this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
305 points (97.5% liked)
A Comm for Historymemes
1895 readers
758 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism, atrocity denial, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Lemmy.world rules.
Banner courtesy of @[email protected]
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's true, but if you destroy someone's house and then just leave the scene without offering any form of aid in at least attempting to repair it then you shouldn't be surprised when that person sees you as an enemy for life.
We can't expect them to differentiate between the branches of government and say "oh I hate the US army, but I don't hate USAID since they at least try to help".
If the US government can't tell which one deserves the funding, don't expect a homeless orphan being offered what they see as "an opportunity for revenge" to see the difference.
I don't necessarily disagree, my point is only that in political discussion, treating the issue as solely the purview of the presidency is unhelpful and incorrect.
EDIT: and that fixing things and breaking them are two entirely different processes, and that breaking is often much easier to do unilaterally than fixing. It's easy to do something ghoulish like breaking a man's arm, but it's much harder, even for that same person, to set and heal it.
Ah, on that you're right. It's more of a systematic issue than an issue that a president can solve on their own