this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
192 points (94.9% liked)

Politics

315 readers
134 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1: Posts have the following requirements:
▪️ Post articles about the US only

▪️ Title must match the article headline

▪️ Recent (Past 30 Days)

▪️ No Screenshots/links to other social media sites or link shorteners

Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. One or two small paragraphs are okay.

Rule 3: Articles based on opinion (unless clearly marked and from a serious publication), misinformation or propaganda will be removed.

Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If you’ll look, he pretty much never talks about starting wars, but instead pulling out of or avoiding wars. But he only does that when it resonates w/ his base, such as withdrawing support for Ukraine. He even says we should consider abandoning Taiwan instead of getting in a war with China, despite heavy rhetoric against China (esp. tariffs). His base would surely support a militarily aggressive stance against China, yet he doesn’t take that stance. Likewise for Iran. He could totally score some points with his base if he took an aggressive stance against either Iran or China, yet he doesn’t.

https://www.vox.com/23677654/trump-foreign-policy-revisionist-history-dove-anti-imperial

TL;DR: He assassinated an Iranian general. He killed about 13,000 civilians in Iraq and Syria, as in directly, not this "he didn't stop our ally from doing it," but he did drone strikes that created a little mini-Gaza of his own using US forces. He attacked Syria and Somalia. His war ambitions are different from the standard US imperialist model, but mostly just because they are dumber and less directed. He's fine with war. If you want to talk about what he talked about doing, he threatened North Korea, China, Venezuela, Iran, and Russia.

As for the ballot boxes, it seems the investigation is still ongoing and details are few. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s one person (they have a singular suspect car identified), again, likely with some kind of mental illness or unhealthy obsession w/ the election.

So you think it's entirely coincidental that Trump talks all the time about what he talks about, and there's all this explosion of violence in our politics?

What about January 6th? Was that 10,000 individual people with some kind of mental illness or unhealthy obsession w/ the election?

This is what I'm talking about, why I am making a big deal of disagreeing with you about this even if I agree that this source is shady. It's Trump. It's always been Trump, and it's a problem. It's not someone with a random mental illness.

That certainly doesn’t help. Yes, there’s a fascist element on the right, and there’s also a communist element on the left.

Come the fuck off it.

But if we actually call Trump a fascist without strong evidence, that just discredits the person pointing the finger.

There is evidence. Want me to find some sources that are experts in fascism? Who would you put trust in?

That really depends on the circumstances. Are there visible flames, gunshots, etc?

Yes. Both. I talked about some of the flames and some of the gunshots, although not all. There are also some visible bodies that are the result of the problem. Want to ask them about the circumstances, if there is visible indication yet that it is a big deal?

I'm not saying to panic. But I'm saying to treat it as a big deal and start yelling. That's not "emotion," that is the appropriate reaction.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

TL;DR: He assassinated an Iranian general. He killed about 13,000 civilians in Iraq and Syria

I'm not saying he's anti-imperialist, in fact, that's ridiculous if you take a moment to look at his trade policies. He's absolutely imperialist, just in a "trade war" way instead of an "open conflict w/ our enemies" way. You can absolutely be dovish w/ the military but still have an overall hawkish attitude.

Yes, he threatened, and he even provoked by moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

As for Syria and Somalia, his involvement was a continuance of "anti-terrorism" activities that both Biden and Obama supported. I disagree with it, but I argue it's basically "par" for politicians in the US.

So you think it’s entirely coincidental that Trump talks all the time about what he talks about, and there’s all this explosion of violence in our politics?

It's likely related, but it's not organized. I think his rhetoric could push someone over the edge into action that otherwise wouldn't, and I think the rhetoric against Trump has a similar potential. I think the Trump campaign has been more inflammatory than the Harris campaign in general, but that doesn't make the Harris campaign's strategy okay.

What about January 6th?

My take is that there were some organized groups who had planned on causing trouble before going to the rally (there's evidence of a number of people leaving the rally early to prep). I also think Trump knew about those groups, but not their specific plans, and that his aggressive tone at that event was reckless. I also think there's a good chance he committed federal crimes between election day and Jan 6, as well as on Jan 6, but I don't think he was affiliated in any meaningful way with the groups who instigated trouble on Jan 6.

It’s always been Trump

I personally blame the various talking heads at places like Breitbart and Fox News more than Trump, they're the ones pushing a narrative and fanning the flames. Trump certainly has a part in all this, but I highly doubt there's any particular "master plan" here, I think he's just a narcissist that says whatever he thinks will grab headlines.

Who would you put trust in?

I'm not sure, but they would certainly need to be separated from the political discourse.

I care more about evidence than the person providing the evidence, so as long as the evidence presented is independently verifiable and they've done a good job of exploring alternative explanations, I'm not too picky on who the actual author is.

One book I liked on this topic is How Democracies Die by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, so I guess those are two names. That book looks at various fascists, both old and recent, to draw similarities, and they specifically looked at Trump to see how he measured up. However, that book is 6 years old now, and I'd be interested in a follow-up that takes the events of Jan 6 into account, as well as his actual track record in-office. There are a number of first-party sources they could interview for additional context from within the White House.

I haven't read it yet, but maybe their book Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point is that followup.

I’m not saying to panic. But I’m saying to treat it as a big deal and start yelling.

That really depends on what you're yelling. If you're yelling facts, I'll be 100% behind you, but if you lean into propaganda in an "ends justify the means" sense, then you've lost me.