"If you don’t vote Blue, then it’s your fault for the genocide of the Palestinian people in the imaginary future inside of my head where a Republican President backs an ongoing genocide rather than our incumbent genocide-backing Democratic President. "
“You can’t expect Joe to magically stop enabling genocide overnight! He needs more time to stop enabling the genocide he’s enabling! It’s a big and difficult change to make, as we’ve always enabled this genocide!”
“Remember that time when the Cheeto said something stupid? Haha let’s make a joke about the Cheeto conducting a nuclear holocaust against the most oppressed people in the world, who have already been THREATENED WITH THIS!”
“The Dems would need an even larger majority over the Republicans to take any action against the largest recipient of our foreign aid spending.”
Is this not the shit they’re saying?
I have seen zero evidence that Trump would be any different from Genocide Joe on this issue.
From OP:
He’s done so much to obtain a ceasefire that his leadership was the only one to veto a ceasefire at the UN Security Council!
He literally reiterated, again, today, that there absolutely would be no qualifiers on military aid for Isreal.
I would love for a lib to explain to me what a republicans stance would be that could possibly be worse than “do literally whatever you want and we will continue to cut you blank checks.”
Republicans could be mean about it.
If anything it would be better. Blue MAGA would have to pretend they aren’t genocidal and support the protests like they did with BLM until they were in power again. Their hatred for Trump would outweigh their hatred for brown people.
Both parties are less dangerous when they are in opposition to the government. Because whatever administration is in power will undoubtedly pursue imperialist goals while the other party if sufficiently enraged will put up some opposition, not out of principle but out of political contrarianism. Slight differences exist such as Republicans being better at political obstruction, whereas the Democrat base is more likely to go out and protest.
But on the whole i don’t know that it makes much difference who sits in the White House, and in any case i would suggest that in order to impede the ability of the US to do damage around the world there needs to be maximal internal political destabilization in the US. Not allowing any one party to monopolize power for too long is conducive to this, in particular switching administrations frequently while the society as a whole is politically highly polarized.
It takes a new administration time to establish itself, get rid of the other party’s appointees and put its own lackeys into positions of power. This usually gives us about a year time when they are not yet ready to launch major imperialist ventures. Ideally the ruling party should also lack a majority in either house for maximal dysfunction. This should happen at the latest with the midterms, and usually does because both parties are highly averse to keeping their campaign promises to the voters.
The point is that no matter which party is in power the foreign policy will not change, but maybe they can be sufficiently distracted dealing with problems at home.
Yea the only difference I’ve seen is if a republican was president elected dems would be marching with people protesting for Palestine and since a dem has been president a bunch of chuds around me have put up more lawn signs about how they want to kill everybody that disagrees with them.
I was just typing out something similar. I think liberals would absolutely be giving Trump a much harder time than they are Biden over his unconditional support for these atrocities. If Congress had the same composition it does today, I think Democrats would throw up whatever barriers they could to, at least performatively, put guardrails on the president’s unfettered support of Israel. They were pretty upset when he moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, but never had any intentions to move it back to Tel Aviv.
Dems would, in my mind, be demanding conditions for weapons sales, more of them would be calling for a ceasefire, they’d draw far more attention to specific instances of the IOF’s and Israeli government’s barbarism, the complicit media in both Israel and the US, and we’d likely see more vocal support for the pro-Palestine protests going on around the world. I’d wonder if other Western nations would make similar noises criticizing Trump. Would Dems still end up endorsing the inhuman actions they’re supporting in this version of reality? Probably. They are still the running dogs of the empire after all, and very much bought and paid for, but I’m certain there would be a much more visible effort to at least appear to have some semblance of morality vis a vis “Bibi’s best friend Donald” and the “GOP crazies”—especially with an election on the horizon where Trump wouldn’t even be on the ballot. It’s too good to pass up, and the optics make them look humane which is a tough thing to do.
The longer this goes and the more nakedly deranged the Biden regime becomes, the more I feel the “Trump would be doing a thousand times worse!!” excuse holds little to no water. The best case you could make on that point is that the natsec ghouls might be able to act through him more effectively because he’s a nationalist and a moron, but is that truly any worse than the natsec ghouls doing that already with a president who is an active participant in the game? It’s truly insane how the circumstances have brought us to a point where one could credibly argue that Trump would be the harm reduction candidate on this.
After all the outrage over Trump’s immigrant policy and a few kids dying in the camps that Biden continued without so much as a peep from the media, I just imagine the headlines “8000 children dead under war Trump could stop at any time; Trump reaffirms that he is a Zionist and pledges to continue war” or “Trump responsible for Dresden in a month” or “Trump repeatedly lies about seeing decapitated children, uses it as false pretext for genocide against children”. With this war more than any other, liberals have shown exactly who they are and exactly how fucking depraved that is. I’ll never vote for anyone who wasn’t vocally pro-Palestine from the start again because they’re feral in a way that we euthanise dogs for.
It’s depraved. Could make the same argument about so many things that barely elicited a whimper from libs, too. On Covid, the blatant disregard for the science and killing off all protections, testing/tracking, etc., on immigration, on the bait-and-switch they did with the infrastructure bill and the GND (that they pulled that shit twice shows how little our opinions or our values even matter), on oil drilling, on breaking the rail strike, on mass shootings and Cop City, hell even the episodes where Biden is left wandering around the stage looking around for his invisible friend. All of this would’ve been met with incredible revulsion and acts of resistance if it was Trump (even if ultimately meaningless because America delenda est).
He would post mean tweets, that’s about it.
TBH- for all his support for Israel, I can’t help but even think that Trump would probably be more measured- more pragmatic- in this regard. Biden and the other establishment neolibs/neocons are ghouls who are banking on cashing out, the end of AmeriKKKa or nuclear armageddon be damned- Trump for all his own derangement and corruption at least seems like a nationalist of some sort who might try to hit the brakes for pragmatism’s sake if nothing else- in Palestine, definitely in Russia- and hell, probably even with China.
I pretty much agree with what this article says about Trump. The topic of the article is centered around Trump vs NATO but you can apply it to “Israel” just as well:
If he does end up doing something with a net positive outcome it will be because he is too dumb to understand/manage the empire and too egotistical to allow others to do it for him. And even then the entrenched state apparatus would probably not allow him to damage the empire’s interests in any serious way, whether he would do so accidentally or not. I don’t put much stock at all in his supposed nationalism, i think like all capitalists he simply uses the language of nationalism to fool the gullible.
Honest talk here though is- IMO, Trump is the best shot the US has at the moment, for a (relatively) graceful (not all that graceful, it’s still AmeriKKKa after all) and peaceful decline. Leaving NATO, restraining Israel, and doing all the other things necessary to dismantle the rot of the empire is a crucial part of that- I agree it would be largely from ignorance and greed, but in these circumstances- it still be overwhelmingly to the benefit of the world, and even the west.
And far be it from me to play the “he’s a businessman” card like as if he’s any particularly competent one- but he knows how to play nice enough when needed- with Russia, with India, with even North Korea- and if needed, surely with China and the rest of BRICS and the non-white, non-western world. A blundering asshole with no idea of the real workings of empire is if nothing else, surely better- even for his own country- than the warmongers pushing for WW3 to maintain white, western hegemony, with no care if the world burns down in the process (as either way they profit).
Not saying all this in support of Trump, that said- not that I could support him anyways (Canadian) but we both agree that his “net positive” actions (and the net positive results of his inaction in certain things, as well) are not out of any semblance of human decency, but rather due to a combination of ignorance and pragmatism- and his attempts at, say, pulling out of Syria were sabotaged by the deep state in the past. But I do actually see him as an (unintentionally) far lesser evil, albeit one I’d not support either way.
I am also just an observer to what is going on in US politics (not from Canada but from the other side of the ocean), and i think he has a good chance of winning the next elections simply due to how disastrously bad Biden has been as president (not that Trump was much better but Americans have a very short memory span, plus a large part of the electorate just don’t give a shit about objective performance, they want someone who talks like them and who validates their feelings). And then we will see what happens. I hope you’re right but my bet is that the deep state will continue to do their thing one way or another regardless who is president.
Unless they mess with the election somehow (don’t think they did against Trump in 2020, though I don’t blame those doubting either)- something that honestly has a very good chance of happening this time around- I think he’ll win.
Trump’s win back in 2016 was perhaps the most “democratic thing” I’d seen come out of the US if you ask me- AmeriKKKans choosing someone who truly represented themselves (often the worst of themselves, peak “ugly American,” but still), and also choosing a somewhat independent (perhaps better described as, somewhat unrestrained) candidate over the near universally repugnant ghoul (for anyone who isn’t similarly a ghoul) that was Clinton. And his term was, for all its disasters- in better circumstances than these past 4 years, simply for how bad things clearly have gotten for the majority of people. In truth though- for performance, I’d have argued the bar was in hell in the Trump era (it was), but Biden in many ways, other than token support of women’s and LGBT rights and such issues, honestly is probably worse. His foreign policy is definitely infinitely worse, that’s for sure, and his economic policy strikes me as little better.
Biden’s behavior honestly makes me suspect the game plan is hegemony or bust (with the “bust” scenario featuring- possibly start WW3, definitely let the US economically collapse, and have the establishment elites flee to the Caribbean and NZ after finally plundering their own country for all it’s worth- basically the same kind of plan Ferdinand Marcos or a whole slew of other western-backed dictators have had throughout history, or that Zelensky, Ing-wen, and possibly Netanyahu definitely have nowadays).
Trump’s election may have seemed suitable or fitting given the reputation of the average American, but I’d strongly hesitate to call any part of it “democratic.” Maybe within the bounds of the Republican primary, sure, populism succeeded. But he literally did not win the popular vote, while all sorts of media manipulation and voter suppression fuckery was going on within the Democratic establishment and among minority districts.
I agree with the sentiment though. Trump is a perfect symbolic stand-in for the absolute worst elements of America’s culture.
That analysis seems like a bit of a gamble still. Trump went off empire’s script a few times, but he still escalated the situation in Ukraine, escalated American aggression in Asia, escalated the situation in Palestine, and escalated tensions with Iran. You could be right, but there’s just as likely a chance that he does oversee a further escalation of Amerikkka’s global violence. He’s just still a very suitable scapegoat for US imperialism’s rapidly waning competence.
For all we know, he may actually be successful at priming the country for a second US war against Mexico now that it’s been officially introduced by other Republicans. We could possibly see the glimpses of what’s currently happening in Gaza on the US’s southern border. God knows, we already have the concentration camps here
Biden has bigger hands tho.
I think the Israelis don’t want Trump in power. Him specifically seems to cause some tension with the dynamic.
The same Trump who moved the US embassy to Jerusalem and had Qasem Soleimani murdered? I doubt it.