Bernie_Sandals @ Bernie_Sandals @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

645

Joined

2 yr. ago

Plenty of revolutions have happened, before, during, and after the Cold War without U.S. support, the U.S. actively opposed the breakup of the Soviet Union for example, and yet it happened, and several democracies were created from it's downfall, with little influence from the U.S.

dictators without the U.S. funding them FTFY

Even if the U.S. government did regularly fund protests/resistance against dictatorships, why would that be a bad thing? As long as it's not singlehandedly deciding on regime change like in Iraq, I don't see anything morally wrong with supporting pro-democracy causes within dictatorships.

You may be joking, but that's pretty much the attitude of the Ukrainian Intelligence Services at the moment, there's no point in sending well trained operatives into a meat grinder on the eastern front, much more efficient to just let them go around the world hunting the Russian Intelligence Services

"HUR Chief Kyrylo Budanov vowed to “destroy Russian war criminals anywhere in the world, wherever they are.”

They've found their golden calf, and they're willing to say whatever it takes to keep everyone worshipping it. (I guess that would make Biden/Harris Moses in this analogy?)

Yes, because no population on this planet ever acts against their dictators without the U.S. forcing them to do so.

The incident comes six weeks after United Airlines flight UA998 was forced to divert to Dublin following a suspected medical emergecny.

Do these large media companies not have anyone doing spellchecking?? Like seriously, I've seen tons of random typos in mainstream media articles, how are these not being caught?

Dude, do you think I’m criticising the American people?

shit-tier, racist, colonialist, genocide supporting, white-supremacist hellhole. Have fun with dealing with the tide of fascism.

Idk this definitely doesn't feel like the attitude of someone who wants best for the American people, maybe you as a European, the continent that created fascism and experienced it more than anyone would know otherwise though. /s

Vote all you want, but it’ll never make the United States a good country. The US will always be a colonialist power controlled by the rich until you remove those rich bastards from power.

Unless you're advocating for the violent overthrow of the American government, something that would be almost impossible, would involve the first civil war in a nuclear nation ever and would inevitably wreak havoc on the world, and is certainly unwarranted under our current administration. Then voting is literally the only way to change our government, and it's perfectly possible, the Democratic and Republican parties have changed massively due to the will of the people. The Republican Elite did not want Trump, the base did, and the Democratic Elite can't stop Bernie's popularity or more people like him getting into local office, state offices, and their influence can be beat in congressional primaries easily, if you want the U.S. to change in a radically left ward direction, violence will get you nothing but arrested, voting (and organizing) will bring change gradually.

The US is a nation of big talk going nowhere. Biden talking about how much he wants to end subsidies but it doesn’t fucking happen.

So you blame the entire nation for the actions of a few fascists in Congress who are still addicted to their oil? Maybe tell us to elect more Democrats who will end subsidies, instead of blaming the ones trying to fix it.

Literally the only article you linked which seems like something happened was US finding for housing in Africa which sounds nice and all, but y’all continue to exploit Africa way fucking more than you contribute.

Is how I know you didn't read much other than the headlines from those articles, or are you saying that millions of dollars to build housing for refugees in Armenia is nothing? Are you saying the money given to rebuild Ukraine was nothing? Are you saying the houses built and diseases eradicated in Africa were nothing? Are you saying the condemnation of genocide in Myanmar, Xinjiang, and Bosnia and the actions taken against those regimes was nothing? I would generally agree U.S. corporations tend to exploit the global south (along with corporations from China, Russia, and any rich nation), but that in no way negates the actions by the U.S. government to alleviate suffering in the global south, the most powerful country in the world isn't a monolith.

I’m sorry you can’t abide criticism of your shit-tier, racist, colonialist, genocide supporting, white-supremacist hellhole. Have fun with dealing with the tide of fascism.

Is definitely the attitude that fellow humans should have with each other towards the global rise of fascists. /s

If I was so unreasonable it would be easy to inundate me

Here's the U.S. investing to create affordable housing in regions across the world.

Article 2

Article 3

Article 4

Here's the U.S. taking a stand against a genocide.

Article 2

Article 3

Article 4

Here's the U.S. trying to end fossil fuel subsidies.

Article 2

Article 3

Article 4

I notice you’re criticising my reasoning rather than providing an example of a good thing the US has done

Because you started with the precondition that any answer had to be one you had heard of, which is preposterous, how are we supposed to know what you've heard of? From the fact that all of the rhetorical questions you asked could've been answered with a Google search, it seems you've only ever heard of or paid attention to the U.S. doing bad things, which makes finding a good example that you've heard of a non-starter.

They're saying that your coworker didn't read enough communist propaganda books to forget about the oppression they faced and learned to love Maduro regardless.

I believe I already gave you an example? I explained the source the example was from, and gave a link that got past the paywall.

https://archive.ph/rOXvz

There's the non-paywalled link again, I guess.

I get my news from pretty diverse sources, so it shouldn’t be that hard

Diversity of sources almost doesn't matter, quality does, you could watch a hundred different Trumpist YT channels, Fox, and OAN, and you're not going to know basically anything factual because all of those sources are trash. The same could easily be said for questionable left wing sources too.

also never even heard of that organisation

It's one of the most reputable foreign policy publications in the U.S, founded to give an academic counterweight to government statements during the Vietnam War.

It’s also pay-walled, so I couldn’t even read it if I wanted to.

It's not hard to get past paywalls: https://archive.ph/rOXvz

that I’ve heard

Well that kind of defeats the point doesn't it? If you're so far within a rabbithole of politics that you never hear anything positive about the U.S. then that's on you.

Just one example out of many, the Biden administration stopped a fascist coup in Brazil and protected the democratic legitimacy of the socialist who won the election.

There's no point in even pretending that Russia, the place where "non-loyal" people regularly "fall out of windows", has the same level of corruption as the USA other than to create muddled equivalencies and to simp for Russia.

Lmfao if you call working for a company that also got outsourced to the CIA for consulting work a "Spook" then there's millions of "Spooks", usually that word is used for actual agents, not third party analysts.

The work he was doing overseas was entirely economic, which you would know if you read the article, and there's no confirmation he had any ties with the CIA at all. there's literally no reason to point out his very detached and vague connection with the CIA, other than to try and make him look like a plant.

Just guessing from the replies, (I'm personally not that critical of Pete)

He used to be more left wing, had a deep appreciation for Bernie Sanders growing up, then he had a more right-ward turn. He worked as a consultant for a very unpopular and influential company (Mckinsey) for a few years, then he joined the Navy and was deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Lastly the shenanigans around him very narrowly beating Bernie in the Iowa primary of 2020 probably all contribute to the negative sentiment.

None of these really make him worse than even more corporate Dems like Pritzker or Shapiro, so I'm guessing the antipathy is almost entirely because of 2020.

?

Edit: Oh it's a conspiracy theory about Pete

Projection

You can't say you don't care about specifics when the specifics specifically refute what you're saying.

You can ignore the difference between legal ports of entry and the rest of the border, but the entirety of border law is built upon this difference, so ignoring this difference immediately makes you irrelevant among all professional discussion of the border. There's also a massive difference between closing the border and closing the border in areas where it can't be regulated, which is what the Biden administration did, the border is not closed.

"Border Cops" aren't the ones doing the investigations into Cartel and terrorist group members, that would be DHS. There's a massive difference between DHS getting the name and identity of a terrorist, putting them on a list, their name coming up to Border Control at the border, and then Border Control holding them until DHS can investigate, and "every immigrant is detained indefinitely with no lawyer in terrible conditions" which was your original claim.

Points out what you're saying isn't true

"Okay but it's still indefinite and he wants to close the border"

As I addressed, both of those are false, but if you would like to ignore the truth and retreat to your comfortable talking points where you can pretend the Dems only want to do good things to fight the Reps then go ahead.

What you're forgetting is that Indefinite Detainment, (which lasts usually until Trial, on which case they go to a real prison or are deported) only applies to literal terrorists and cartel members, and that the Biden "Closed Border" Policy only applies to illegal between-port-of-entry immigration, legal immigration through legal ports of entry is still completely allowed under this policy, and has several exemptions for humanitarian concerns.

The majority, or at least a plurality, are definitely opposed to the genocide or are at least wanting a ceasefire. But the majority also support Israel's right to exist. They basically just disagree with the severity of Israel's actions.

THANK YOU, for pointing this out, it's ignored completely usually, way too many people look at the polling for who wants to stop selling weapons to Israel and come away thinking "Oh a majority of people must want this state to be destroyed/abolished".