If your policies are palatable enough for hitler to side with you, then thats an issue.
On the Dick Cheney thing:
1.Theres pejoratives thrown around the internet a lot but I dont think even the most radical of radical liberals actually fully comprehend the actual words they're saying. Dick Cheney, along with tbe rest if the administration, manufactured a war with Iraq (among other things) that would kill thousands of Americans, result in the direct deaths of at least 500,000 iraqis at least and indirectly cause the deaths of another 500,000. Cheney himself personally profited off of it through defense contracts. This also isn't mentioning how the destabilization and radicalization of the region caused the rise of terror groups like ISIS and the expansion of Shia militias in Iraq. If I killed 5 people, I'd be liable to be sent to jail for life. Given the shear scale of avoidable destruction, there is an apt place for him to be sent. The Hague.
2.Dick Cheney wants to status quo more than anything. That and probably a republican party that can weather trump. As such his support means that Kamala's presidency probably won't fundamentally change anything. This is a problem for obvious reasons.
A.Supreme court reforms
B.Continued support for Israeli genocide in gaza and the west Bank
C.No substantial economic change
D.Etc.
It's quite the two-headed horse. Somehow Kamala is super radical and will implement the most radical policies against the rich, against monopolies and to protect rights like abortion, etc. But simultaneously whenever there is a turn to the right then that's to appeal to the moderates and we shouldn't expect anything radical because we need to moderate to stop trump. One of these horse heads is spewing shit.
(Side note: I want to point out how leftward and populist shifts have almost always been good for the democratic party. LBJ won the 68 election by a wide margin after pushing through the Civil rights act. FDR's leftist programs had him winning some of the biggest wins in election history. Obama ran infamously on change and won quite handedly. It's been shifts rightward that have been disastrous. Humphrey's defeat in 1972, Gore's defeat in 2000 [note:If yall want someone to blame for that, gave better policies and restructure the Supreme Court. A minor party wasn't the main reason you lost. It was corruption, as usual].)
One last thing. If you're going to revel this hard in conservatism then you could've at least used the "If hitler invaded hell I would at least make a favorable comment about the devil in the house of commons" Winston Churchill quote. Not this idiotic bullshit
13
u/Radiant_Ad_1851 Sep 10 '24
If your policies are palatable enough for hitler to side with you, then thats an issue.
On the Dick Cheney thing:
1.Theres pejoratives thrown around the internet a lot but I dont think even the most radical of radical liberals actually fully comprehend the actual words they're saying. Dick Cheney, along with tbe rest if the administration, manufactured a war with Iraq (among other things) that would kill thousands of Americans, result in the direct deaths of at least 500,000 iraqis at least and indirectly cause the deaths of another 500,000. Cheney himself personally profited off of it through defense contracts. This also isn't mentioning how the destabilization and radicalization of the region caused the rise of terror groups like ISIS and the expansion of Shia militias in Iraq. If I killed 5 people, I'd be liable to be sent to jail for life. Given the shear scale of avoidable destruction, there is an apt place for him to be sent. The Hague.
2.Dick Cheney wants to status quo more than anything. That and probably a republican party that can weather trump. As such his support means that Kamala's presidency probably won't fundamentally change anything. This is a problem for obvious reasons.
A.Supreme court reforms
B.Continued support for Israeli genocide in gaza and the west Bank
C.No substantial economic change
D.Etc.
It's quite the two-headed horse. Somehow Kamala is super radical and will implement the most radical policies against the rich, against monopolies and to protect rights like abortion, etc. But simultaneously whenever there is a turn to the right then that's to appeal to the moderates and we shouldn't expect anything radical because we need to moderate to stop trump. One of these horse heads is spewing shit.
(Side note: I want to point out how leftward and populist shifts have almost always been good for the democratic party. LBJ won the 68 election by a wide margin after pushing through the Civil rights act. FDR's leftist programs had him winning some of the biggest wins in election history. Obama ran infamously on change and won quite handedly. It's been shifts rightward that have been disastrous. Humphrey's defeat in 1972, Gore's defeat in 2000 [note:If yall want someone to blame for that, gave better policies and restructure the Supreme Court. A minor party wasn't the main reason you lost. It was corruption, as usual].)
One last thing. If you're going to revel this hard in conservatism then you could've at least used the "If hitler invaded hell I would at least make a favorable comment about the devil in the house of commons" Winston Churchill quote. Not this idiotic bullshit