They keep doing it. And then they do other shady shit like schedule the pulling of troops out of ~~Syria~~ Afghanistan for next year because it won't be their problem by then. π€·ββοΈ
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2025
1025 points (98.9% liked)
United States | News & Politics
2084 readers
1291 users here now
Welcome to [email protected], where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If youβre interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 49 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Did you say Afghanistan?
lmfao I had a feeling something was off when I wrote that and didn't give it a second thought. But yes, thank you!
Luckily, your Democrat party is like "it is beneath us us to even notice such filth".
It's not very effective though.
yeah the real lesson is its the democrats. keep them out of office and things will be great.
I don't see how that would help anyone either.
I would assume he is sarcastically shitting on the great many Lemmy users who, instead of blaming our fellow countrymen who actively chose the path of evil, immediately blamed democrats for not doing enough to do xyz where xyz is that user's pet interest (Bernie, Gaza, profits, trans rights, term limits, etc).
Those Lemmy users are of course quite dumb.
A sacrifice to the elite, for the greater good of wealth concentration, the gods of greed demanded it.
load more comments
(2 replies)
This is why I don't understand why people say that Trump winning again is the end of democracy.
Trump's behavior is not "weird"; it's standard American politics.
The only way to beat it is to offer real democracy, real economic change, and to take people unhappy with the current system seriously instead of dismissing them as "weird" or "deplorables".
Trumpβs behavior is not βweirdβ; itβs standard American politics.
It's not. I remember all the presidents since Nixon. The stuff Treason Trump did is an order of magnitude worse than anything that came before.
Funny that you post that in a comment section where the OP is literally about Reagan also committing treason.
Reagan did not try to overthrow democracy. He didn't conspire with Russia against America. He didn't try to blackmail a foreign power into dishonestly interfering with a US election. He didn't retain 60 boxes of classified secrets after leaving office. He didn't sexually assault 26 women. He didn't tell 30000+ lies in 4 years. He didn't say that immigrants were eating our cats and dogs.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Even knowing everything that has come before intimately doesn't make Trumps stuff make any sense. There is a reason all the professional historians, including the ones politically on his side, are up in arms about him and his plans. This is not "business as usual", he is as bad as literally everyone that has any idea about any of this stuff says he is.
He is way too easy to corrupt and sway. He has no idea what he is doing and trusts all the wrong people because they play him so easily. He's a "useful idiot", but useful to people who want to bring America down or just make more money for themselves. He still thinks all of his plans are his own ideas, or at least that he is doing them for his own reasons, but they are just tapping into his overblown self-confidence and ego.
This is absolutely business as usual, but Trump as a business man is just more erratic and harder for those with a vested interest in maintaining existing power structures to control.
He's not as bad as Reagan, but he's a loose cannon and I agree that that makes him dangerous.
calling him "weird" actually worked
I'm sorry, what? Did we see the same election results? Publicly dismissing someone for being weird is alienating to large swathes of the country. Many of us take pride in our weirdness.
see worse is, surprisingly for some, worse than bad and then, this is pretty advanced now, even worse is worse than worse. its trippy.
Has Trump put the lives of innocent American hostages at risk for his political gain?
Note that I'm not saying that he wouldn't, just that he hasn't yet to my knowledge.
I would say that Reagan's treasonous acts were in fact even worse than Trump's, considering that Trump's impeachment treason was to put a foreign country at risk.
Note that that isn't to say that Ukrainian lives matter less than American hostages or that what Trump did wasn't bad, just that putting Americans at risk is "worse" on a scale of treasonous actions.
Another way that things are in fact getting better is that unlike Reagan, Trump actually got impeached (even if the conviction failed at the end).
Do you remember how Trump chose not to address COVID for political gains when it looked like it was hitting primarily democratic cities? I've seen some calculations that half a million more Americans died from COVID because of his reaction to it. That's treason on a level nobody has reached
Yes, I do remember the Trump White House making the decision to keep COVID guidance classified for what appeared to be political gains. I remember my boss at the time arguing against that decision and receiving retaliation, leading us to pivot our business strategy near the equinox.
(I was told that) the last Trump administration's hires were so inept that they didn't change the passcode to dial in to the situation room as I listened in to this meeting, live. I hope that Tulsi (or whoever the new DNI ends up being) will be smart enough to change the passcodes on day 1. It's a matter of national security. My revealing this is intended to serve as a reminder to do better this time. Maybe it's moot because I doubt that the situation room is still running Adobe Connect (I hope), and maybe the new system was designed help facilitate better opsec (I hope). I broke my brain a bit by forcing firefox to run Flash in March 2020, two months after its supposed EOL in January 2020, just to listen to that shitshow. Completely shattered what was left of my faith in our federal government's ability to do anything.
I don't remember any evidence that Trump himself was involved in that decision-making, but 1) that doesn't mean he wasn't involved in the decision-making outside of where I had limited visibility and 2) that doesn't mean he isn't responsible for the actions and decisions of those he nepotistically hired.
I'll note that my perception of all this was filtered through a really weird job I ended up at under questionable circumstances and it's hard for me to put much certainty behind any claims without external, corroborating, contextual evidence.
Thank you for the reminder... it's been a crazy ride and that was a completely different life for me that's genuinely hard for me to think about or remember much of until someone says something that brings back rushes of memories and leaves me shaking and a bit disoriented and I end up sleeping a lot to recover.
Please gimme a source on those calculations you're talking about.
load more comments
(15 replies)
how do you feel about the whole iranian general missile thing. that felt like it could have gone very, very wrong. Keep in mind to that he was largely still using the established beuracracy when he came in and this go round he has a lot more intended people and many military people said they had to keep him in check.
If you're talking about Trump's assassination of Qasem Soleimani, then I have to admit that I'm less familiar with thr details there since it happened while I was out of commission.
From the wiki article, it looks like the root problem was Trump being an idiot and loose cannon by reneging the Iran nuclear deal, leading to a crisis in the Gulf, which he then tried to solve by killing that guy.
Can you expand on the question?
yeah it was a moment when it was like. did he just start ww3. I mean I think everyone was bowled over at how small the response was from iran. it was just a dangerous as fuck thing to do.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Hah, found the trump voter.
I voted against him because I don't want things like this to keep happening, but I don't delude myself into thinking that it's out of the ordinary.
We all know what the solution is, but no one is willing to do anything to get it.
What do you mean by that?
The real story here is that Iran betrayed their people and worked with Republicans.
It's a theocracy, I'm not sure why you would expect it to care that much. But also, the theory is that part of the deal was for weapons to be deliered to Iran. Iran's military had been weakened badly in the revolution, Iraq was right next door with a very large military, the new Iranian government had called for the Iraqi one to be overthrown, and the two had existing border tensions that would go on become a full scale war in less than a year. Seeking weapons to re-arm when ypu expect a fight with a strong neighbour is pretty rational if you ignore the morality of all of it.
I'm not sure why you made assumptions about what I expect? I'm pointing out the failings of their government - they betray their people and work with the US whenever they can, and it never works out for them. That's the real story as far as I'm concerned.
I said that first part specifically because you called it "the real story" - surely it's not much of a story if nobody does anything surprising or unexpected, right?
Either way, this did work out fairly well for Iran. They held the Iraqi invasion off (even if their own counterinvasion was a dud), Reagan continued selling them arms throughout in what would go on to be called the Iran-Contra scandal, and direct American involvement was limited to protecting Kuwaiti oil tankers in the Persian Gulf.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Not really. That's generally just something anyone should expect. After all the United States China Russia etc etc etc etc have all done the same. It's why allowing a concentration of power. Or in cases like China and Russia demanding a concentration of Power are such bad things. Power corrupts.
This didn't really benefit Iran's power in the long run, did it?
The actions of authoritarian governments rarely do. They're honestly not concerned with long-term thinking or benefit. Because they don't need to be. It does not benefit them personally to do that extra work.
"""Authoritarian""" governments (really, all governments) are concerned with the continuation of their authority. Iran, it seems, is so desperate to work with the US that it will try over and over again, despite always getting back-stabbed shortly after. See also: the nuclear deal. It's short sighted and it never works, but they keep doing it. You'd think they'd learn!
The country that kills girls for not wearing a head covering? That's the one you're expecting to take care of it's people?
I'd expect an enemy of the US to not work with the US whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Iran has always been willing to capitulate, even though they're touted as America's #1 enemy in the region.
It's an odd relationship.
No, it's not
But I know that trying to explain it like you were 3 would be too hard for someone posting from .ml
You're such an independent thinker. How could I ever comprehend your incredible insights like "America's enemies bad"?
load more comments
(1 replies)