I actually do think we'd have gotten a couple more regime changes under Kamala, just not Iran specifically. And everybody would be pretending they weren't USA-executed regime changes under their pathetic democratic leader, like Syria.
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Context
6
@sun I’ve gotten to the point where, as someone who would never in a million years vote for Donald Fucking Trump as president, I think I finally get it. to the extent I’m able as somebody who is left-aligned at a bone deep level anyway (although still sorting out whether that means center-left statist or something more anarchist in nature.. I’m woefully deficient on theory)
@clawfulneutral there is a reason people tried trump, especially over kamala. there was a pervasive feeling that she was just the same old shit and people gave up and wanted a completely different thing.
@sun @clawfulneutral that works for Hillary vs. Trump, but in 2024 Kamala was more of an unknown than Trump.
I think the main domestic difference would be Kamala tossing red meat to insane leftists which is both more harmful in the long run and less systematically opposed than Trump's red meat to rightists. There isn't a revolting judiciary, or defiant governors, or reckless protests, or a wailing media, or an adversarial Congress, when a Democratic President maliciously puts the screws to political enemies in the country. Trump's been dumb as shit but he's also done some good and exposed a ton of evil, and I think the truly awful stuff he's still done was in line with US continuity of agenda and would have happened anyway. Even digital ID would be happening "to combat extremist rhetoric" instead of "to protect children".
In foreign policy, other countries would like us a lot more, and the world economy wouldn't have been whimsically jerked around by chaotic tariff adjustments, and maybe the wars would've had less capeshit lawlessness.
uniter.png
I think the main domestic difference would be Kamala tossing red meat to insane leftists which is both more harmful in the long run and less systematically opposed than Trump's red meat to rightists. There isn't a revolting judiciary, or defiant governors, or reckless protests, or a wailing media, or an adversarial Congress, when a Democratic President maliciously puts the screws to political enemies in the country. Trump's been dumb as shit but he's also done some good and exposed a ton of evil, and I think the truly awful stuff he's still done was in line with US continuity of agenda and would have happened anyway. Even digital ID would be happening "to combat extremist rhetoric" instead of "to protect children".
In foreign policy, other countries would like us a lot more, and the world economy wouldn't have been whimsically jerked around by chaotic tariff adjustments, and maybe the wars would've had less capeshit lawlessness.
uniter.png
@apropos @clawfulneutral no you're right trump was more of a known quantity that wasn't gpoing to fix things the second time around and mainly retards voted for him the second time. nevertheless I don't thjink they realized he was going to be beholden to israel. maybe they should have though
@sun @clawfulneutral oh yeah, Israel wasn't clearly indicated on the ticket at all. Both Trump himself and his VP and many members of his administration ran against what he's doing right now.
@apropos @clawfulneutral there ARE some interesting bots right now running for democrats saying things like "I am republican and NEVER voted for him, I always saw what he was" wait a minute, you're against him now that he's almost perfectly aligned with neocons? lol
Replies
0Fetching replies…