you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

What would be the point of ending the stability?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    They were already doing that, only in a slow and stable manner.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Now they're just accelerating their own demise. They will be tortured and killed, and they'll wonder why. It's like Elongated Muskrat is saying that he does not understand what people are mad at him. They have zero self reflections; and they'll deserve what's coming to them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Replacement with a different stability.

    As the famous quote from Spider-Man goes: "with great power comes great responsibility." Past WW2 the US acted as hegemon. They where the most powerful country and tried to use this responsibility on the global stage - at least to an extent. NATO, free access to US markets for other countries (though that also benefitted the US because it cemented the USD as reserve currency)

    Now the government wants to keep the power but have none of the responsibility. It's similar to their position on free speech.

    To put it an other way: They want to be a bully.

  • source
  • parent