Of all the things libs think is a sales pitch to vote for Biden “you have to vote for Biden or America’s global influence will decrease and other countries will realize were an unreliable and antagonistic ally” is probably their worst
Kissinger’s more of an egoist of image than a realist about it
Word should be gotten to Nixon that if Thieu meets the same fate as Diem, the word will go out to the nations of the world that it may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.
Europeans realizing they’re not America’s core interest after spending two years talking up a war with Russia is never going to stop being hilarious.
As if it even matters which shitty imperialist party is in power lol
Only one of them wants to actively kill my queer friends, so yeah, it matters.
Biden only passively wants to kill us and is willing to look the other way when states do it, youre right.
Both of them want to actively kill Palestinians, including its queer population. “The lesser evil” one is currently bypassing congress to do so
Sounding alot like this rn
Cool story, still matters for my non-palestinian queer friends.
Both siders and don’t-voters malding hard rn lmao
Notice how you haven’t addressed how dems are any different from reps if both are okay with a genocide so long as they themselves are fine.
No queer friends in Palestine, I’m guessing. But even if only people in the US deserve life, Biden isn’t doing anything to stop LGBQT rights from being dismantled. It will get worse even if Biden wins a second term. If Democrats didn’t codify Roe v. Wade when they had the chance, why do you think they will do anything concrete to protect them, when they can use their fear to scare them into voting for them.
It matters hugely even internationally. If you’re female it would I’m guessing based on the fact that want to ban abortions. As a guy, I wouldn’t want to be forced to be stuck with a kid.
Are you not paying attention? I’m Australian, and the difference is totally night and day.
And as a human being, I wouldn’t really want to support a zionazi that’s funding a genocide.
I can’t speak for that.
But sure…
- The rapist who is VERY clear about wanting to be a dictator, is EXACTLY the same as the other guy.
- The rapist with over 30500 known public lies in 4 years… Yeah… Definitely the same.
- The guy who loves other dictators who support genocides? Obviously the same
- Oh, yeah, lets not forget about the guy who killed hundreds of thousands of american’s, and even more worldwide through misinformation during covid. Here in Australia, there are STILL people who were influenced by people like him.
- Also, I forgot about the guy who tried to overthrow the election (and it was obvious leading up to it)
- Lets also not forget about the guy who when found guilty in court is considered so mafia-esque, that the judge told jurors that he STRONGLY recommended people didn’t disclose they were on the jury
- This “businessman” cycles through more lawyers than a supreme court, and his own lawyers say they can’t control him.
- The guy who likely compromised the security of millions of US, Australian and other soldiers by taking classified documents for his own benefit
Joe Biden? When his son was found guilty, he let justice take course.
It would be good to see Michelle Obama stand though instead of him, but, Trump is VERY dangerous. He was willing to start a civil war to get back power, and the only reason he hasn’t gotten into any wars, is because he is likely giving other dictators everything they want (including top secret information)
The only reason we know 100% that he is giving away top secret information, is because of audio recordings, and a billionaire in Australia said directly that was the case.
Joe Biden has done none of that stuff. The judge didn’t need to warn jurors on his son’s trial that they could be targeted if they diclosed they were on it
Last I checked abortions were banned while dems held the house, congress, and the presidency.
it matters. one is an accelerationist the other is a conservative of the status quo. neither are going to improve anything but one will try his most to destroy any confidence.
one will try his most to destroy any confidence
Talking about Biden? You know, the one currently supporting a genocide? I’d think that counts as trying “his most to destroy any confidence”
The world’s been a scary place for people under Biden.
I’m not saying correlation is causation but it can feel that way, people might long for the more secure past time under Trump.
“Becoming” less reliable.
The first Trump administration stress-tested the bonds between the U.S. and its allies, particularly in Europe. Trump derided the leaders of some friendly nations, including Germany’s Angela Merkel and Britain’s Theresa May, while praising authoritarians such as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Russian leader Vladimir Putin. He has called China’s Xi Jinping “brilliant” and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán “a great leader.”
This is so stupid. Trump was the one who started a trade war with China. Him praising Xi doesn’t mean shit.
Secondly, despite claiming to be anti-west, Erdogan and Orban are both pro-West allies and will fall in line under pressure. Both countries are NATO members too btw. Why is such a democratic organization like NATO having “authoritarian” countries as members?
Also why is there no mention of Modi? Both Biden and Trump have been more than friendly with him.
Trump’s Israel policy is no different. He is more belligerent towards Iran.
In campaign speeches, Trump remains skeptical of organizations such as NATO, often lamenting the billions the U.S. spends on the military alliance whose support has been critical to Ukraine’s fight against Russia’s invasion.
Rhetoric and actions are entirely different. Trump knows very well that Ukraine War is ultimately beneficial for the U.S. and the MIC.
Another thing to keep in mind, U.S. is NATO, without the U.S there is no NATO.
He warned: “We must realize that the EU cannot be an economic and civilizational giant and a dwarf when it comes to defense, because the world has changed.”
That has been the status of Europe since end of cold war, a puppet of American capitalism, nothing more. And nothing will change unless there is a socialist revolution or something.
Rhetoric and actions are entirely different
Yes, but libs can’t tell a difference. They don’t even need different rhetoric, just tone usually.
Oh it doesn’t matter man, Trump, Biden’s draugr, Kamala, not important. This goose is cooked and you’re all cooked with it if you don’t sever ties. We saw what happened to Europe’s oil, energy and manufacturing sector with just a couple well-placed underwater bombs. The American bourgeois state will eat all of it’s “allies” like Saturn and his children if it means staving off profit collapse for one more quarter .
As somebody who lives in a country that spends over the NATO agreed 2%, and for whom Russia is very threatening, I’m not entirely unhappy about what Trump is saying about European defence. We do need to put in more effort. Another thing is what he’ll actual do.
goddamn man it’s actually so fucking stupid to be fearful of Russia in Finland.
Yes, Russia, the state still grinding it out in Ukraine 2 years down the line, is suddenly going to invade Finland and trigger a war with the entire western world so they can uhhhhh steal Finland’s lovely lakes. You piss me off
Relax, man.
Finland has been in NATO for less than a year. Before that we had a war in which USSR tried to take over the whole country and after failing at that, hovered over us for 50 years before collapsing.
But if you’re saying that we shouldn’t anymore be afraid of them now that we’re in NATO, perhaps you’re right. We’ll still need to be cognizant of the fact that Russia is our only potential enemy on this planet.
USSR tried to take over the whole country
These things happen to axis powers during WW2, yes. Perhaps the white Finn government shouldn’t have slaughtered its own people, joined with Hitler, kept Russian people in concentration camps, and participated in the seige of Leningrad.
Perhaps the white Finn government shouldn’t have slaughtered its own people
Yeah well civil wars are a bitch. It’s difficult to say for sure, but I’m pretty sure if the Reds had won that one, a similar or worse slaughtering would have taken place. At least it happened in every other place where the communists won a civil war.
joined with Hitler, kept Russian people in concentration camps, and participated in the seige of Leningrad.
I have to point out that when USSR first attacked Finland (Winter War), we were not yet allied with Hitler. USSR was actually enacting a secret deal[0] they had made with Hitler about the division of East Europe.
The things you mentioned happened during the Continuation War, for which I think we were rightfully punished.
“Uhh well the people we slaughtered totally would have done worse, despite the fact that we were allied with the Nazis and they were against them”
Great little bit of projection my man
The things you mentioned happened during
So you admit you’re cool with concentration camps
muh molotov ribbertropf
Not sure why libs think this is some kind of trump card, but I never get tired of watching them whip it out thinking it will be like holy water to a vampire. Why yes, the USSR was forced to buy itself time to fend off lebensraum by itself after a decade of the other “allies” rejecting it’s defensive treaties and handing Hitler Czechoslovakia on a silver platter. It used that bought time to evacuate 7 million Jewish people from Poland. Say, what was white Finland doing with it’s Jewish people around then?
For which I think we were rightfully punished
I do not take the word of fascist’s descendants about whether or not they have been rightfully punished. The many thousands of working Finns who your government disappeared, tortured, raped, massacred, and dumped in ditches for the crime of wanting a better life would be a better authority on that.
That you still sit there and bloviate about “well they would have done the same to us, probably!” Is the most naked fascist cope at your dogshit country being called out for what it has become, and proof positive that no, you were not punished enough.
Say, what was white Finland doing with it’s Jewish people around then?
At the time of the Winter War? Nothing, I think? USSR destroyed a synagogue in bombings in Wiborg, though.
Lmao that’s the weakest shit. “Sure we helped starve Leningrad and worked with the people who did the Holocaust, but look, some commies blew up a single synagogue during combat! This proves that we were right to massacre thousands and work with fascists, actually.”
How do you type that out and fight off the embarrassment long enough to hit post? Long practice, I guess. Defending fascists tends to put you in the clown shoes time and time again.
I’m pretty sure if the Reds had won that one, a similar or worse slaughtering would have taken place.
Oh no! Don’t massacre all of the antisemites and fascists in my nation!
hovered over us for 50 years
“Their mere existence is a threat”
“They’re just existing there…Russianly!”
I guess you had to be there.
Think about what you’re saying.
- The USSR just existing next to you is a threat.
- But Russia is in the wrong for thinking NATO existing next to them is a threat.
Why is it OK when you say it but bad when they do? If you’re encouraging others to put themselves in your shoes (“you had to be there”), why can’t you put yourself in Russia’s shoes and see how they could reasonably perceive NATO as a threat?
I’m not actually saying that Russia just existing close to us is a threat. I’m saying that what Russia is doing and how it’s behaving, and how it talks publically is a threat.
But I do understand how NATO might be viewed as a threat to some nations or world leaders. I don’t immediately remember any particurarily good (liberal, free, non-oppressive, democratic) nations that NATO poses a risk to, however. Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
I don’t immediately remember any particurarily good (liberal, free, non-oppressive, democratic) nations that NATO poses a risk to.
God, this is so mask off. Just because a country doesn’t meet some extremely vague notion of “good” that you’ve arbitrarily decided to apply (and which almost always just means “part of the West” in practice) you think it’s not aggression to bomb their people into poverty and famine. Fuck liberals.
Removed by mod
the USSR beat your ass and STILL didnt want most of your shit country. they could’ve taken it after winning the winter war, but didnt.
The fact that their casualties were 5 times worse (or about 150x worse if we’re counting tanks) than ours might have had something to do with them not wanting our shit country.
Not that it matters. The important thing was they didn’t conquer us.
and you’re still convinced they’re coming for you.
Well, not anymore that much, thanks to our NATO friends.
Removed by mod
Yea we now who you are.https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mannerheim+hitler&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images
Comrades, I sincerely apologize for any psychic damage taken from being exposed to my fellow countryman’s takes
imagine not knowing that the wrong side won the civil war
We should really have a great firewall to keep all of us inside it, the psychic damage a single fucking finn can inflict on the internet is insane
smol bean finland never done did no wrong uwu, is not like we were sucking the boot of the nazis even before they took over germany no no no, evil commies bad owo
Innocent smol bean pogromists.
Wow, which region of Russian-speakers is your country’s armed forces bombing? Because that’s what it takes for Russia to be “”“threatening”“”.
i dunno about finland, but the baltics seem like they’re a single bad morning’s commute from shelling their russian minorities… just the vibe i’m gettings…
When arent they one bad morning to reenacting what their grandparents did during ww2?
It seems wanting to join NATO is enough for Russia to be threatening, if they consider one’s country to be in Russia’s sphere of influence. See for instance Georgia (2008) and indeed Ukraine (2014/2022).
NATO is a hostile military alliance formed for the sole purpose of destroying the Soviet Union. It did not go away when that purpose was achieved, but continued to creep closer to the USSR’s main successor state despite assurances that it would not. In this post-USSR period it has undertaken multiple purely offensive actions (the former Yugoslavia and Libya come to mind). It also invaded Afghanistan as a response to 9/11, despite none of the hijackers being from Afghanistan, and despite the Afghan government offering to turn over bin Laden. Then you have the puppetmaster of NATO invading Iraq on completely false pretenses, and generally running a wide-ranging assassination program all over the world.
I wouldn’t want NATO near me, either.
NATO is a hostile military alliance formed for the sole purpose of destroying the Soviet Union. It did not go away when that purpose was achieved
Somehow it doesn’t currently seem like it was achieved.
If you think the Russian Federation and the USSR are remotely comparable, you’re smoking crack. NATO won, and the depraved, neoliberal regime it replaced the USSR with is its own God damned fault.
NATO won, and the depraved, neoliberal regime it replaced the USSR with is its own God damned fault.
I don’t think USSR became what anyone in the west wanted it to become. It’s nowhere near neoliberal, for one, more like a mafia state.
If you think the Russian Federation and the USSR are remotely comparable
Oh no, I don’t. The Russian Federation is much worse. Just saying that we didn’t really “destroy” them in the same way as, for instance, Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan was destroyed in WW2.
Incidentally, what’s with the constant insults on Lemmy? I’ve been nothing but polite here, I think.
I don’t think USSR became what anyone in the west wanted it to become.
Who is Yeltsin?
It’s nowhere near neoliberal, for one, more like a mafia state.
Technically it quickly became something closer to classically liberal rather than neoliberal (as the imperial core shunned it) but to claim that liberalism is opposed to mafiosi is hilarious, it has never existed without them. It’s like saying liberalism is opposed to slavery, there is some vacuous sense in which you could use sophistry to push that angle, but when you look at real, historic manifestations of liberal states, they are heavily economically reliant on various forms of slavery, whether domestic or via their dogs in the third world.
Lmao what?
What nations are allowed to have their own interests, and act to secure those interests? Is that something only for the U.S. and (when the U.S. allows it) its allies? Or is it possible that some countries have legitimate interests that conflict with the U.S.?
What nations are allowed to have their own interests, and act to secure those interests?
Is Ukraine allowed that?
yanks have never been reliable allies, just ask the people they left in Afganistan as one of the more recent examples
I mean under Biden the US bombed Nordstream and is attempting to vassalise the EU through the Ukraine war. I don’t think the president matters that much, the US will continue to act in its own interests regardless of who the president is
I think U.S. allies had long since internalized that they would occasionally have to eat shit from the U.S. The bargain was a place as a vassal state instead of a target, and if those are your choices being a vassal state has a lot of appeal. The occasional overt screwjob is much less damaging than a constant destabilization effort.
The deal will continue to get worse under any U.S. president, but what they seem to be getting at here is the possibility of it getting torn up altogether, opening the door for more direct U.S. hostility. As long as they support NATO they aren’t likely to be the target of a coup like the 2014 one in Ukraine, but what if NATO is gone?
Trump isn’t going to be allowed to unilaterally withdraw from NATO on a whim, but he could do a lot of damage to it, and he can rile up the reactionary hogs against it, which would at least lay the groundwork for a still more impactful change.
So you are saying Trump is the harm-reduction candidate?
There is no harm reduction candidate. They’re both far past the point of any reason to support them, they’d probably do different bad things, though.
True enough.
