Trump is just as much of a warmongerer as anyone. He nearly started WWIII with Iran by assassinating Soleimani. Dick Cheney just doesn't like him because of personal reasons.

The only isolationists/doves are third party candidates, as has been the case for well over 20 years.

Things rarely go "swimmingly" for the left because it fights against existing power structures, and those power structures fight back. And the countries that tend to have socialist revolutions also tend to start out with terrible conditions, bad enough for people to rise up, and then made worse by the devastation of conflict. Then they have to grapple with future threats from invasions, sanctions, and clandestine subversion.

In spite of this, many socialist countries have made major improvements to people's lives, especially in comparison to what the previous regime had been doing.

For example, Cuba was a gangster state under the dictator Batista, who was in league with the American Mafia and plundered the country for his own profits and those of wealthy plantation owners. After the revolution, in spite of sanctions, life expectancy improved greatly surpassed the US, literacy skyrocketed, and the country now has the highest number of doctors per capita in the world, who are regularly sent abroad to provide aid. Cuba recently (2022) passed an amendment to its constitution which greatly strengthened LGBT rights and gender equality.

Is Anarchism when one supports the US government?

If Biden loses to Trump the only people to blame are the ones who didn’t go out to vote. If Trump loses to Biden the only people to blame are the ones who didn’t go out and vote.

Funny, I would've thought that the people voting for a candidate are the ones responsible for the candidate getting elected.

I'm familiar with psychology. Nothing about psychology suggests that it's possible to collectively reshape the physical world through thought if enough people believe hard enough. I'd love to see some academic work that supports that claim.

I don't use it that way. There are plenty of people I disagree with who aren't libs. But in this case I was talking about a specific group of conspiracy theorists who are active on Lemmy who are, general speaking, libs.

Always did, yes.

Why judge someone for not consuming dairy in the first place? Like, what, you only date baby cows?

If you read anything that I've said in response to this comment, you'd see that not everyone is willing to admit it's suicide and that's literally the only point I've taken issue with.

Those are all arguments for why assisted suicide is preferable to non-assisted suicide. They are not arguments for why assisted suicide isn't suicide.

If someone wants to say, "I think people who want to commit suicide should have a legal pathway to commit suicide," they're entitled to their views. But if they say, "I think that assisted suicide isn't a form of suicide" then they're lying, both to themselves and others, and I think it's interesting to pursue why they feel the need to do.

When did they stop being nuts and what happened to cause it?

It's just as impossible to enact reform through the Democratic party. Especially when you adopt the approach of "vote blue no matter who." The Democratic parties interests in terms of voting reform are directly contrary to the interests of voters, and will never allow it happen unless they have no other choice. If they know they can count on your support no matter, then you have forfeited whatever negotiating power you've managed to accrue.

To the extent that electoralism is worth engaging with, strategic voting as part of a bloc is the only way to make it worthwhile. The goal should be to build an organization or movement that can say, if you refuse to give into our demands, we will not vote for you and you will lose. In the short term, it might mean losing an election, but if you can demonstrate that power, then in the future you'll be able to make a credible threat of withholding votes to get what you want, and if they cooperate you won't have to follow through. If that organization is able to coordinate other actions like strikes, then all the better.

It's like this: two countries are facing a powerful invader, and the only way to fend them off is through an alliance. But country A says, "I know you need us to survive, so we demand 99% of your territory in exchange for an alliance." If country B follows the ideology of "lesser evilism," they'll agree to that, because 1% is better than 0%. But how did that happen, when country A needs the alliance just as much? Because lesser evilism is stupid and irrational. At some point you have to set a red line and say, this is the absolute minimum that I'll accept, and I'll reject anything less even if it means the deal falling through and me facing a worse outcome. And "no genocide" is decidedly inside of that line.