"If you don't vote Blue, then it's your fault for the genocide of the Palestinian people in the imaginary future inside of my head where a Republican President backs an ongoing genocide rather than our incumbent genocide-backing Democratic President. "
"You can't expect Joe to magically stop enabling genocide overnight! He needs more time to stop enabling the genocide he's enabling! It's a big and difficult change to make, as we've always enabled this genocide!"
"Remember that time when the Cheeto said something stupid? Haha let's make a joke about the Cheeto conducting a nuclear holocaust against the most oppressed people in the world, who have already been THREATENED WITH THIS!"
"The Dems would need an even larger majority over the Republicans to take any action against the largest recipient of our foreign aid spending."
Is this not the shit they're saying?
Both parties are less dangerous when they are in opposition to the government. Because whatever administration is in power will undoubtedly pursue imperialist goals while the other party if sufficiently enraged will put up some opposition, not out of principle but out of political contrarianism. Slight differences exist such as Republicans being better at political obstruction, whereas the Democrat base is more likely to go out and protest.
But on the whole i don't know that it makes much difference who sits in the White House, and in any case i would suggest that in order to impede the ability of the US to do damage around the world there needs to be maximal internal political destabilization in the US. Not allowing any one party to monopolize power for too long is conducive to this, in particular switching administrations frequently while the society as a whole is politically highly polarized.
It takes a new administration time to establish itself, get rid of the other party's appointees and put its own lackeys into positions of power. This usually gives us about a year time when they are not yet ready to launch major imperialist ventures. Ideally the ruling party should also lack a majority in either house for maximal dysfunction. This should happen at the latest with the midterms, and usually does because both parties are highly averse to keeping their campaign promises to the voters.
The point is that no matter which party is in power the foreign policy will not change, but maybe they can be sufficiently distracted dealing with problems at home.
Yea the only difference I've seen is if a republican was president elected dems would be marching with people protesting for Palestine and since a dem has been president a bunch of chuds around me have put up more lawn signs about how they want to kill everybody that disagrees with them.