They certainly wouldn’t have left the WHO. Staying in the WHO is just good business sense, aside from for the private hospitals but the impacts of a highly lethal global pandemic on stability and on the safety of the rich isn’t worth it.

Again, why? The US Empire is quite clearly trying to leave international organizations and replace them with new orgs like the "Board of Peace" that are even more nakedly US-dominated. This isn't simply random whim, but a response to the decay in capitalism.

And people will have more space to organize when under a predictably evil government than a chaotic one. Unless you’re relying on the death and destruction for a recruitment drive.

This part is pure bullshit. Both the DNC and GOP crush leftist organizing and fund the groups that do so, like the NSA, FBI, and CIA. Organization is not "easier" under the DNC, and you would know this if you actually did org work in real life as a leftist.

All in all, you're justifying maintaining a brutal system that kills half a million per year. You also admitted to not reading my comments, so why do you expect people to take your arguments seriously in return?

[+] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml -7 points 1 day ago (3 children)

The Democrats would've, at a bare minimum, left USAID slower. They wouldn't have sent Musk in to immediately halt payments, they would've just removed the funding from the next congressional budget. Aid organisations would've had warning and people wouldn't have been suddenly cut off from their HIV medication.

Leaving the WHO is not something even the rich are really calling for. It's a conspiracy theorist thing that Trump is pushing on a personal level. Nobody in the imperial periphery is really following him either.

I'm not going to bother responding to the last part. Unless it's easier to organize under the GOP, it's irrelevant. Hell the communist revolution is besides my point entirely. All I've been trying to say is that more people die when a Republican president is elected, and even if that might usher in a communist revolution you'd still be gambling with lives by choosing that.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

From 1 democratic president ago:

After winning the Nobel peace prize, Obama dropped an average of 30k bombs / year (80 per day) during his presidency, mostly on Muslim countries, 2, 3. In 2016 alone, dropped 26,171 bombs in the Middle East and North Africa, up 3000 from the previous year. The countries bombed include Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and Somalia.
Began a campaign of drone assassinations in the Middle East and Africa, in which 90% of those killed were not the intended targets, but innocent civilian bystanders, including women, children, and US citizens. 1. Drone strikes are used by the military and the CIA to hunt down and kill people the Obama administration has deemed — through secretive processes, without indictment or trial — worthy of execution. He authorized 10 times more drone strikes than George W Bush, 2. The Obama assassination program is detailed in the drone papers.

[–] ExotiqueMatter@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 day ago

The Democrats would’ve, at a bare minimum, left USAID slower.

You are reduced to splitting hair about hypotheticals. You might want to try moving on to other arguments. Assuming you have any left.

I’m not going to bother responding to the last part. Unless it’s easier to organize under the GOP, it’s irrelevant.

Oh, dodging inconvenient arguments now are we? Your "point" was that it's supposedly easier to organize under the Democrats so the fact that it isn't is absolutely relevant.

This is just sad at this point. You reached a level of throwing-everything-at-the-wall-in-the-hope-something-will-stick that probably does more harm than good to your position in the minds of peoples reading this thread.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The Democrats would’ve, at a bare minimum, left USAID slower.

Why? Why do you say this? You keep getting trapped in this idea of the DNC being "more moral" in actions, despite their actions still propping up imperialism and protecting it.

Leaving the WHO is not something even the rich are really calling for. It’s a conspiracy theorist thing that Trump is pushing on a personal level. Nobody in the imperial periphery is really following him either.

Trump cannot unilaterally do whatever he wants. The bourgeoisie as a class is not in lock-step, there are some that want to stay in the WHO, but the idea that a country can truly be unilaterally led by someone with no class backing is Great Man Theory.

I’m not going to bother responding to the last part. Unless it’s easier to organize under the GOP, it’s irrelevant.

I would never advocate for pushing for the GOP, as that's accelerationism, but it is easier to organize under the GOP. Democrats get more millitant when they see the failures of the DNC to resist the GOP, as they are on the same side, the side of capital.

Hell the communist revolution is besides my point entirely.

Yes, because you don't actually want to end imperialism. That's why you like the DNC.

All I’ve been trying to say is that more people die when a Republican president is elected, and even if that might usher in a communist revolution you’d still be gambling with lives by choosing that.

500,000 people die per year because of a bipartisan system of imperialism. My point is not that people dying under the GOP ushers in a communist revolution, but that both parties are aligned in materially supporting imperialism.

You also admitted to not reading my comments, so why do you expect people to take your arguments seriously in return?