on the anti-US-imperialist left (“tankies”), i wonder if part of Trump’s appeal, perhaps only semiconsciously, is that he’d be openly as bad as they were always sure the United States always was. they’d be proven right, and no more of what they perceived as hypocritical sanctimony.
@interfluidity Both the tankies and #Trump are broadly against war, although tankies are far more principled in that stance than #Trump ofc
I mean, we're talking about a president who made an ally of #TulsiGabbard. You don't see many people more anti-imperialist than her in the #USA government.
@realcaseyrollins anti-imperialist, or pro other empires, our dear Tulsi. Trump portrayed himself as antiwar while campaigning, now he won’t rule out the use of force against Greenland/Denmark and Panama, he promises “all hell is going to break loose” in Gaza Saturday if all hostages are released, openly seeks territorial expansion in a way no US President has for more than a century.
> tankies are far more principled in that stance than #Trump ofc
@realcaseyrollins i’ll believe that when i see more of them disavowing their support for Trump as somehow the lesser evil.
@interfluidity Rooting for the "no new wars" president over the guy who instigated a conflict in the middle east while a completely different one was going on is about at principled as you can be if what you oppose war TBF
@realcaseyrollins i can respect that.
but then i’d expect some expressions of disappointment for a “no new wars” candidate who has now hinted at openly imperialistic military actions that were so far off the table you’d have needed a warp drive to find them a few months ago.
@interfluidity I get you to a point. There were always people in the government calling for the #USA to do even more aggressive actions in #Gaza than what #Trump is willing to cosign. #LindseyGraham is a great example of this.
@realcaseyrollins @interfluidity
Some people would only be happy if he surrendered in advance to everybody.
Some people, of small brain, can't grasp that he took an oath to protect and defend, and that includes American hostages. Some people are too dense to realize that being anti war can only go so far and isn't the same as being a surrender monkey or pacivist.
There are actually people that cant tell the difference between projecting power and war adventurism.
Sadly, these zombies vote.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins his oath, by the way, is to protect and defend the Constitution. but i sure hope he does protect and defend American citizens. i'll be impressed if he doesn't take the Biden Administration approach of ignoring deaths of American citizens in Israel/Palestine if they are ethnic Palestinians. 1/
@Phil @realcaseyrollins so far i've seen the opposite of any kind of successful or meaningful projection of power, other than in Israel, where Netanyahu wanted to give his ally a win in exchange for greater help and license going forward. which he has gotten, in Trump's plain endorsement of population transfer / "ethnic cleansing" from Gaza. (which, to be clear, at least has the virtue of a certain honesty that the prior administration lacked on Gaza). /fin
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins
You aren't looking in the right places, or are too blinded by TDS to notice.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins I mean, domestically Musk is "projecting power", illegally and doing great harm. Much of that will be reversed, but much that is broken will take a long time to fix. And none of what he's attacking is at the heart of any of our problems. (Of course the heart of all our problems is brain death: the Constitution makes Congress the brains of our system, and Congress no longer functions due to rigging the electoral system for job security.)
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins
All Musk has done is uncover how incredibly broken the federal leviathan is. He hasn't done so much as an ounce of harm to anybody but corrupt people who are personally benefiting from ripping off US taxpayers.
It's proving educational to people. Shining a light on the evil, is the first and most important step and CANNOT be undone. And that makes it glorious.
There is nothing illegal about it and nothing dems havent done before. I hope they enjoy sucking on it
@Phil @realcaseyrollins There is everything illegal about it, food aid is rotting, people who would have been going hungry, and you are willfully blind. Might USAID have been reformed? Sure. That's what Congress is for, and you wind things down to minimize harms, if you decide you are going to wind things down.
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins
Show proof, No lifesaving aid was blocked. it was transferred to the State Department.
This is pure propoganda.
It's perfectly legal for the President to uncover and smash corruption in the executive branch. It is his duty and within the power that the constitution vests in him.
2. USAID was NOT established by congress, it was done by executive order by JFK as ONE way to meet requirements of the law on which it was based but isn't required.
@Phil @interfluidity I heard that sex clinics in #SouthAfrica did get shut down actually. Not sure that any stateside lifesaving aid was halted though.
@Phil@freeatlantis.com@realcaseyrollins @interfluidity Oh no! what will the world do without US funded Sex clinics?
@Phil @realcaseyrollins PEPFAR, established by GWB, administered by USAID, has saved conservatively 18M lives. maybe you contest the stats. but boy you are awfully glib about this stuff. sex clinics!
i think Trump people have said they mean to continue PEPFAR. there have been interruptions of medication however which risks emergence of resistant strains of HIV, endangering us all.
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins
I am personally against using ANY us funds for any such purpose.
@Phil @interfluidity Die of #AIDS. But...if it's not in the #USA...
Not our government's job to fix. Let #BillGates do it or something, he cares about the lives of Africans or something.