i had to do a double take at the subreddit, was wondering how the hell r/worldnews would allow that to be posted
Add to that how the economy always does better under Dems. Repugs let it go to shit, prefer to let corporations and the wealthy loot the American taxpayer while civil rights are destroyed for the holy rollers.
Additionally, I can't say I've ever seen a Democrat refuse to uphold the peaceful transfer of power, then incite an insurrection complete with fake elector plots. Trump did it on TV.
It was a liberal who got the US mired in Vietnam, though. Also it was a liberal who took the US into WW1.
(Though, to be honest, I still don't know exactly what I think about WW1, in particular to what extent it was or was not caused by German aggression and to what extent it was thus unavoidable).
Liberals certainly tend to be pro-war, and pro-imperialism, in general (British liberals were big fans of the British Empire - making the world safe for 'free trade', bringing civilisation to the unenlightened - again and again expansion of that empire was justified in terms of what now gets called 'liberal interventionism', spreading "liberal values").
And the awkward thing is sometimes that pro-war sentiment seems to have been the right idea (WW2) and sometimes not (Vietnam) and sometimes it's hard to say (WW1 - feels really hard to argue that that horrific slaughter was 'necessary', yet there seems to be a case that Kaiser Bill's Germany was an aggressor, that was set on war, and I suppose one could argue that the US joining in meant the war ended sooner than it would have otherwise).
Seems to me that the trouble with US liberals is that they buy into the same nationalist mythology about the exceptional nature of the US, as does the US right, which means they make insufficient effort to fix the fundamental problems with the country.
Um, no. Wilson was not a liberal in the modern sense or even in the classical sense. He was very much an old school patriarchal conservative. Remember that at the time of WWI, the US Democratic Party was the conservative party and the Republicans were classical liberals who had recently purged their party of the progressives.It was a liberal who got the US mired in Vietnam, though. Also it was a liberal who took the US into WW1.
(Though, to be honest, I still don't know exactly what I think about WW1, in particular to what extent it was or was not caused by German aggression and to what extent it was thus unavoidable).
Liberals certainly tend to be pro-war, and pro-imperialism, in general (British liberals were big fans of the British Empire - making the world safe for 'free trade', bringing civilisation to the unenlightened - again and again expansion of that empire was justified in terms of what now gets called 'liberal interventionism', spreading "liberal values").
And the awkward thing is sometimes that pro-war sentiment seems to have been the right idea (WW2) and sometimes not (Vietnam) and sometimes it's hard to say (WW1 - feels really hard to argue that that horrific slaughter was 'necessary', yet there seems to be a case that Kaiser Bill's Germany was an aggressor, that was set on war, and I suppose one could argue that the US joining in meant the war ended sooner than it would have otherwise).
Seems to me that the trouble with US liberals is that they buy into the same nationalist mythology about the exceptional nature of the US, as does the US right, which means they make insufficient effort to fix the fundamental problems with the country.
It was a liberal who got the US mired in Vietnam, though.
That’s a great big, fuck no!It was a liberal who got the US mired in Vietnam, though. Also it was a liberal who took the US into WW1.
(Though, to be honest, I still don't know exactly what I think about WW1, in particular to what extent it was or was not caused by German aggression and to what extent it was thus unavoidable).
Liberals certainly tend to be pro-war, and pro-imperialism, in general (British liberals were big fans of the British Empire - making the world safe for 'free trade', bringing civilisation to the unenlightened - again and again expansion of that empire was justified in terms of what now gets called 'liberal interventionism', spreading "liberal values").
And the awkward thing is sometimes that pro-war sentiment seems to have been the right idea (WW2) and sometimes not (Vietnam) and sometimes it's hard to say (WW1 - feels really hard to argue that that horrific slaughter was 'necessary', yet there seems to be a case that Kaiser Bill's Germany was an aggressor, that was set on war, and I suppose one could argue that the US joining in meant the war ended sooner than it would have otherwise).
Seems to me that the trouble with US liberals is that they buy into the same nationalist mythology about the exceptional nature of the US, as does the US right, which means they make insufficient effort to fix the fundamental problems with the country.
That’s pretty dark, dragging kids into the deepens to hold them under water until they presumably drown.Mark Cuban is one of the good billionaires. Like Mackenzie Scott and Ms Melinda French Gates. Way fewer women billionaires, but ratio wise, they are killing it compared to the men.
View attachment 101700
View attachment 101701
View attachment 101702