Psssst (img-9gag-fun.9cache.com)
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 1 week ago (53 children)

If US Democrats are so different from US Republicans, how many policies from Trump 1.0 were reversed by Biden?

How many foreign wars, interventions, coups and other nonsense that America does to other countries were withdrawn by Democrats?

  • source
  • hideshow 53 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 week ago*

    How many foreign wars, interventions, coups and other nonsense that America does to other countries were withdrawn by Democrats?

    I can't think of one. The dems have never meaningfully opposed or even slowed imperialism. Biden ended his term eating ice cream cones through a still ongoing genocide. His successor offered nothing more.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago

    Dont forget Biden increasing ICE spending. Or breaking a bunch of laws to build the border wall for Trump. Or doing nothing about the crimes that Trump commited. Or helping fund Cop City. Or arresting anti-war and anti-genocide protesters.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    And tell me why I went into the election 100% ready to vote democrat to punish republicans for supporting zionism, but in one race the republican said he would cut support and has a voting record to back it, and in the other race the democrat was a zionist as well and there was an independent who had no problem stating the real facts.

    I went in ready to vote straight ticket democrat and after research ended up voting for none.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 week ago (35 children)

    False premise. "Reversing" what a prior administration did isn't always possible, and sometimes isn't necessary to move forward.

    WRT foreign wars, the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan under Biden. His administration also handled the Ukraine situation about as well as anyone could have under the circumstances.

    But look at the devastation that a second Trump administration has caused. Biden didn't arm a secret police and tell them to arrest every brown-skinned person they saw. He didn't kidnap the leader of a sovereign state. He didn't start a needless war in the Middle East. And he didn't completely trash our relations with our closest allies in Europe and North America.

    Maybe I'm just feeding the trolls here, but this should be fairly obvious to any neutral observer: there's a substantial difference between having an authoritarian cult leader as president and having a center-right dunce as president. Neither option is great, but don't fall victim to the all-or-nothing logical fallacy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago* (34 children)

    Sure, occupying and invading other countries is the way we move forward.

    Everyone on the outside can see the Pepsi Cola political circus of USA for what it is, and is hoping for the whole imperialist project to come crashing down.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (33 children)

    Deflection and a claptrap. I expected nothing less.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (10 children)

    Ignoring the obvious point that they were making. I expected nothing less.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (9 children)

    Lol, they ignored every point I made, but I should have to address every bullshit point they make. That's how the game works? They asked for an example of a war ending under a Democrat, I provided one, and then... crickets. Y'all are fucking clowns.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (8 children)

    You also pretended that Biden didn't cause massive devastation, and help Trump build out his fascist system. But yeah, we're the clowns 🙄

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 days ago (7 children)

    What "massive devastation" did Biden cause? Be specific, please.

    You're falling for the all-or-nothing logical fallacy. You can bucket both Biden and Trump as being shitty, but that doesn't mean they're equally shitty.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago (6 children)

    What “massive devastation” did Biden cause? Be specific, please.

    Backed a genocide, mass deportations, sent people to torture camps, fought against healthcare for all, bombed innocent people, increased military spending, broke a bunch of laws to help build the border wall, increased funding to ICE, helped build Cop City, helped do massive drilling for oil, shot down union strikes, took money from the working-class to bail out his rich friends. That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there's plenty more.

    You’re falling for the all-or-nothing logical fallacy. You can bucket both Biden and Trump as being shitty, but that doesn’t mean they’re equally shitty.

    Can you point out where I said that they were equally shitty? because I'm pretty confident that I never did.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago (5 children)

    I mean, we can dive into the specifics on each one of the points you made, because several of them are obviously misleading, but I don't think that's a good use of our time because...

    If you don't think Trump and Biden are equally shitty, then what is the argument? The debate is about whether or not voting matters. You've just said one candidate is shittier than the other, so I guess you prefer eating shit to taking an hour out of your worthless life to cast a vote?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago* (4 children)

    ...because several of them are obviously misleading...

    More defliction because you can't argue a point. Which ones are misleading?

    If you don’t think Trump and Biden are equally shitty, then what is the argument?

    That you are wrong when you pretend that there's a substantial difference between Trump and Biden, and that Biden didn't cause massive devistation. They are only minorly different, and both caused massive devistation.

    The debate is about whether or not voting matters. You’ve just said one candidate is shittier than the other, so I guess you prefer eating shit to taking an hour out of your worthless life to cast a vote?

    I prefer fighting against fascism, genocide, torture, murder, etc. You are the one saying that we should support the people who support and commit fascism, genocide, torture, murder, etc.

    Also, can you point out where I said that I didn't vote? Because I'm pretty confident that I never said that. I love how Libs have to keep making up arguments to yell at me about, rather than addressing the things I actually said. It's almost like they don't argue seriously....

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    We've lost the narrative, I think, so let's see if we can refocus here at bit.

    The conversation is about whether voting matters, whether the blue wave matters. You acknowledge that there's a difference between candidates, but that you don't believe that difference is "substantial." Logically, two things can be true: Biden could have caused "massive destruction" and still be substantially better than Trump. So just saying "Biden caused massive destruction" is not sufficient to prove your point. All of the "destruction" points you brought up happened under Trump, as well, right? But the things we got under Trump that we didn't have under Biden include:

    • USAID cuts that will cause hundreds of thousands of deaths globally.
    • Secret police with arrest quotas terrorizing ordinary people.
    • A war in Iran that is causing the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

    No one expected Biden to be some kind of radical leftist candidate who would enact sweeping leftist changes. But we expected less "fascism, genocide, torture, murder, etc," and that's exactly what we got.

    You might argue that voting for Biden perpetuates this system and that you want to "send a message" to the party. Well, that's a convenient POV to hold when you're not the one who is suffering the consequences when the system is controlled by the worse party. You're not going to die from the USAID cuts. You're not getting arrested by the secret police. You're not at risk of being bombed. "Some of you will die, but that's a risk I'm willing to take" kind of attitude, right?

    I think the reality is that you are exercising the "no true Scotsman" fallacy here. You want to believe that you're the smartest person in the room and that you have some kind of secret knowledge about how "both parties are the same" that "liberals" haven't discovered yet, and you revel in "blowing people's minds" with your "radical" views. There's a word for what you're doing: edgelord. And you fully embody that spirit, bud.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

    Logically, two things can be true: Biden could have caused “massive destruction” and still be substantially better than Trump.

    Sure, it could be true. I just don't think it is. Lets ask the Palestinian kids with missing limbs if the damage that Biden caused was massive. Lets ask the dead Syrians if the damage he caused was massive. Lets ask the immigrants who were deported to torture prisons if the damage he caused was massive. I'm pretty confident that I know what they would say.

    So just saying “Biden caused massive destruction” is not sufficient to prove your point.

    Well luckily for me, I didn't just say that. I brought data-points and information to back up my claim.

    All of the “destruction” points you brought up happened under Trump, as well, right?

    Yes. So the fact that you think Trump doing those is "massive destruction", but Biden doing them isn't, shows your bias.

    USAID cuts that will cause hundreds of thousands of deaths globally.

    Fair enough

    Secret police with arrest quotas terrorizing ordinary people.

    The only difference is that they didn't have quotas. But the secret police existed and were active under Biden as well.

    A war in Iran that is causing the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

    We had "military activity" with Syria, and a genocide supported by Biden. Both which caused the deaths of thousands of innocent people. But the Iran war affects you more visibly in an economic sense, so suddenly you care about it.

    No one expected Biden to be some kind of radical leftist candidate who would enact sweeping leftist changes. But we expected less “fascism, genocide, torture, murder, etc,” and that’s exactly what we got.

    Uh, wut? No we didn't. We got mostly the same fascism, genocide, torture, murder, etc. Also, the fact that you were OK with that as long as the Blue Team was doing it is pretty telling.

    You might argue that voting for Biden perpetuates this system and that you want to “send a message” to the party.

    I might argue that, but I didn't. I love how Libs always have to make up arguments that I never said to fight against, rather than address the points that I did make.

    Well, that’s a convenient POV to hold when you’re not the one who is suffering the consequences when the system is controlled by the worse party. You’re not going to die from the USAID cuts. You’re not getting arrested by the secret police. You’re not at risk of being bombed. “Some of you will die, but that’s a risk I’m willing to take” kind of attitude, right?

    From what I see, your POV is that you are willing to risk the lives of Palestinians, Syrians, immigrants in the US, anti-genocide activists, and other marginalized people because you aren't suffering the consequences when Biden was in control. You aren't going to starve to death. You aren't going to be genocided. You aren't going to have your limbs blown off. You aren't going to be sent to a torture prison. You got to go back to brunch, and stop pretending that you cared about them.

    I think the reality is that you are exercising the “no true Scotsman” fallacy here.

    What? How does that fallacy make sense in this context?

    You want to believe that you’re the smartest person in the room and that you have some kind of secret knowledge about how “both parties are the same” that “liberals” haven’t discovered yet, and you revel in “blowing people’s minds” with your “radical” views. There’s a word for what you’re doing: edgelord. And you fully embody that spirit, bud.

    No, I want to stop the US from bombing, torturing, raping, stealing, and causing massive destruction. Something that you don't seem to care about, as long as it doesn't effect you. Your the one trying to do a bunch of "akshully, Biden blew up less kids, so he's actually pretty cool!" rhetroric.

    You are right about one thing though: Being against bombing, torturing, raping, stealing, and causing massive destruction is a radical view in the US, especially when considering the stances that Libs consistently take.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (21 children)

    Because your argument of keeping the broken car chugging along rather than letting it breakdown completely and get a completely new one is absolutely silly for everyone except current day Americans.

    Everyone else benefits from the car breaking down completely and weathering the storm on foot for a bit to get a new car that could potentially work much better for everyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (20 children)

    Some of you may die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

    "Weathering the storm on foot" in your analogy means millions of people dying. You understand that, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (19 children)

    How? I only meant incompetent governance and economic issues (debt and inflation, etc).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 days ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago (1 child)

    Fair I guess, I didn't consider this.

    But what do we do now? Does this mean we have to prennially live under American imperialism?

    And will the Democrats even restart these aid programmes? Especially when the US treasury is under pressure to reduce debt?

    This is why I find modern day western liberal imperialism so much worse than what we had in the past. It's like human shield in away.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago

    I don't know if Democrats will restart those programs. I think the realpolitik of what these midterms actually mean is that Trump is no longer a "kingmaker" in his party, and without that leverage he won't have control over every Republican in congress. And because of that, he's going to have to behave or risk getting removed or possibly worse.

    I don't know what the exact path forward is, but it's not like nuclear weapons will disappear if the U.S. dissolves. There's still inherent problems of the human condition that we have to continue to struggle with as a species, IMO. Even if we wipe out all of the existing imperialist states, more could -- and IMO, would -- arise unless we figure out how to solve some of those underlying problems.

    In the meantime, I think it's easy to lose sight of the fact that things have gotten better over time. This last vote was refutation of imperialism. They said themselves, it was a reflection of dissatisfaction with the imperialist war in Iran. If we don't believe in democracy, then what do we believe in, exactly? Do we just cross our fingers and hope we get benevolent dictators? Granted it took far too long, but the imperialist country did eventually give up slavery. Racism has objectively decreased over time. A smaller portion of the world dies from starvation and preventable disease. The world is getting better over time. The past 10 years have been a shitshow, but the median person is certainly better off today than they were 100 years ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (15 children)

    Are you being deliberately obtuse? How exactly do you see the collapse of the united states occurring without tens of millions of deaths? Please be as detailed as possible with as much real world history supporting evidence for why you think that as possible. I'm genuinely asking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (14 children)

    So how many millions died during the collapse of USSR or the British Empire?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (12 children)

    Several million immediately following, and tens of millions in the decades leading up to it. So you were being deliberately obtuse then? Are you engaging in good faith here?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (11 children)

    What do you mean be as detailed as possible? I don't have a crystal ball bro.

    From what i can tell from a cursory LLM chat, it seems like millions of deaths are attributed to decreased life expectancy of citizens of former USSR. Well suck it up I guess.

    Armed conflict and such direct death toll seems to be at 150k.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (10 children)

    I asked you to detail your position and you ignored and deflected a third time. You're clearly not engaging in good faith and I've given enough time to trolls.

    from a cursory LLM chat,

    Fucking hell. Definitely bad faith.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (9 children)

    Well my ideal detailed position would include dismantling of NATO, expulsion of American troops from all places that are not American territory. Dismantling of the petro dollar and USD led international payments system.

    Ideally I'd also want all corporations with revenue over €10M to be coops or nationalised in case of infrastructure (this includes cloud) companies, and incentivisation of unions. And require all international companies to pay their full taxes in every country they operate. Also capping CEO pay, wealth and inheritance taxes etc. This is not US specific but I believe large part of American imperialism is through their corporations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (7 children)

    And how does republicans winning make any of this happen? That's what started this conversation, your assertion that republicans are better because whatever it is you want to happen is somehow more likely to happen with republicans. How, exactly? And again, given the fascist republican platform, how does this happen without mass casualties?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] -1 points 6 days ago (2 children)

    And we're back to you being deliberately obtuse. Hopefully you're a troll and aren't actually this dumb.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    Please do explain in detail with historical examples how this collapse happens without mass collateral casualties. And what exactly does the immediate aftermath look like? Again, please be as detailed as possible using as many historical examples as possible. Please don't just ignore me and ask another question as some sort of gotcha. I'm genuinely trying to engage, I want you to fully lay down how you see things playing out, and how to instigate this collapse as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago

    This is irrelevant.

    Things are objectively better under Democrats. So vote Democrat to make your life better.

    Are they perfect? Nah dawg. Are things OBJECTIVELY better when they're running the show? Absolutely. So the decision is easy and everything else is just whiny bitch noise.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] [S] -6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    He didn't have congress on his side. If you can't get the votes, there isn't a lot you can change.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 week ago* (7 children)

    Trump 1.0 wasn't able to pass hardly any policy because of all the good people we used to have in government. Most of his work in term 1 was removing those people, and term 2 is the payoff for that. Biden also can't just say "law null and void," it has to go through congress and the senate. Why do people keep rewriting history? The dems had a very thin majority in congress, and a MINORITY in the senate. What is he supposed to do, snap his fingers and declare it null? Not even Trump with his yesmen can do that, he needed the supreme court to intervene.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    And yet Biden seemed to have enough power to bomb a bunch of innocent people, bypass Congress to fund a genocide, and increase funding to ICE, and arrest protestors.

    Weird how, when its what his rich doners want, he has the power. But when it comes to the voters, he claimed that his hands were tied.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    You forgot about preventing the rail unions from striking. In a moment when doing nothing was the correct answer, the democrats were there ready and willing to act with great urgency.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    My bad, I did forget that!

    I'll disagree with you though: I'd say he should have supported the rail workers. He could have come out and said "The rail-companies are government contractors, with huge subsidies, and they'll start getting fined for not delivering. We'll use those fines to pay the salaries of the striking workers."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Bypassing congress for military funding was literally approved by congress as a power for the president. Boomers support Israel, I can't explain that. But on literally every other issue, it's comparing literal demons to normal policy. Biden had authority to approve weapons, but he doesn't have the authority to remove what the last president did.

    Biden actually requested less money for ICE than had been requested previously, and then later requested more for processing immigration cases. The funding is also irrelevant considering trump upped it by about 400% from 8b to 40b, and is running around terrorizing the population with it. The huge majority of Americans support border control, so Democrats did want to fund ICE, but they don't want to fund a domestic terrorist group like the RepublicaBiden?

    The protesters were arrested for breaking the law, not for protesting. Vote for people who will change the law if you don't like it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Bypassing congress for military funding was literally approved by congress as a power for the president.

    Oh, well I guess that makes it OK then 🙄

    But on literally every other issue, it’s comparing literal demons to normal policy.

    Yeah, that's kind of the problem. Here in the US "normal policy" demonic. Bombing kids, kidnapping innocent people off the streets, sending people to torture camps, taking money from the workers and giving it to the rich, etc. Biden went with that, instead of helping the voters he pretended to care about when he was campaigning.

    Biden actually requested less money for ICE than had been requested previously, and then later requested more for processing immigration cases.

    And that's supposed to make me feel better? He could have said no money to ICE, we're disbanding them, and we're going to drop the immigration cases.

    The funding is also irrelevant considering trump upped it by about 400% from 8b to 40b, and is running around terrorizing the population with it.

    That doesn't sound irrelevant at all. In fact, that sounds very relevant. Especially considering that Biden was "running around terrorizing the population with it" too. Trump wouldn't have had that kick-start if Biden hadn't helped him.

    The huge majority of Americans support border control, so Democrats did want to fund ICE, but they don’t want to fund a domestic terrorist group like the RepublicaBiden?

    I'm assuming you meant "Republicans". You just said a directly contradictory statement: ICE is a domestic terrorist group, that helps the Republicans. So the Democrats clearly did want to fund it, considering that they did it when they didn't have to.

    The protesters were arrested for breaking the law, not for protesting. Vote for people who will change the law if you don’t like it.

    No, many of them were release because the cops couldn't prove any laws were broken. Biden also didn't arrest a bunch of other people who were breaking laws. Weird how he did that to the left, but gave the right a pass, isn't it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    Oh, well I guess that makes it OK then 🙄

    Not what I said.

    Again Biden had... 5% lead in the house... -15% in the senate. He can't snap his fingers and pass laws, it's astonishing the bills he DID manage to pass.
    https://www.npr.org/2023/01/01/1143149435/despite-infighting-its-been-a-surprisingly-productive-2-years-for-democrats.

    The biggest being he is not in support of the absolute slaughter of the Ukraine Russia war, but I guess those 500k+ people don't matter enough that lesser of 2 evils is worth it (when one side is Hitler 2.0).

    Ice was not being unbelievably evil when Biden was president, raiding American citizens homes, giving them contaminated water etc. Disbanding ICE was not even on the table. You may want open borders but that is extremely unpopular among Republicans and democrats. Biden continued the policy we have had for decades with ICE, and the increase was for trials, which we would want people to have fair trials.

    Another example of democrats working to reduce ICE funding

    I mean first of all Biden is not the one sending the police to these places, often it was the universities calling the police. Many of the cases didn't have sufficient evidence against the individuals or the police were too broad in who they arrested, but about 40% WERE convicted. That is a very high number for a large protest where it's hard to gather evidence before arresting people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago

    Not what I said.

    No, it's what you suggested.

    He can’t snap his fingers and pass laws, it’s astonishing the bills he DID manage to pass.

    Yeah, bills that help his rich friends, while openly not trying to pass bills that help the voters. I agree he was productive, but productive doesn't mean "good", just that he did a lot for his doners, instead of what he promised to do.

    The biggest being he is not in support of the absolute slaughter of the Ukraine Russia war, but I guess those 500k+ people don’t matter enough that lesser of 2 evils is worth it (when one side is Hitler 2.0).

    Ah, right, the Libs that very openly didn't care about the slaughter of Palestinians suddenly care when its white people in Ukraine. I wonder why that could be.... 🤔

    I guess the Palestinians and Syrians don't matter when Libs have the option of voting for Hitler 1.9

    Ice was not being unbelievably evil when Biden was president, raiding American citizens homes, giving them contaminated water etc

    What? Yes they were. Just because you were out to brunch doens't mean that it wasn't happening. Look up the amount of rape that was happening, or the deportations to torture prisons, or the rotten food that was being given to the people that were being kidnapped.

    Disbanding ICE was not even on the table.

    Yes it was, but Biden didn't want to. He wanted ICE kidnapping people, just like he wanted to bomb kids, and back a genocide. That's why he did it.

    Biden continued the policy we have had for decades with ICE, and the increase was for trials, which we would want people to have fair trials.

    Ah, yes, our immigration courts, which famously, have unfair trials. He could have at least tried reforming those, or making sure that they were following the law, but he didn't, because he was too busy backing a genocide, and giving handouts to his rich friends.

    Your example of the Dems trying to cut funding was when they knew it wouldn't pass. Just like, as soon as Trump got elected, a bunch of Dems came out calling for Medicare for all, or police reform. They do it when they know it won't pass, so that they can pretend that they tried. But when they have the power to do those things, like under Biden, they are suddenly too busy.

    I mean first of all Biden is not the one sending the police to these places, often it was the universities calling the police.

    And what did he have to say about it? What kind of support did he give the victims? Did he call up the universities and tell them to stop?

    Remember, he was in full support of them calling the cops on anti-genocidists.

    Many of the cases didn’t have sufficient evidence against the individuals or the police were too broad in who they arrested, but about 40% WERE convicted. That is a very high number for a large protest where it’s hard to gather evidence before arresting people.

    No, that's a low rate. That means they wasted the time of 60% of people, on openly fraudulent arrests. Not to mention the fraud that went into the convictions that they did make.

    I love seeing the knots that Libs have to twist themselves into, in order to make excuses why Dems "aren't akshually that evil", when they do things like support a genocide, bomb kids, elect a rapist, support ICE, and openly abandond their voting base.

  • source
  • parent