161
I support the 1st Amendment, but not for people who disagree with the government (hexbear.net)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/politics@hexbear.net
46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

TBH, that is just a mainstream centrist position now.

https://x.com/HotSpotHotSpot/status/1842955890179313902

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 65 points 2 years ago (7 children)

So Iran has already struck Israel, and Israel has already done assassinations on Iranian soil, so the only strike I can think he means at this point being "preemptive" is a nuclear one.

I am unironically wondering if Trump might be the harm reduction choice at this point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 48 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    At least Trump is incompetent

    I feel like Dem Congress with Trump as president is almost certainly the least bad outcome

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 34 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Dem Congress with Trump as president

    Dems capitulating to Trump's fascist demands rather than Repubs plowing through fascist demands over Harris's lukewarm objections.

    But in the end same-picture

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Any other Republican president I’d agree but they do still think Trump specifically is icky and between that and his incompetence it at least might gum up the works a bit

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Trump also has voiced opposition to the war in Ukraine, escalation with Russia and even the notion of WW3 with China.

    Still a ghoul and as genocidal against Palestinians as anyone else in the US govt, still not someone anyone should support. But between these things and his threats of sanctioning countries that divest from the USD I honestly kinda hope that if either of two devils wins, he does. I imagine he'll be JFKed before he ever dares throw a wrench in the march to WW3 (if he dares- doubt) though

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    There’s still a chance they succeed at offing him before the election.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    Personally, I'm hoping he wins and then gets offed. Even better yet if he gets offed after further marshalling up support post-win and while he's in the process of negotiating peace. I'm imagining that will be the most disruptive way to go for the AmeriKKKan reich.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I've had a passing thought that he might try to approach Iran the way he did with DPRK, so he can get a photo op and strike a DEEEEL, but I think he's too tight with Zionists for that to ever happen. We're getting horror either way.

    Taking out Iran would probably play into their longer term goals of containing China.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago*

    America no longer has the option of “taking out” Russia, China or Iran one-by-one. They are all military Allies now and they will all support each other during war time with production, and they will all open proxy fronts while the US is busy with the others.

    Brzezinski, the founding father of neoliberal foreign policy, was very clear in stating the worst case scenario for the west is to allow an axis to form between China-Russia-Iran. You are supposed to isolate and destroy. America’s “worst case scenario” has come to pass. A united Eurasia cannot be defeated.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago

    That's where I've been, if there is such a thing as a harm reduction candidate I think trump might be it. Ultimately I don't think it matters who wins in November, amerikkka will continue with their wholehearted support of isn'trael, but trump winning might get some libs to oppose him if only in a "he's doing what we want but with the wrong aesthetic" way. However they will be quick to go back to brunch at the earliest possible moment.

    I am on the fence if he'd be more or less likely to commit to a war with Iran (assuming it hasn't broken out before his inauguration). One one hand I think he is more war-adverse than current Dems, not for any moral reasons but I think the possibility of losing and looking weak might deter him. The photos of flag covered caskets don't look great on the evening news.

    On the other hand I think he would gladly continue airstrikes and drone strikes against people without anti-air capabilities but he might have second thoughts about a war with bad publicity. Though if isn'trael escalates further and amerikkka spins it as "protecting poor little isn'trael" all bets are off.

    In any event hopefully Iran announces a successful nuclear test soon and has a more solid deterrence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If Dems win it will affirm that a party can fully back what is widely recognized as a genocide (even among it's voters) and still win an election.

    If that happens, I really think the country is hitting the fascism accelerator

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •