Saint_La_Croix_Crosse @ Saint_La_Croix_Crosse @midwest.social

Posts

0

Comments

92

Joined

2 yr. ago

No, it was because they didn't want a bordering nation to join a hostile military alliance.

Not even just changes in administration. The U.S. will often suddenly move on or just decide you will work better as a villain for internal politics. The US basically told Saddam Hussein that we wouldn't care if he invaded Kuwait only to then use that invasion as justification to make him a boogeyman for the next decade.

You losers are still using mechanical tweezers? I upgraded to optical tweezers long ago.

Dem's aren't even putting in the minimum effort into pretending to be an opposition party.

They literally took Romney Care and made it worse. What are you talking about?

"Despite claims to the contrary", to grossly simplify Wittgenstein, a word's meaning is how it is actually used.

I used to think Elon Musk was the Henry Ford of our generation (Car Maker, Industrialist), but then I found out that he was the Henry Ford of our generation (Anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, Nazi supporter).

Iron law of institutions. The entire point of the Democratic party is to fundraise and secure sinecure jobs for its members. Winning elections is a convenient side bonus. So they basically ran on Trump's first term platform and full support of Israel, since it is more important than winning the election. That's what the arms manufacturers, and other donors want.

And critically, not just since Trump. As soon as the ink dried on the Nazi surrender, the US and OSS/CIA armed and funded every fascist they could find since fascists are the most dedicated anti-communists.

Again, despite claims to the contrary, tankie for most people means "anything left of the Democrats, or willingness to break with US foreign policy."

If I were criticizing various nations more than the U.S., I wouldn't shame people for "authoritarian bootlicking". Glass houses and all that.

Free market religious fundamentalists.

sounds like you are stupid enough.

An accurate rejoinder would be "In my brain, I am not stupid enough to believe that the market is an omniscient omnipotent God that makes everything perfect in all places and all times, in the absence of public input. I am not stupid enough to think that individuals and corporations are perfect benevolent actors that can do no wrong, because doing wrong always means making less profits and doing good always means more profits" FTFY

I think the admins just add them on their own initiative. So one of them?

You are the one making shit up. I am taking the, albeit misguided effort, to correct you and your misinformation. That is the problem with liberals, they love Dezinformatsia just as much as right-wingers. They just use more high-brow words while doing it.

Trump is very incoherent and contradictory, but his anti-NATO positions are just that he thinks that the US should be isolationist. The liberal opposition is that, lacking a positive position or vision, liberalism needs a new Cold War to define themselves purely in opposition to other nations. Russia and China are not formally aligned, but they are willing to work together and increase trade with each other out of mutual ostracization and opposition to US demonization. Same reason Iran and North Korea are in the same axis of opposition, purely allied out of mutual interest in resisting US opposition, than any other mutual ideology or interest.

The Tariffs are still harmful to China, it is an export economy. Yes the US firms pay it, but it drives up the cost and therefore reduces sales of the products, so it is still harmful to China, even if it is still not how Trump implied it works, with the Chinese government just paying money out of their treasury or whatever. Trump started the banning of TikTok in his first term. Again, he is really incoherent and stupid, and probably backing off due to his supposed support amongst internet media.

Ah yes, cutting social spending and (Bill Clinton actually did do) deregulation means that Bill Clinton "empowered" government. Republicans would never reduce social spending and regulations. Even if it reduced the deficit, and increased the police and military. That is totally different that what Republicans would support.

Donald Trump is very anti-China and Russia post-shock therapy is a far-right neoliberal hell hole. Your worldview is flipped and twisted.

Oh, reversing the federal deficit by cutting social spending, totally progressive and not far-right Reaganism. Totally opposing the Republicans rather than being right-wing and simple enough to buy into the Republican kayfabe about the deficit...

It is a socialist publication, MBFC still has to give it high credibility because it publishes good stuff. NJR probably voted for Hillary in the 2016 general, but was pro-Sanders and obviously, because he is leftist and "tankie" hates Trump. You are entirely delusional for saying that socialists are more likely to side with Trump than liberals. The Democrat messaging, because of their lack of positive case for themselves just relies on equating anything less than unconditional support for the party with helping Trump.

I was literally talking about Bill Clinton and centrist Democrats. Depending on the specific time, literally either the most amount of lawmakers and congressional voters or second most.

The problem is that there is no alternative. The two parties are just this same process at two different speeds and slight amount of decorum. People forget that Jimmy Carter was our first neoliberal president and Clinton cemented this all being bipartisan and passed the things that were seen as too far right for Reagan (NAFTA, the crime bill, was going to SS privatization until Monica Lewinsky distracted from it...). Liberals hate Trump because he is being too crass and clumsy while doing this. Democrats would rather do the same thing more slowly and with more excuses and obfuscation.

The US is already an oligarchy. The difference between "oligarch" and "billionaire" is whether they are from Eastern Europe or Western.