreign policy experience, and he doesn't seem to be acquiring any at the moment. Also, he's 75 in 2028. I do think there may be a role for him in the cabinet, but probably not at State, Treasury, Attorney General, or Defense. Basically, he'd get one of the less prestigious cabinet spots. 

I think your invention of Arthur Greene is good. I think you should also invent some other politicians for all the parties. 

Also interesting would be the return of some scandal-ridden politicians, like Chris Christie, who will be about 65 in 2028. He could have lost weight, made a name for himself in the private sector, and is removed from his scandals, and perhaps has atoned for them and improved his reputation. He would run as a centrist, probably more centrist socially than he was as governor, but maybe more pro-business and pro-law enforcement. 

In terms of Cuomo, he isn't meant to be an actual candidate in this given scenario, but have been the losing candidate in 2024, in the backstory, if you will, when he would be 66 and it would be 4 years earlier. I hadn't planned him to actually reappear as a candidate in 2028. Would your viewpoint and advice on him even apply in that clarified context? However, you're point on Jeb Bush is a good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, President Garrett Walker said:

I assume Trump won re-election in 2020

And to answer your question, I'm assuming Trump doesn't run for re-election in 2020 due to serious health concerns (a very real possibility in his case), leaving an open field in 2020. Though I haven't yet decided who wins that field, whoever it is is such that, for one reason or another, they also don't run again or are not re-nominated in 2024, leading to another open field and at least the tentative backstory of the 2024 GE and end of primaries I had mentioned above. A lot would still need to filled in there, but that's the VERY rough premise I have in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Patine said:

And to answer your question, I'm assuming Trump doesn't run for re-election in 2020 due to serious health concerns (a very real possibility in his case), leaving an open field in 2020. Though I haven't yet decided who wins that field, whoever it is is such that, for one reason or another, they also don't run again or are not re-nominated in 2024, leading to another open field and at least the tentative backstory of the 2024 GE and end of primaries I had mentioned above. A lot would still need to filled in there, but that's the VERY rough premise I have in mind.

How about Joe Biden runs and wins in 2020, then declines to run in 2024 because of his age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, President Garrett Walker said:

How about Joe Biden runs and wins in 2020, then declines to run in 2024 because of his age.

That could work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

270towin.com will have projected EV's for that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, republicaninnyc said:

270towin.com will have projected EV's for that

That would be very helpful. Plus, under a "Provisional Path to Statehood" bill and policy (probably passed under Biden, if I do follow @President Garrett Walker's advice on the backstory of presidents, which at this point I'm inclined to do), Puerto Rico receives a period of being treated in Presidential Elections like the District of Columbia (3 Electoral Votes) for as long as they adhere to an economic, legislative, and administrative formula for a path to statehood, lasting until they definitively are judged to have failed in the plan, choose to end pursuing it, or achieve statehood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Patine said:

In terms of Cuomo, he isn't meant to be an actual candidate in this given scenario, but have been the losing candidate in 2024, in the backstory, if you will, when he would be 66 and it would be 4 years earlier. I hadn't planned him to actually reappear as a candidate in 2028. Would your viewpoint and advice on him even apply in that clarified context? However, you're point on Jeb Bush is a good one.

That's much more likely, especially if Cuomo evolves into Warren's platform. I expect DNC and other leaders will try to lean the party away from a candidate from NY (or CA, IL, MA, WA, OR), however. The party needs to represent other states a little more often. Maybe Cuomo with a VP from the South, that is a minority like Castro or someone fictional. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@vcczar @jvikings1 @Reagan04 @Dallas @Sanser2016 @CalebsParadox @lok1999 @jnewt @ThePotatoWalrus  @SiorafasNaCillini @servo75 @Presidentinsertname @Falcon @Take Me to La Riva @TheMiddlePolitical @Zach @Sunnymentoaddict @streiner @Conservative Elector 2 @Jayavarman @SeanFKennedy @QuickHead555 @goTBrays @warren2016 @victor1313 @TheLiberalKitten @Biden Should've Run @wolves @Socialist Bernie @Mordechai @michaelsdiamonds @chunkbuster11 @admin_270 @VanMav @pilight @Bruce Fischer @LegolasRedbard   @republicaninnyc @TeamEhmling

Candidates, as they would currently stand (some of the non-fictitious candidates titles may have evolved or changed from the present day, so I've excluded titles for now):

REPUBLICAN

-Marco Rubio

-Ted Cruz

-Rand Paul

-Chris Christie

-Rick Perry

-Sarah Palin

-Nikki Haley

-Donald Trump, jr.

-Ivanka Trump (the two Trump children would compete against each other in a scenario, ideally)

And some younger and fictitious candidates as well

DEMOCRATIC

-Julian Castro (Cuomo's 2024 running mate)

-Jay Inslee

-Rahm Emanuel

-Chelsea Clinton

-Kamala Harris

-Tammy Duckworth

-John P Kennedy III

-Tulsi Gabbard

-Gavin Newsom

-Peter Buttigieg

-Kyrstin Sinema

-Erica Garner

-Ricardo Rossello

And fictitious candidates as well

LIBERTARIAN

-Austin Petersen

-John Monds

-Brittany Phelps (formally Pirate Party (United States))

Maybe a fictitious celebrity candidate in line with a younger Charleton Heston, and/or a more extreme figure in line with a group like the 3% Movement

GREEN

-Kat Swift

-Matt Gonzalez

Maybe a Leonard DiCaprio- or Hannah Darryl-style celebrity candidate, a high-up member of one of Al Gore's environmental NGO's or a well-known group like Greenpeace or the WWF, or an alternative energy corporation CEO (like Tesla's Elon Musk, except that he himself is ineligible to run, being born in South Africa).

CONSTITUTION

-Chuck Baldwin

-John Hostettler

-Todd Akin

-Darryl Castle

-Mark Driscoll

Maybe one other

REFORM

-Jesse Ventura

-Rocky De La Fuente

-Tim Penny

-Will Baker

-Max Linn

Maybe one other

PEACE AND FREEDOM

-Cindy Sheehan

-Dennis Banks

-Janice Jordan

Maybe one or two others

SOCIALIST WORKERS

-James Harris

-Alyson Kennedy

-Osbourne Hart

-Maura DeLuca

-Gloria La Riva (assuming a negotiated fusion ticket with the Party for Socialism and Liberation)

RESTORATION

-Arthur Greene (unopposed for nomination)

INDEPEDENT

-Mark Zuckerberg

That's my initial spread, but I'm open to comments and constructive criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Patine said:

@vcczar @jvikings1 @Reagan04 @Dallas @Sanser2016 @CalebsParadox @lok1999 @jnewt @ThePotatoWalrus  @SiorafasNaCillini @servo75 @Presidentinsertname @Falcon @Take Me to La Riva @TheMiddlePolitical @Zach @Sunnymentoaddict @streiner @Conservative Elector 2 @Jayavarman @SeanFKennedy @QuickHead555 @goTBrays @warren2016 @victor1313 @TheLiberalKitten @Biden Should've Run @wolves @Socialist Bernie @Mordechai @michaelsdiamonds @chunkbuster11 @admin_270 @VanMav @pilight @Bruce Fischer @LegolasRedbard   @republicaninnyc @TeamEhmling

Candidates, as they would currently stand (some of the non-fictitious candidates titles may have evolved or changed from the present day, so I've excluded titles for now):

REPUBLICAN

-Marco Rubio

-Ted Cruz

-Rand Paul

-Chris Christie

-Rick Perry

-Sarah Palin

-Nikki Haley

-Donald Trump, jr.

-Ivanka Trump (the two Trump children would compete against each other in a scenario, ideally)

And some younger and fictitious candidates as well

DEMOCRATIC

-Julian Castro (Cuomo's 2024 running mate)

-Jay Inslee

-Rahm Emanuel

-Chelsea Clinton

-Kamala Harris

-Tammy Duckworth

-John P Kennedy III

-Tulsi Gabbard

-Gavin Newsom

-Peter Buttigieg

-Kyrstin Sinema

-Erica Garner

-Ricardo Rossello

And fictitious candidates as well

LIBERTARIAN

-Austin Petersen

-John Monds

-Brittany Phelps (formally Pirate Party (United States))

Maybe a fictitious celebrity candidate in line with a younger Charleton Heston, and/or a more extreme figure in line with a group like the 3% Movement

GREEN

-Kat Swift

-Matt Gonzalez

Maybe a Leonard DiCaprio- or Hannah Darryl-style celebrity candidate, a high-up member of one of Al Gore's environmental NGO's or a well-known group like Greenpeace or the WWF, or an alternative energy corporation CEO (like Tesla's Elon Musk, except that he himself is ineligible to run, being born in South Africa).

CONSTITUTION

-Chuck Baldwin

-John Hostettler

-Todd Akin

-Darryl Castle

-Mark Driscoll

Maybe one other

REFORM

-Jesse Ventura

-Rocky De La Fuente

-Tim Penny

-Will Baker

-Max Linn

Maybe one other

PEACE AND FREEDOM

-Cindy Sheehan

-Dennis Banks

-Janice Jordan

Maybe one or two others

SOCIALIST WORKERS

-James Harris

-Alyson Kennedy

-Osbourne Hart

-Maura DeLuca

-Gloria La Riva (assuming a negotiated fusion ticket with the Party for Socialism and Liberation)

RESTORATION

-Arthur Greene (unopposed for nomination)

INDEPEDENT

-Mark Zuckerberg

That's my initial spread, but I'm open to comments and constructive criticism.

I don't see Perry, Palin, Chelsea Clinton running. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vcczar said:

I don't see Perry, Palin, Chelsea Clinton running. 

Perry and Palin yes, but if Chelsea got elected to office in the Senate or NY Governor perhaps, she'd be older than her Dad when he was elected President, him being 46, her being 48.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Perry and Palin yes, but if Chelsea got elected to office in the Senate or NY Governor perhaps, she'd be older than her Dad when he was elected President, him being 46, her being 48.

Say, @Reagan04, you'd likely know better than me, but would Akins and Driscoll fly in Constitution primaries, considering certain events a couple years ago that drove them out of the limelight? What do you think their chances and viability would be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

Say, @Reagan04, you'd likely know better than me, but would Akins and Driscoll fly in Constitution primaries, considering certain events a couple years ago that drove them out of the limelight? What do you think their chances and viability would be?

Driscoll, probably not as he is a bit far gone. Akin is more likely but still rather gone especially by 2028, though hardcore Christians would rave over him it's a possibility. Only thing is, he'd be 81.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Reagan04

I don't think Chelsea Clinton wants to run for political office is what I mean. I think she'll speak out about things, but she will stay on the side lines. Meghan McCain is more likely to run for office than Clinton. I think if John McCain dies in office, then his daughter will finish his term until a special election occurs, which she may run in. 

@Patine

Along with Meghan McCain, another possibility for office in the future is Peyton Manning, former NFL Quarterback. There was an article about how many think he'll aim for political office at some point. He's consistently getting invited by Republican politicians to events, fundraisers, and such. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, vcczar said:

 

@Patine

Along with Meghan McCain, another possibility for office in the future is Peyton Manning, former NFL Quarterback. There was an article about how many think he'll aim for political office at some point. He's consistently getting invited by Republican politicians to events, fundraisers, and such. 

This would make for an interesting scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Patine

What issues will you include for 2028?

I'm thinking that with more machines taking jobs that Guaranteed Income might become at least a minor issue in the US, especially if unemployment is high, wages are stagnant, and the general feeling of the people is malaise. It wouldn't help if you have it working in European countries, and even some very moderate Republicans suggesting that it would work if "there was a way to pay for it." Probably the best way to pay for it would be to tax companies that use robots, eliminate some taxes for companies that employ people instead of machines. Decrease defense spending, assuming the country isn't at war. Use all the money used on welfare towards this, since it would sort of replace this as well. Cut some of the funding to the states, or at least require that the states use this towards funding the guaranteed income of their state, assuming this measure would somewhat state-based and not completely federal. The debate on the issues could also be, on how much income one would get--price of rent, bills and food--median number for that state (or city) perhaps. Probably, since the US is likely to be conservative, it would be figured based on a single individual without kids. To make it fair, it would probably be required that all legalized US citizens, regardless of their other income, would receive it, and the same amount. The wealthy can choose to waive the fee to ease the burden on the government when they file their taxes. Anyway, this is just off the top of my head. I'm sure I have some flaws in this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Patine I have some issues:

automation

terrorism

healthcare

socialism

capitalism

outsourcing

role in the world

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, republicaninnyc said:

@Patine I have some issues:

automation

terrorism

healthcare

socialism

capitalism

outsourcing

role in the world

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Socialism and Capitalism should be within the same issue. I don't want to phrase it Socialism vs. Capitalism, because I think they're both mutually beneficial when used together, rather than completely parasitic to the other. Healthcare should be specified to Single-payer healthcare, I think. For terrorism, I wonder terrorism will exist in 2028, and if it will or will not still be a major issue. I think outsourcing will be too minor of an issue in 2028, especially if we are talking about machines taking over jobs. Speaking of machines, I wonder if machines taking jobs would reduce immigration, since the low skill jobs will be taken by machines? Role in the world is a good issue to propose, especially considering that Trump might cause us a lot of the leverage that we have as leader of the world. One event might be passive-aggressively trying to stomp any attempt by Germany, Russia, China to flex muscle as a potential leading world power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Socialism and Capitalism should be within the same issue. I don't want to phrase it Socialism vs. Capitalism, because I think they're both mutually beneficial when used together, rather than completely parasitic to the other. Healthcare should be specified to Single-payer healthcare, I think. For terrorism, I wonder terrorism will exist in 2028, and if it will or will not still be a major issue. I think outsourcing will be too minor of an issue in 2028, especially if we are talking about machines taking over jobs. Speaking of machines, I wonder if machines taking jobs would reduce immigration, since the low skill jobs will be taken by machines? Role in the world is a good issue to propose, especially considering that Trump might cause us a lot of the leverage that we have as leader of the world. One event might be passive-aggressively trying to stomp any attempt by Germany, Russia, China to flex muscle as a potential leading world power. 

Terrorism will actually take a more convoluted turn, actually. After a decade of terrorist attacks and police state tactics in response as well as intervention in the Middle East plagued by haphazard organization, lack of firm commitment by any but local players, and an alliance at cross-purposes with each other, the unthinkable solution comes to the lips of a number of politicians who are not just fringe (maybe Rand Paul and a couple others) - this war is going nowhere and not getting resolved and is another Vietnam or Afghanistan, so let's recognize ISIS as a "nation" and make a cease-fire. Their internal polices are despicable, but then again so are China and Saudi Arabia's. Other than directly honouring treaties with Turkey and Israel, the U.S. will end intervention in the region on that note. A proposal that is shocking, but also offers a solution to a nation weary of terrorism and Middle-Eastern war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

Terrorism will actually take a more convoluted turn, actually. After a decade of terrorist attacks and police state tactics in response as well as intervention in the Middle East plagued by haphazard organization, lack of firm commitment by any but local players, and an alliance at cross-purposes with each other, the unthinkable solution comes to the lips of a number of politicians who are not just fringe (maybe Rand Paul and a couple others) - this war is going nowhere and not getting resolved and is another Vietnam or Afghanistan, so let's recognize ISIS as a "nation" and make a cease-fire. Their internal polices are despicable, but then again so are China and Saudi Arabia's. Other than directly honouring treaties with Turkey and Israel, the U.S. will end intervention in the region on that note. A proposal that is shocking, but also offers a solution to a nation weary of terrorism and Middle-Eastern war.

I'm assumming ISIS agrees to stop attacking the U.S right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, republicaninnyc said:

I'm assumming ISIS agrees to stop attacking the U.S right?

Assumably the "Caliph" is amenable to the possibility of a cease-fire to "consolidate his territory."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

Assumably the "Caliph" is amenable to the possibility of a cease-fire to "consolidate his territory."

Which Caliph will the be exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×