Bolsonaro and hastened climate apocalypse, yes. But all the pink tide happened under Bush and was beaten under Obama, also look at Bolivia and Chile. Just saying...
Look at... What? All I know is that Bolivia was doing perfectly well and then boom, a coup happened under the Trump presidency. I also know that Venezuela almost got fucked too. I also also know that relations with Cuba were getting marginally better and they are shit again. Both parties do the same terrible shit.
And, like, Bush is the weirdest isolationism example ever.
I don't see why "Obama was also bad" is a counterargument to what I said, we agree on that.
That MAS regained power because of "incompetence" by the Trump admin is a very simplistic and kinda libby. The "incompetence" criticism in general is kinda libby. Trump personally is pretty incompetent but the institutions that usually call these shots are independent of who is elected as president and constantly run on the background. And they're not really incompetent. But there is limits to what they can do, there's limits to what they care enough to do, there's limits to what they want to risk. And in the case of Bolivia, it frankly wasn't as important as what happened within Bolivia. The real pie in the face was Venezuela, but chances are regardless of administration, the result would have been the same still.
Yes, it's a joke, we all know we latam will get fucked no matter what. But it's sour-funny to say "haha, vote trump so death to america comes faster". I'm no accelerationist, I just wanna shitpost for godsake
relations with Cuba were getting marginally better and they are shit again. Both parties do the same terrible shit.
This suggests that both parties do not in fact do the same terrible shit. The fact that Democrats do plenty of terrible shit doesn't take away from the fact that the Obama administration made some real progress with Cuba and Iran (that Trump subsequently undid), or the fact that the last Democratic administration to bring us to the brink of a full-scale war was LBJ.
The last few Democratic administrations have at least occasionally broken from typical imperialism, which matches with the lib interest in compromise and the turbo-lib interest in stuff like international law and institutions. Trump is trying to start another Cold War and has no qualms about all the proxy conflicts that come with it.
I disagree, in that they don't at all break with "typical imperialism", what they do is still pretty typical imperialism. I also disagree that the last democrat to bring the US close to full scale war was LBJ, though I am not 100% sure what you mean by full scale war. After all, last time the US went to war officially was WWII, but everyone knows that's stupid.
What is true is that sometimes the dems may present as a little bit more restrained, because of the whole good cop-bad cop routine going on.
they don’t at all break with “typical imperialism”
What would you call Obama's (admittedly measured) easing of the Cuban embargo? What would you call the Iran nuclear deal?
I also disagree that the last democrat to bring the US close to full scale war was LBJ, though I am not 100% sure what you mean by full scale war.
What I mean by full-scale war is an invasion, an occupation, and an attempt to install a U.S.-friendly government. It's steaming an aircraft carrier or two somewhere, landing thousands of regular troops and using all sorts of fancy military equipment, and trying to occupy at least entire cities or regions. It's not just a no-fly zone, or just cruise missile/drone strikes, or just special forces, or just an assassination, or just providing arms to domestic groups, or just CIA dealings with coup plotters. The distinction here is that an invasion kills a lot more people and does a lot more damage to the country.
If not LBJ, who was the last Democratic president to get us close to anything like that?
The Iran nuclear deal was by no means an attempt to break from imperialism or whatever, that's stupid. That's like saying Kissinger broke from imperialism when he tried to make a peace deal with Vietnam. Cuba is not a major threat to the US, neither does the US care that much about any of its resources any more. Somewhat improving relations with them is the "easy" thing. Imperialism is not something you break every now and then from and then get back at it next day. Imperialism is systemic.
What I mean by full-scale war is an invasion, an occupation, and an attempt to install a U.S.-friendly government.
Well then that's everyone if we accept the last criterion lol
It’s not just a no-fly zone, or just cruise missile/drone strikes, or just special forces, or just an assassination, or just providing arms to domestic groups, or just CIA dealings with coup plotters.
"Just"???? Dude what kind of standards do you have? "Just" drone strikes? Do you know how many people are killed by drone strikes and missile strikes?
Like, even with your standards, this is wrong, like, did you forget who was in charge during the Yugoslavian wars? Look, I'm not gonna keep citing stuff, just check the wiki page and connect the dates to the people involved: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States
Bolsonaro and hastened climate apocalypse, yes. But all the pink tide happened under Bush and was beaten under Obama, also look at Bolivia and Chile. Just saying...
deleted by creator
Look at... What? All I know is that Bolivia was doing perfectly well and then boom, a coup happened under the Trump presidency. I also know that Venezuela almost got fucked too. I also also know that relations with Cuba were getting marginally better and they are shit again. Both parties do the same terrible shit.
And, like, Bush is the weirdest isolationism example ever.
deleted by creator
I don't see why "Obama was also bad" is a counterargument to what I said, we agree on that.
That MAS regained power because of "incompetence" by the Trump admin is a very simplistic and kinda libby. The "incompetence" criticism in general is kinda libby. Trump personally is pretty incompetent but the institutions that usually call these shots are independent of who is elected as president and constantly run on the background. And they're not really incompetent. But there is limits to what they can do, there's limits to what they care enough to do, there's limits to what they want to risk. And in the case of Bolivia, it frankly wasn't as important as what happened within Bolivia. The real pie in the face was Venezuela, but chances are regardless of administration, the result would have been the same still.
Yes, it's a joke, we all know we latam will get fucked no matter what. But it's sour-funny to say "haha, vote trump so death to america comes faster". I'm no accelerationist, I just wanna shitpost for godsake
This suggests that both parties do not in fact do the same terrible shit. The fact that Democrats do plenty of terrible shit doesn't take away from the fact that the Obama administration made some real progress with Cuba and Iran (that Trump subsequently undid), or the fact that the last Democratic administration to bring us to the brink of a full-scale war was LBJ.
The last few Democratic administrations have at least occasionally broken from typical imperialism, which matches with the lib interest in compromise and the turbo-lib interest in stuff like international law and institutions. Trump is trying to start another Cold War and has no qualms about all the proxy conflicts that come with it.
I disagree, in that they don't at all break with "typical imperialism", what they do is still pretty typical imperialism. I also disagree that the last democrat to bring the US close to full scale war was LBJ, though I am not 100% sure what you mean by full scale war. After all, last time the US went to war officially was WWII, but everyone knows that's stupid.
What is true is that sometimes the dems may present as a little bit more restrained, because of the whole good cop-bad cop routine going on.
What would you call Obama's (admittedly measured) easing of the Cuban embargo? What would you call the Iran nuclear deal?
What I mean by full-scale war is an invasion, an occupation, and an attempt to install a U.S.-friendly government. It's steaming an aircraft carrier or two somewhere, landing thousands of regular troops and using all sorts of fancy military equipment, and trying to occupy at least entire cities or regions. It's not just a no-fly zone, or just cruise missile/drone strikes, or just special forces, or just an assassination, or just providing arms to domestic groups, or just CIA dealings with coup plotters. The distinction here is that an invasion kills a lot more people and does a lot more damage to the country.
If not LBJ, who was the last Democratic president to get us close to anything like that?
The Iran nuclear deal was by no means an attempt to break from imperialism or whatever, that's stupid. That's like saying Kissinger broke from imperialism when he tried to make a peace deal with Vietnam. Cuba is not a major threat to the US, neither does the US care that much about any of its resources any more. Somewhat improving relations with them is the "easy" thing. Imperialism is not something you break every now and then from and then get back at it next day. Imperialism is systemic.
Well then that's everyone if we accept the last criterion lol
"Just"???? Dude what kind of standards do you have? "Just" drone strikes? Do you know how many people are killed by drone strikes and missile strikes?
Like, even with your standards, this is wrong, like, did you forget who was in charge during the Yugoslavian wars? Look, I'm not gonna keep citing stuff, just check the wiki page and connect the dates to the people involved: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States