That is an unverifiable, unfalsifiable non sequitur that has nothing to do with the fact that American meddling and plunder in the Middle East enjoys bipartisan support. When it comes to the Middle East, yes: both sides are the same.
The republicans can fire trump at any second they want.
But why would they? They have power. Is there supposed to be some sort of conclusion we can draw from this statement?
It's also true that Exxon could cease all oil drilling tomorrow. It's also true that all billionaires could give away their entire fortunes tomorrow. But they won't, because they have power.
Sure, at any given time it is true that your evil adversaries could just give up and magically change course, but is there really anything groundbreaking about underscoring that?
We should be leaning on the purported "opposition" party to actually fix things instead of waiting for evil pedophiles to magically change course.
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
You really think this is bulletproof?
Have Trump run for Speaker. Hell, have him appointed as secretary of agriculture and have the people above resign. Its really not that difficult when your constitution is held together with bubblegum and pinky promises.
There is nothing in the constitution that says he cant enjoy a third term.
the stupidest motherfucker in the country can do the math to see it's unconstitutional
It's not at all unconstitutional for Trump to enjoy a third term as president. All the Constitution says is that he can't be elected a third time. There's nothing that says he cannot run as VP and then succeed into POTUS once Vance steps down.
Suppose, in 10 years, your choice for president is between a democrat who openly expresses interest in murdering six million Jewish people, and a Republican who openly expresses interest in murdering seven million Jewish people.
and then have 11 of the 12 listed examples being perpetrated by one group
Why are you focusing on who was president?
The claim was: American Imperialism enjoys bipartisan support
Your counterpoint was: that cant be true because some of these examples were during republican POTUS.
That doesn't mean anything. American Imperialism can still enjoy bipartisan support, even if the president is a republican.
Take the DR in 1965, for example. LBJ was president, but his call to war was answered emphatically by both Democrats AND Republicans in the name of anticommunism. Do you seriously think that the fact that LBJ was president disproves that this meddling enjoyed bipartisan support?
So what are you saying? That American Imperialism is not the fault of America, but the fault of Republicans? Quite a convenient way to absolve yourself.
My main point is that American Imperialism, especially in Latin America, enjoys bipartisan support.
Public transportation was efficient, extensive, and practically free. Subway fare was about eight cents in the 1970s, unchanged from the 1930s (Szymanski, 1984). Nothing comparable has ever existed in capitalist countries. This is because efficient, affordable and extensive public transportation would severely limit the profit-making opportunities of automobile manufacturers, petroleum companies, and civil engineering firms. In order to safeguard their profits, these firms use their wealth, connections and influence to stymie development of extensive, efficient and inexpensive public alternatives to private transportation. Governments, which need to keep private industry happy so that it continues to provide jobs, are constrained to play along. The only way to alter this is to bring capital under public control, in order to use it to meet public policy goals set out in a consciously constructed plan.
The Soviet Union placed greater stress on healthcare than their capitalist competitors did. No other country had more physicians per capita or more hospital beds per capita than the USSR. In 1977, the Soviet Union had 35 doctors and 212 hospital beds per 10,000 compared to 18 doctors and 63 hospital beds in the United States (Szymanski, 1984). Most important, healthcare was free. That US citizens had to pay for their healthcare was considered extremely barbaric in the Soviet Union, and Soviet citizens “often questioned US tourists quite incredulously on this point” (Sherman, 1969).
Do you think fascism happens when a critical number of people have been tricked into doing fascism? Fascism is not the result of some nebulous, nationwide hoodwink, but a response to measurable deterioration of wages, education, infrastructure, wages, healthcare, etc...
If you truly believe this, your only recourse is fact checking, appeals to logic, and information campaigns. How have those worked over the past decade?
It is pure liberalism to think that we just need to sit our best politicians and philosophers down, have them draft up an absolutely banger explanation of why fascism is bad, and then every fascist American yokel will see the error in their ways and renounce fascism. Liberalism is the idea that people are fascist simply becsuse they haven't been presented with the "right" ideas yet.
Lol nice emote, I totally forgot about that guy.