Anonymous #1 15h

we’ve literally only ever used that as an excuse for imperialism

9

Anonymous #1 15h

We’ve tried that, spoiler alert, it did not go well

4

Anonymous #3 15h

We can still trade while being isolationist. It means staying out of foreign countries’ business and focusing on ourselves

1

Anonymous #3 15h

It is possible. History dictates we can. Wow look at us go

3

Anonymous #5 14h

Would you disagree that poverty at home should always be prioritized before poverty abroad?

1

Anonymous #1 14h

Lmfao “promote democracy”

1

Anonymous #4 14h

In a moral sense, I don’t actually. I’m a staunch internationalist. I think all people should be helped, regardless of what artificial border they live in. But in a political sense, I understand why a government wants to prioritize its own citizenry. The thing is, these aren’t at all mutually exclusive.

4

Anonymous #5 14h

USAID did not cost much money in the grand scheme of things, but it still saved millions of lives. A little goes a long way in the poorest parts of the world. And it all comes back to help Americans too. There’s less disease that could arrive in America, there’s less desperate refugees at our borders, the global economy is more stable, it reduces terrorist recruitment and international organized crime, and it creates economic relations that can be built upon.

8

Anonymous #5 14h

It is, ultimately, extremely good for Americans if we reduce the amount of malaria or tuberculosis floating around in the world, as that can jump to America. Can you imagine if we never bothered to vaccinate against smallpox outside our own borders? It’d just keep jumping over. Instead, we eradicated it entirely

7

Anonymous #5 14h

And also the people defunding USAID are also defunding all the programs to help poor Americans so like it’s not like that money is actually going to help anyone in America except billionaires.

7

Anonymous #5 14h

I can respect this. I think I disagree with you in that I will always advocate for those at home, i.e. my family, neighbors, friends, coworkers, before helping someone on the other side of the planet. I would hope the people on the other side of the planet feel the same.

1

Anonymous #4 14h

Now when the ‘help’ is exhausted here at home, sure I will be okay with creating some justification to why it helps Americans and going abroad, or out of the kindness in our hearts even. But The efforts at home must be exhausted.

1

Anonymous OP 14h

Thats because our government is occupied by corporate interests that doesnt give a fuck about democracy. I mean promoting actual democracy and human rights not rightwing dictatorships

1

Anonymous #6 14h

^

1

Anonymous #2 14h

^

1

Anonymous #4 14h

I don’t think I agree. There’s degrees y’know? Like a smaller amount of money can save a lot more lives in Sudan than it can here. Like even if I understand the local prioritization impulse, there’s a limit. I guess the way I’m trying to articulate it is that saving many lives in Sudan is worth the trade off if the spending here would just mean like a slightly better quality of life for a smaller number of people.

1

Anonymous #5 14h

So like I can understand wanting to address the dire stuff here first, but that preventing famine in another country can outweigh more low-priority stuff here. Like we shouldn’t be waiting for us to make a utopia here before we take a step to stop mass starvation somewhere else.

1

Anonymous #1 14h

The U.S. has literally been a global enemy of democracy for generations

0

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 14h

Read what i said!

1

Anonymous #1 14h

Ah my bad, when you cited the most popular slogan among fascist-allied imperialists ever, I assumed you meant the same thing as them 🙄 Now I know you’re just a run-of-the-mill, non fascist imperialism apologist which is stellar.

0

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 14h

Something having been used disingenuously in the past does not mean that concept is bad entirely. I think democracy is a human right, hence it should be promoted abroad. Same goes for gender equality, labor rights, access to food and medicine, contraceptive access, lgbtq rights, and ethnic equality. That doesn’t mean invading counties, but like we should be trying to make the world better.

6

Anonymous #5 13h

This is a weird comparison to make but I view it like Trotsky supporting a global worker’s revolution. If we genuinely think something is the right thing, it doesn’t make sense to try to limit it to our own nation. Now I’m not a communist but I am a socialist and I believe global promotion of workers rights is a fundamental part of promoting democracy and human rights.

1

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 13h

awesome buzzwords! Give me more

1

Anonymous #4 13h

i get what you mean though, yeah. i think we could help both ourselves and others at the same time though. many of our representatives just haven’t been properly representing us bc they are corrupt

1

Anonymous #4 13h

It’s not the 1800s anymore the global economy is interconnected and interdependent

6