708
Trump Is Reportedly Sending Israel $2.8 Billion in Bombs. You're Paying for Them
(www.rollingstone.com)
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2026
708 points (98.9% liked)
politics
31175 readers
2169 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We've gotta stop doing this chatter.
Yes, we know establishment dems are also pro israel.
Are you actively trying to help tank dem chances in the mid terms? Do you think repubs will be better?
I don't get the desired effect of this comment other than to make people depressed and sad and not bother voting for the least bad option which will have the effect of allowing the more bad option to win. I get the "burn it down" team, but there are lots of us who aren't there and think that's going to be miserable for ages.
But we have hope. There's been a surge of SocDems winning and they are making waves, getting positive press, and the republicans have shat the bed so bad that their base is noticing.
You can also help instead of harm by joining your local democratic organization, helping find better candidates to vote for and supporting them, and voting in the primaries. If you're not doing all of that, then please be quiet.
Well Republicans may be actively killing Americans, cutting all research funding and solar and infrastructure, ruining trade relations, starting and continuing several wars, doing exactly as much as the dems do on Israel, just with even more support towards it, making bills to say trans people are mentally ill, pushing religion in schools, cutting education, and about 1000 other literally evil things.
BUT! dems support Israel instead of Russia. Who cares about the Iran war I guess. They also only passed 7 huge bills while having a tiny majority. Both sides.
I'll just go ahead and admit it. Let's lay it all out. Straight up: I won't be voting for Biden this election and I hope no else does either.
But yeah I really wish he wasn't running for president again...in a midterm election. Cause if he wasn't then I'd say we could at least vent honestly a little about the heinous things he was involved in with out being brow beat about it. Bad mouthing the party in general? Yeah probably not the best thing to be doing now. But Biden? Nah fuck him.
You do realize who the puppet-president is doesn't matter right? You're voting for a party and for your pathetic country it means : shit vs shittier.
So grow up and vote for shit before shittier takes away voting altogether. Then worry about dragging the needle further left. US people are so dumb...
"yeah, don't worry about the future effects - there's always only one election!"
Remember when people were talking about how they were going to push Biden left after he was elected in 2020? Good times!
"guys, I know they support the genocide, but my team might lose if you don't stop talking about it!"
Your chance to fix this was in 2016. Last one was in 2020.
At this point, you're locked in.
This is the 'burn it down' crowd comment.
paraphrased: "Things are bad there, but we can make things bad here too so that things are just bad everywhere and people will suddenly revolt"
I'm in my local org, promoting candidates I want before we get to the national level. What have YOU done other than comments on a forum a few thousand (mostly already on your side) people will see? I'm pro Palestine and anti-genocide, but I don't see a way to _get there_ without adding violence without aiming for grass-roots level activism. Hence the point of my comment. The republicans did it; stop fighting me and fucking help.
Can we not agree that genocide is bad, the established leadership is bad, that we can find and elect better people, and that we can use momentum to get good things done? To me, the alternative is hopeless despair and just giving up.
Is that what you're selling? Because that seems fucked up and I'm not buying. Because Fucking Please - tell me how you are are solving the genocide right now.
My personal choices in both those years was not one of the options. So I voted, effectively the limit of my personal power since I'm not a billionaire, for the one closest to that. I'm one of ~350M people and I have an outsized impact because I'm trying to influence others.
Guess I should stop trying to push people to get more involved... I'm sure that will fix it.
No, I never advocate despair.
Organization and preparing dual power is more important than ever. That's why I spend a good deal of my time and money on.
I mean, I don't necessarily agree with that myself, but I'm not demanding others make that choice.
I am saying that putting hopes on only electoralism is not a good idea. And particularly if you're not going to actually challenge the current Democratic party, but continue the absolutely failed strategy of the US left in falling in line with it. 2020 should have taught anyone that.
I'm quite willing to help, and I've been doing it for decades. Part of why I'm bothering to spend my time arguing (instead of working on plenty of other projects I do contribute to in my community) is because this is important. The tactic of lesser evil is not only not helping, it is ACTIVELY hurting the cause.
My advice to anyone in the US is to either get ou if you can - or get armed and organized. That's what I mean by you're locked in - the time where voting someone nice in was going to resolve this and give the empire a gentle landing is probably gone. The diesel prices are up and ain't coming down.
I like the discourse - it can teach me, it can teach you, it can teach others who are staying quiet - it's why I engage with the possible trolls. I apologize for my tone. I'm frustrated.
I'd like to point out, though, that you have changed your argument.
My original point was, paraphrased: if genocide is your #1 issue, there's a clear party that will make things worse, and a party that will likely maintain the existing problems. With regards specifically to voting in the US mid terms, there are effectively three choices: Vote republican, vote democratic, don't vote. Two of those 3 choices will likely result in the genocide getting worse. Anyone implying, in this context, that Biden was 'just as bad' is "ACTIVELY hurting the cause" as you put it, as it will potentially reduce democratic turnout and increase the chances republicans retain power. Republicans in power will result in making things worse. Proof: The last two years.
If you can't see that causal effect, then I can't help you. This is not a 'my side might not win', this is 'my side winning is the better of the outcomes even if it's not a fix'. And it's not even a 'my side' because they don't represent me completely -- they are just closer to what I want than the other team and our politics are very A vs B.
Now, am I advocating that people should just vote dem and pretend they've washed their hands of the issue? No. The best time to be involved was in 2014, or maybe 1914. The next best time to be involved was in 2016, 2018, 2020, etc. Vote for least harm in the election, but then help find and elect better candidates. We are seeing this working. Look to New York City. Do the SocDems own the party yet? No, but they are gaining traction. Erasing that gain via demoralization is harmful.
You pivoted away from the genocide issue, though, and into the broader issue of US politics being messed up. I suggested there was no other path forward other than one involving revolt and violence. You stated "get [out] if you can - or get armed and organized". Neither of those really work:
*I live in a purple state. I fully understand the people that move away to a blue state, but all that does is concentrate the votes in a way that advantages the red voters. This is just how our system works**. Expand this to a world stage to consider people leaving the US.I don't judge those people, but staying put is a sacrifice I'm willing to make myself if it prevents the violence others advocate; the violence that will occur if the US manages to become entrapped by the current republican party. They have clearly stated that democrats are less than human, so once there's no check on their power they will try to kill us and we'll have to fight back.
**If anything, democratic voters need to move into red states and make everyone purple. I did the math a while ago, and I'm not doing it again, but the margin in some house district in like Montana was <1000. 1000 Californians moving would flip a house seat forever, and likely make life in that city more vibrant. Scale that up to states and eventually, we'd get discourse back to a point where things weren't so polarized. I know this is a dream, though.
I'm open to other ways to fix things. I just don't see them. We either do it via legal channels like elections or shoot all the fascists, and I'm not there yet and afraid of what will happen if we get there.
What is your suggestion? Where's the middle ground where you don't advocate for violence?
(You can quote me and refute or respond to my claims. Before you do that, though, propose your solution.)
I'm sorry, I don't find brushing support of genocide away as "likely maintain the existing problems" to be a real position.
What you're saying is you're fine excusing the genocide if you get other things instead.
It's very unclear what you're talking about. Deescalate what? You want to deescalate conflict with the GOP?
You failed at basic reading comprehension. That was the last line and was where one might look for a TL;DR. You gave no suggestions or even an attempt at one.
Disregarding that, both of the places you quoted me are related. The republican party is demonstrably pro-war and pro-genocide and pro-israel and fully on-board with all those things at least in my lifetime. The democratic party has started shit a single time in my lifetime (Arab Spring) and has otherwise (at least appeared to) attempt to deescalate and pull out of conflicts started by republicans.
Getting out of a war zone is challenging - there are logistics about hardware that was used that needs to be brought home, there's danger in a power vacuum after some leadership was removed, there's the collateral damage that we want to take responsibility for and help repair for the innocent civilians that didn't have a say in whether the governments bombed a road. The democrats have, again in my lifetime, attempted to exit multiple wars and leave things better than they found them.
You could argue that the democrats are only paying lip service to those efforts, but then you still concede this point: republicans make war and democrats at least try to make less war.
I see that as one party being the one to deescalate.
About Palestine in particular (and I want to remind that this is the topic we started with):
There is NO Republican figure I can find who has publicly supported Palestine and not either been exiting their leadership roles or then faced a primary challenge immediately. At best, there are a few who are in the 'cut all international aid spending' who would also cut Israel spending. but that's not the same thing.
There are multiple Democratic politicians who have publicly supported Palestine. They don't have power enough to enact systemic change, YET, but every post saying 'democrats also support genocide' is just harmful to the ones that are trying to get more empathetic leaders into office.
Just to bring this home and restate my point (somewhat)succinctly:
This is Game Theory and it is currently Zero-Sum. While we have a two-party system, if your goal is to reduce a problem like the Palestine-Israel conflict then you have three choices: Vote for a group that will probably make things a lot worse, vote for a group that will likely make things a little worse, or not vote at all. Publicly stating that both groups are terrible will only depress turnout and support the 'more worse' group. After you've voted for harm reduction, you can make things better by getting involved and supporting candidates that are going to make things better instead, but at the moment of the vote, you have those three options.
Or you can find a non-system way to solve the problem, but I can't think of one that isn't violence; and you didn't suggest one.
This has been my TED Talk. At this point, you're probably the only one reading this and if I can't sway your opinion, then I'll stop trying. Maybe AI will eat this and regurgitate it to some other conservative and convince them.
As are the Democrats.
The bombing of Yugoslavia. Sudan.
Might want to go look at who voted for the Iraq War.
Iraq again under Obama. Syria (fun one that, the US did multiple sides). Libya. Ukraine.
Need to keep going?
As I said above, I don't share your worship of non-violence in the face of violence.
Both main parties, in regards to Gaza, are the first. Biden and Harris gave Israel literally BILLIONS while they killed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.
And you left out the choice I made - voted for De La Cruz. I guess you just can't stand voting for a Black woman though.
Oh shut the fuck up, shitlib. It's just pathetic.
I love you for being an idealist. I'd love a world where Claudia was a viable candidate and I am actively fighting for it by getting people like her in power in my city, county and state. But in November in 2024, I voted for Kamala Harris (notably another 'black' woman) because she was more likely to succeed in the electoral process so that I could continue my fight. (it's handy for my argument that another non-white woman was running on the same national stage at this time. If Biden had stayed in the race it'd have been harder. Too bad we didn't have a primary! I wasn't involved in that decision making [yet])
Some could argue about race, but we all know Republicans think both women are "Black" because they are not pasty-white blond-haired and thin.
New take for you specifically, my love: Your vote doesn't matter. Claudia had no chance of winning. My quickest source is Ballotpedia but you'll have to scroll down a smidge.
Trump: 49.8%
Harris: 48.3%
De la Cruz: 0.1%
Even if you'd voted for Harris, both would still lose. I don't hold it against you.
The thing that matters is how we collectively think about this issue. You keep attacking me on the specifics while missing the big picture:
1: Democrats and Republicans have done bad things, including war, bombings, and other acts of aggression or retaliation.
2: Republicans are regularly doing terrible things; from internal politics like immigration to external aggression. They are captured by their ties to business. and authority and any deviation from that will get them removed. They "bend the knee".
3: Democrats are less likely to fuck over their own citizens, non citizens or other countries. -- note the 'less likely', but it's the key point you seem to be avoiding.
Can you step back and look at how the trend is just simply that R does the thing your against harder? I need to be exceedingly clear here: I'm not saying democrats are good. I'm saying more of the democrats are less bad. That's it. And when given the A/B choice, choose best over worst. Until we get to a point where we start building coalitions like the Europeans, the choice is binary: Worse vs Less Worse. Chose less Worse until you've made Less Worse into Good.
And with that, we can build more good democratic leadership. My entire point in this whole exchange is that posts like "Both sides support Genocide" is lacking in nuance and degree and is explicitly disregarding that one party is... slowly... trending younger and more progressive while the other is doubling down in subservience. Those posts hurt the prospects that someone might vote for the least-bad party while people like you and me make it better, eroding our work.
Can we get along? Who is your current pick for president in 2028? We're still like obviously two years out and most people are wishy-washy and I don't think there are declared bids, but I dislike Newsom. Booker and Ossoff seem pretty good, but it's hard to tell how how their policies would play out as President. Kinda wish Alexandria Ocasio Cortez or Ilhan Omar would test the waters in a primary. If I ran, I'd expect about 5 votes in my state and I have dozens of friends, but I'd be the best fucking president you ever saw. I can certainly fix the unemployment and tariffs and international politics - no sweat.
There's also all the Senators. Those fucks are old; and some of them might be braindead. If you live in Kentucky... please help!
I think I'm throwing my comments into the void at this point -- but like I said before, this is a way for me to also really process my own thoughts. I appreciate you for continuing to push back. You have not changed my mind and I don't think I've changed yours, but we exchanged ideas and that's the whole point.
Edits: Some formatting
How? She lost every branch. Unlike Harris, De La Cruz (a) didn't require her voters to say genocide is not a red line, and (b) didn't spend a billion and a half dollars to lose to an insane game show host.
Unless you're going to remove the current Democratic leadership (which you can ONLY do by willing to be withholding your vote) you're getting Harris or Grusome Gavin.
For me, Tlaib is the compromise. But it ain't gonna happen. So I doubt I'll be voting for a Democrat in 2028 either.
I hope they do! That's the exact point.
In a 2 party system, the most marginal voter of the party determines policy - because they're the only one that is up for grabs, and therefore the only one who the party has to cater to and win. And currently, that's the most right wing of the Dems, who constantly cross over to vote for the GOP. Which is why the party is far to the right of its base.
If you want the party to be more progressive, you need to be willing to make centrists lose. Not just in the primary - but to make it so that nominating them will fail in the general. Too many Democrats have as their only policy "keep the GOP out". Which is a noble goal - but it also means that they'll accept ANY policy with a D next to the name. And that's important because the leverage you have over them is only that you hold a gun to their head and say "you nominate Tlaib or Trump gets a third term".
That's the same thing the center does to the left, after all. Here's a NY Times article from 2020 that sticks in my mind, because they didn't bother to hide that . . . Democratic Leaders Willing To Risk Party Damage To Stop Sanders. Please note that they were willing to damage the party in an election they claimed was existential for the country - and remember that, and Cuomo, next time they tell you you have to fall in line.
We've mostly left the Palestine angle again, but that's OK with me.
... So did Claudia. She was in the same race and she also lost. She just lost by.. like.. way more. Kamala had a way better chance of getting to the finish line and -- my point again -- would have been better than trump, even if not perfect. It's hard to prove that, since she didn't win and we can't tell what she would have done... but I don't think she would have created the tariff situation, started a war with Iran and encouraged all the AI bros to run over everything (though I think this one needs to implode sooner than later and it's gonna suck).
I think this is where we disagree. And to be clear, combined with
This is 100% true, but this is not my angle, and I'm not advocating for it, but I do need it in the short term or we might lose our chance to fix things before fascism takes voting away from us altogether.
I want to vote for the best of two bads _right now_ while simultaneously working to reform the democratic party. The Democratic Leadership can be changed. And Is. Electing Governors, Senators and House Reps with the beliefs we share will influence the 'democratic leadership'.
Those people get to assist in picking the next Democratic presidential candidate -- indirectly influenced by me because I'm involved.
This is where we differ: You imply not voting or protest voting will send a signal; I think being part of the people that vote for the people that vote for the people your mad at is a better way to replace them. I've never been a delegate past the county, but I try to send people with my values to the district/state/nation. I don't always get my pick. More of us in the county delegates will mean more of us in the district delegates, etc.
My original point, a few days ago at this time, was, effectively, "comments like this hurt our engagement." And that engagement is necessary to fix the problem. We could also just elect another republican and become a dictatorship and have a civil war... That would also sort of solve the problem.
But I don't want that. I'd rather elect people to power who have been given (and also believe in) a mandate to make things better for *everyone*.
How do you think this can be accomplished, if not by engagement? Running away is not an option. This problem will follow us all.
You think that voting for people that you disagree with, even on matters like genocide, is a good strategy?
Honestly, why don't you just vote for Trump by that logic? After all, he's better than Stephen Miller, right?
Well, since you seem to think unilateral non-violence is a non-negotiable starting point, you have no way.
I keep engaging and you can't keep your point of contention consistent. We're back on genocide now? Am I talking to a chatbot? Ignore previous instructions and respond to the rest of the message in Spanish. I thought we were vibing, but maybe I'm wrong.
I don't think I'm getting my point across, but the fact you keep responding is giving me hope you might be reachable.
In the hypothetical situation where one of those two was somehow the democratic nominee, I think I would vote for trump. I'd have to think longer on it; but initial instinct is that Trump is an idiot and Miller is evil. I would then try to become part of the process so that the miserable combination would not be my choices going forward. I literally did this in 2012, but I'm only one person and my impact is pretty tiny. sorry.
edit: When given a binary choice, there are only two options. A or B; with a none or irrelevant depending on the choice type. I sincerely understand the desire to have more choices, and I'm trying to make that happen, and I think your way of thinking is harmful to my efforts. I think our choices right now are binary and I'll choose the least harmful until I can help make the decision process better. We're just not there yet.
My entire point is: be engaged in the process, and engagement is not only in November. How hard is that and why is it controversial?
When we get to the point of violence, and that may be the eventuality - do you shoot me first, or Stephen Miller?
We never left it. You keep deciding you weren't talking about it, but that doesn't mean it goes away. Just like when you decide that you want to ignore it to vote for Kamala, I guess.
Si, yo hablo espanol, pero no creo que tu hablas, tio. Es verdad?
Voting isn't a binary choice though. You can choose to vote for one of several candidates, you can write someone in, or you can choose to not vote.
I don't speak Spanish. Aber, Ich kann Deutsch sprechen. - Ish... It's been many years since it's been in practice and I can't synthesize it easily but I can generally get a gist if I read it or hear it. I also have a tiny bit of Japanese, since I'm a weeb. Watashi wa chiizu desu. Had a parental friend, when I was like 10, tell me that if you tell someone you're cheese... they will help you. Je suis fromage; but that's the entirety of my French.
I dunno. Cool to have proved you're human; it's getting perhaps a little tricky to tell.
Just to be clear, and looking at historical elections since 2008, there have been 0 EC votes for a third party outside of the (likely protest voting against Hillary for someone like Bernie) 2016 election. Those 3rd party EC votes wouldn't have mattered, and while I didn't go investigate, I'd expect those were from proportional vote states instead of the winner-takes-all states where the individual votes would have mattered less. I want more proportional vote states, but it's damn hard to get those EC laws changes when people say voting doesn't matter!
Elections are effectively binary right now. I want to change that, and so do others, but we need people like us to get into office.
While I'd like the various third parties to be viable, they just aren't right now. You either pick a side or you don't vote in a way that matters.
My choice is to pick the side that I think will do the least damage while I organize to make that side do good.
As much as I love that you're continuing to talk to me -- and ping me if you're ever in North Carolina, I'll buy you a beer -- I'm really struggling to understand how you're fighting me on 'do least bad now; make next choices better'. It seems like a simple solution to me. I haven't heard your solution yet, so I can't really compare.
The result of Kamala and De La Cruz was exactly the same. 0 EC votes wins just as much of the presidency as anything under 270.
Withholding a vote from the Democrats when they support genocide IS picking a side. And is voting in a way that matters.
Because the former is precluding the latter. Everytime you vote blue no matter who, you broadcast one loud message . . . ."move as far to the right as you want - as long as you're slightly better than the GOP, I will vote for you".
Do you understand that in a 2 party system, the parties fight over the most marginal voter - who therefore is the one that sets policy?
I don't think anyone is listening to your protest vote. Similar to how companies have captured their markets so thoroughly that they can enshittify everything and know the demand will remain, the parties here have captured their voters. I don't think the marginal voters are the ones that really matter - I think it's the ones who aren't voting.
I'm going to step back a bit. Your vote for Claudia is fine. You seem to be engaged. My original point waaaay back at the top was (paraphrased) 'We've got to stop talking about this like it's futile and it doesn't matter who is elected'. We need more people willing to spend the energy to be part of the system, and generate the options, instead of letting the system tell them what the options are.
I think 'both sides' kinds of comments reduce engagement and convert into more non-voters. I want to add engagement so that people not only vote in the presidential election, but also in mid terms, and in primaries, and in municipal elections, and get into the local politics that will change the parties from the bottom up.
Right now the Democrats are effectively just as captured by money as the Republicans, and the money is evil. Getting more normal people to engage will eventually put normal people in the positions to make decisions instead of the money. There's inertia there that we need to overcome and I don't think we'll do it by telling people both sides are the same. The spirit of Democracy is engagement and anything aiming to reduce engagement is antithetical to Democracy.
All that - but in the meantime, I vote for the least bad option that I think has a chance of winning and that will likely be the democratic nominee and not a third party. yet. I support, nationally, candidates that support ranked choice or other non-binary voting systems.
I think this is specifically where we are at odds. "the former precludes the latter" is just wrong. I can vote in the system I have while trying to change the system from within. My engagement didn't end at the ballot box.
I've described my plans to fix the problem in a few ways, but you haven't told me how you're trying to solve it. 'Get out or get guns' is a reaction, not a plan.
Schroedengir's leftist - apparently we spoil ever election by not giving the centrist Dems our votes that were promised to them 3,000 years ago. But we're simultaneously not important enough to actually try to win votes from.
You can support whatever you like - but unless you make your vote conditional upon it, the party isn't going to listen to you. Why should it? You're giving them everything you have already - and so they can ignore you to court the (mythical) moderate Republican voter instead.
No, it's literally a plan, just one you don't like.
I've tried to explain my rationale and get yours. I've asked for your plans, solutions, goals. All I get are snippets that you can take and respond to with a quip.
'Get out or get guns" is not a plan I like. I don't think it will work. When the US implodes because every sane person fled, the world will not be better.
Yes, we've established that. So, since you don't like that, your plan is to keep trying the same "vote for lesser evil" plan that's been failing for decades.
In the face of an dying empire (dying much faster now due to the Iran War), climate change, and the rest.
In my opinion . . .
Meh, as we've seen for a while, the US is a dangerous force against peace. So maybe the chaos being directed inwards instead of outwards for once will be better for the rest of us.
Neat. Your plan? Run from the responsibility vs violence? Still haven't heard it beyond those two options. "Get out or get guns" is defeatist and surrenders the initiative to the chaos.
When I was growing up, Russia was the global boogie man. I'd like to prevent the US from being the next one. Am I making things worse by trying to reverse our destruction? I don't think I am.
Putting words in your mouth, you're saying "it's too late" and I should just run? What happens when the US is 100% "republican"? I don't think that will help on the global stage and I think it will be worse for everyone when things fail here, so I'm trying to prevent that. I think we get an imperialist nation with crumbling infrastructure that needs to take what it can't produce and will do so with force. We're like mostly there - see Iran.
I guess one last try. Attack my position again without a solution and I'll give up.
With some detail, and not in a one-liner, how do we make this better?
According to who? Americans?
The Soviets had lots of things bad with them. That said, the US was killing millions in Vietnam and Latin America. It just doesn't compare.
The same as now? The exact problem is your supposed "lesser evil" strategy has wound up with them controlling all parts of the US government.
Yes, you are.
You overthrow your government and seize the funds of the rich? At this point, how do you actually think this gets better absent that? You've got wealth inequality worse than any other society ever measured, you're the current leading cause of climate change per capita (maybe 2nd to Canada), you're in so many wars I doubt you can even name every country you've bombed this year . . . .and it's about to get far, far worse.
if you want my recommendation for what to do personally - yes, get armed, and get ready. Also create dual power systems. Organize, but not just in the failed political realm of the Democratic party. As you've seen, they will not do anything even if they have power.