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
7
@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.
@clawfulneutral @apropos sadly the main people left supporting him the third time around seem to have swallowed the hook even when he plainly did the opposite of what he said. I have truly and completely realized that most americans aren't intrinsically against war, which is sad.
Replies
8@sun @apropos there’s a certain subset of human beings (across all cultures, rightoid and leftoid alike) who are especially susceptible to being cult followers, I guess the main question is what percent of humanity do they constitute and how many of them are running various organs of social and logistical control in any given scenario
@clawfulneutral @apropos the good news is I think if they have a good leader that they are nudged to do good.
@clawfulneutral @apropos there are evil people at the top but even people that do evil usually would do good under an incentive system. sure it would be better if they were just intrinsically good but
@clawfulneutral @sun you're probably thinking of some monkey example like this: if there's a novel threat and everyone reacts the same way, then if that's a deadly way to react, everyone dies. If there's a novel threat and people react differently, there's more of a chance that some of those reactions are life-prolonging.
For example, if you freeze in front of an unfamiliar predator, you may avoid stimulating the predator into easily chasing you down, or else you may be missing out on your limited window to escape.
For example, if you freeze in front of an unfamiliar predator, you may avoid stimulating the predator into easily chasing you down, or else you may be missing out on your limited window to escape.
@apropos @clawfulneutral sometimes your type only exists to get eaten to keep the ecosystem running, or to be a human shield for the queen
@clawfulneutral @sun to put it in a nice way, people want to be right. People want to be in the right, and have the moral highground, and have only scum who deserve it for enemies.
There is a yearning for righteousness in the heart of every man, and it is like other yearnings for food or comfort or abundance, and it is also like these other yearnings in a bad way: it can be perverted, like these towards gluttony, lust, and sloth.
Men want righteousness but they can be given war propaganda as substitute.
There is a yearning for righteousness in the heart of every man, and it is like other yearnings for food or comfort or abundance, and it is also like these other yearnings in a bad way: it can be perverted, like these towards gluttony, lust, and sloth.
Men want righteousness but they can be given war propaganda as substitute.