Please point out the lies with sources instead so everyone can learn the truth

The top-level comment had no sources either.

I have no idea what to believe of it, if anything. Kemalists supporting AKP?! That one is hard to believe, unless they've accepted that they're out of power and want to curry some -- that's a possibility, I guess.

What is clear is that Turkey is sliding towards dictatorship with an islamist feel. Nothing good may come of it.

The Kemalists are all gone from the military, so expect nothing from that department.

We live in interesting times.

If you want a source, download Camfrog and go talk to any Turkish person (of which there are TONS) and find out for yourself.

This whole citation needed garbage needs to stop. Go find the information from the obvious source, or don't, your choice. The burden of proof is a BS burden and is an excuse for people to not exercise their brains and SUPPOSED education.

> If you want a source, download Camfrog and go talk to any Turkish person (of which there are TONS) and find out for yourself.

Just like I wouldn't trust the average American to be able to meaningfully distinguish truth from misinformation (do I even trust myself to?), I wouldn't trust "any Turkish person" to do so.

You're making a strong, blanket claim, which you say is easily verifiable. Back it up.

I gave you the means of verification. It's not my problem if you are not using it. (BTW many of the Turkish people on Camfrog are directly in the military.)

As an American I have no idea about the veracity of the GP claims or your claims that they are false. Can others step in and make HN great again by having a cool, reasoned debate about the history of thr Turks within the confines of their democratic endeavors?

I would like to know more. I've never understood the parliamentarian system. I'm use to a presidential system with checks and balances.

OT, but parliamentarian systems with first-past-the-post election of MPs seem to work very well. That's basically the entire anglo-saxon world minus the U.S.

Advantages of the parliamentarian system over presidential include:

- short campaigns where the parties run, rather than personalities - short campaigns because the PM can call snap elections any time - parliament is usually not adversarial towards the government - elections are less frequent

Disadvantages: - parliament is usually not adversarial towards the govt - elections are less frequent

What I'd like to see is a way for the House of the U.S. Congress, and the POTUS, to be able to do something similar to calling snap elections: accelerate the election schedule by shortening the terms of currently-sitting congress-critters and the POTUS. (Presidential term limits would have to be adjusted to an amount of time rather than number of terms.) I think this would give us the best of both worlds. It would give Congress a huge check on the POTUS and vice-versa: whenever POTUS is very unpopular Congress could call elections, and whenever POTUS is very popular POTUS could call elections. And campaign seasons would be much shorter: presidential campaigns would not be two years long, but weeks or months. But a new primary system would be needed, that's for sure.

The clearest article I've found on current factions (not as much on the history of the Turkish state), from an admittedly left-wing perspective, is this one: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/04/erdogan-constitutional-am...

Might I also suggest: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/magazine/inside-turkeys-p...

You may very well be right. I don't know the situation well enough to tell. But downvoted because you called out gp for lies without giving a single counter-argument.