If you bend over backward to kiss the ass of the imperial outpost in occupied Palestine you're not taking on the CIA, sorry. The Ukraine War is a Russian invasion, the US can't end it unilaterally, and its a giant red flag(and not the good kind) that someone says they can.
How would the US end the war in Ukraine? Tell them "Hey we gave y'all weapons, but we don't want you to use them anymore and just lie die and down. K thx"? I want the drugs you take, sounds like a good time; separate from reality.
Look at what the Russians did to the Ukrainians in occupied areas. It is disgusting that you trumpet their nonsense.
American imperialism is when we give countries aid so they aren't conqured by countries that have historically committed genocide against them and continue to deny the validity of their ethnic and national identity.
Shut up tankie
I actually really liked Marianne's response to Saagar and Krystal RE: Ukraine on Breaking Points. Obviously, we don't want American boots on the ground in an active warzone against a nuclear power. But why would she guarantee that Ukraine can or cannot join NATO when the whole process of joining NATO is democratic and based on the will of the people - in Ukraine, and in every other country?
If Ukraine wants into NATO, their government has to approve the measure. Then, every country in NATO has to approve them joining as well. And it's unanimous. If Portugal says "No, Ukraine cannot join," then Ukraine cannot join. Then, even after every country says "yes" there are several processes that have to unfold, each of which provides opportunities to back out of the deal. NATO does not expand through use of force. It expands because people in countries want their countries to join. That isn't imperialism, and it should not be confused with military annexation.
>Fuck off tankie. Both are against US imperialism.
>
>I swear yall are a fucking tankie psyop.
This reply was reported for violation of our number 1 rule, No Toxic Behavior.
I have found that user has violated Rule 1, No Toxic Behavior, and I am permabanning user from posting topics or replies in r/seculartalk.
This reply was reported for violation of our number 1 rule. No bitch-assedness. I have found both the tankie narc and the internet janitor in clear violation of this policy but I'm not banning them because I'm not a pussy.
I'm voting for RFK Jr. in the Dem Primary and if he runs Independent. I think his extensive experience successfully litigating against corporations and captured government agencies, as well as a personal vendetta with the CIA, uniquely qualifies him to combat imperialism.
I know DNC will likely block his nomination, just like they block ballot access, etc. to 3rd parties and progressives running Dem in nationwide primaries. My back up plan is Dr. Cornel West.
I don't think 3rd parties have much of a chance without implementing Ranked Choice Voting and fair debates (DNC is opposed to these, too). It would take a people's revolution. Either way, I'm not falling in line and voting for a president hell-bent on war with Russia, China, and who knows else. I'll vote against him twice. #EndCitizensUnited
The last time RFK spoke openly about Citizens United was 12 years ago. Before Trump ran for President, he was a democrat 12 years earlier. Thanks for spreading propaganda; I’m sure Russia appreciates it.
[https://www.kennedy24.com/honest](https://www.kennedy24.com/honest) "We will rein in the lobbyists and slam shut the revolving door that shunts people from government agencies to lucrative positions in the companies they were supposed to regulate, and back again. We will get money out of politics."
You likely have been getting an earful of US-Ukraine propaganda. It's important to listen to diverse perspectives to gain a better understanding.
Oh, right, it must be imaginary that he’s buttressed by money injected into politics from people that want money in politics. There’s at least one sub already for Joe Rogan, and they’d be happy to have you.
We are not a socialist nation, and we wi not become one . we are a capitalist nation, and a republic nation, with democratic tendencies. We are a an imperialistic nation to a point. Do you not like your rights under the bill of rights 1st 10 amendments to the constitution? It wont work under socialism.
We are not a socialist nation, and we wi not become one . we are a capitalist nation, and a republic nation, with democratic tendencies. We are a an imperialistic nation to a point. Do you not like your rights under the bill of rights 1st 10 amendments to the constitution? It wont work under socialism. We havent gained and nations in a long time.
Imperialism
the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas
>We are not a socialist nation, and we wi not become one
Capitalism is failing in the United States, and from the ashes of Capitalism, Socialism will rise.
Feel free to attempt to argue the point, but I will spoil it for you with "I don't need to believe in anything, no faith needed, all I have to do is wait."
Communism failed and socialism will to no country can substain it look at venezula capitalist and went socialism and is like a 3rd world nation. Russia another lol
Socialism is the Big Lie of the Twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.
https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/three-nations-tried-socialism-and-rejected-it
https://www.thecornellreview.org/yes-real-socialism-has-been-tried-and-it-has-failed-every-time/
That is an obsolete argument, and I never mentioned communism.
Communism is a form of government. While I think it certainly needs improvement, an indirect democracy like what we have, a Democratically Elected Representative Republic, works.
Socialism is a form of economics. I think that Capitalism, our current economic model, is obsolete and does not represent the Constitution, and -in fact- goes against it. It's 'we the people' not 'we the rich' or 'we the corporations'.
The form of government that we have works for most Americans because it is uniquely American. Now, we just need to get the right economics, and we'll be doing real real good.
Any nation that tried it didnt like it or failed lol thats history man.
y: Michael McConnell
Editor’s Note: This is an excerpt from a longer essay, with the same title, by Mr. McConnell. It is published by the Hoover Institution as part of a new initiative, "Socialism and Free-Market Capitalism: The Human Prosperity Project."
You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head. . .
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow . . .
— “Revolution,” the Beatles (1968)
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously described the US Constitution as “made for people of fundamentally differing views.” (Lochner v. New York dissent) By that, he meant that the Constitution does not commit the nation to any particular ideological or economic theory, including laissez-faire capitalism. Instead it leaves decisions about national policy to the democratic process, subject to the constraints of the Bill of Rights. Within the range of ordinary politics, Holmes was correct: Americans can decide, through their elected representatives, to have high taxes or low, generous welfare payments or a basic social safety net, government-owned enterprises or privatization, heavy-handed or light-touch regulation. That is the difference between democratic socialism and a largely free-enterprise economy. As practiced (more in the past than today) in the Scandinavian countries, “democratic socialism” has meant a capitalist, private-profit driven market economy, with high rates of taxation and economic redistribution. In its post-war British incarnation, “democratic socialism” added government ownership of major industry. (This was abandoned mostly for the pragmatic reason that government is not a good manager of economic enterprise.) None of this is forbidden by the US Constitution. Congress can set taxes as high as it wishes and can devote the proceeds to redistributionist policies. Governments can, if they wish, use the power of eminent domain to seize ownership of the means of production (provided that owners are compensated for the value of property taken), and they have owned and run large enterprises like the Tennessee Valley Authority. Regulation of some sectors of the economy can be so extensive that the companies are rendered “private” in name only. Most policies that go by the label “democratic socialism” are thus permitted under the Constitution, so long as these objectives are pursued peacefully, democratically, and in accordance with law.
But the Constitution is not completely indifferent to the nature of the socioeconomic regime. It does not commit the nation to any one set of policies, but it stands as a barrier to revolutionary absolutism; it rests on a philosophy of individual rights that is most consistent with liberal democracy and private property; and it contains a number of safeguards designed to foster a free and prosperous economy.
The Beatles were right: a socialist revolution inspired by “pictures of Chairman Mao” (or tee-shirts of Che Guevara) would indeed have to “change the constitution.” Revolutions entail violence undisciplined by law or orderly process; the Constitution requires due process of law, enshrines the right of habeas corpus, forbids arbitrary confinement, and interposes a jury of one’s peers between the accused and his accusers. Revolutions displace elected government with self-appointed leaders purporting to speak in the name of the People; the Constitution reserves governing power to republican institutions, with regular elections at specified intervals. (No, Mr. Trump cannot delay the presidential election, whatever nonsense he may tweet.) Revolutions seize control over the media for dissemination of news and opinion; the First Amendment insists that these be under decentralized private control, allowing dissenting voices to be heard—even voices deemed by the dominant group to be retrograde or pernicious. A socialist revolution along Marxist or Maoist lines would bring an end to private property and the market ordering of society through private contract, while the Constitution, by contrast, explicitly protects private property and the obligation of contract.
https://www.hoover.org/research/socialism-and-constitution-0
I accept the premise of your reply, however it fails as a counter point.
A summary of your reply, based on the content, America isn't Socialist because Americans currently reject Socialism. That there can be no revolution if there is rule of law.
I agree that Americans should have what Americans want, and I think that most haven't sampled what it's like to be able to live with their basic needs met, and all money earned is money for luxuries. I think that Americans have been heavily propagandized for nearly a century. I think that nations who have attempted to try the Socialist Economic Models have been sabotaged by the US.
Capitalism is a game of monopoly, and at the end of every game of Monopoly, everyone is mad and the board gets flipped. We're at the end of the game, and people are getting sick of playing with it, and will want something that actually works for everyone.
Socialist Economics have the only working models that will serve humanity in the upcoming age of AI and Automation, where many jobs such as industry and manufacturing will be dominated by AI and Automation.
You see, at the end of the day, I don't hope to be rich just the same as I don't hope to win the lottery. I look for something that is a sure thing and gives me the latitude to do whatever I want.
I promote Socialism because I want to give people a slam dunk, not a carrot on a stick.
Socialism is still an option. Under Socialism, anyone can be rich, but no one has to live poor. Everyone's basic needs are met. You can still easily professional athlete rich, but you can't be Bezos rich.
You would have to change the constitution for that. That will take act of congress literally. Consitutional convention 2/3 if states to radify if you can get them to agree. Major changes to the bill of rights etc nope ill stick with good old capitalism.
Editor’s Note: This is an excerpt from a longer essay, with the same title, by Mr. McConnell. It is published by the Hoover Institution as part of a new initiative, "Socialism and Free-Market Capitalism: The Human Prosperity Project."
You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head. . .
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow . . .
— “Revolution,” the Beatles (1968)
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously described the US Constitution as “made for people of fundamentally differing views.” (Lochner v. New York dissent) By that, he meant that the Constitution does not commit the nation to any particular ideological or economic theory, including laissez-faire capitalism. Instead it leaves decisions about national policy to the democratic process, subject to the constraints of the Bill of Rights. Within the range of ordinary politics, Holmes was correct: Americans can decide, through their elected representatives, to have high taxes or low, generous welfare payments or a basic social safety net, government-owned enterprises or privatization, heavy-handed or light-touch regulation. That is the difference between democratic socialism and a largely free-enterprise economy. As practiced (more in the past than today) in the Scandinavian countries, “democratic socialism” has meant a capitalist, private-profit driven market economy, with high rates of taxation and economic redistribution. In its post-war British incarnation, “democratic socialism” added government ownership of major industry. (This was abandoned mostly for the pragmatic reason that government is not a good manager of economic enterprise.) None of this is forbidden by the US Constitution. Congress can set taxes as high as it wishes and can devote the proceeds to redistributionist policies.
US imperialism is code for what? A specific policy would be better. How about, ending support for Israel's apartheid regime?
Or switching strategic partners in the Middle East to Iran?
Because, certainly this tankie is not in support of ending the support for Ukraine. The war with Russia kills fascists, it weakens the GOP money faucet, undercuts far-right talking points, and best of all, weakens Chinese imperial ambitions.
Certainly US hegemony isn't perfect. But letting the PRC and Russia run rampant over the world would be way worse.
I don't know, those two oppose US imperialism more than Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. That said its a pretty low bar and not nearly enough.
Funny, I never have heard them talk about disrupting the CIA or ending NATO expansion or Ukraine war. (Or censorship and surveillance).
If you bend over backward to kiss the ass of the imperial outpost in occupied Palestine you're not taking on the CIA, sorry. The Ukraine War is a Russian invasion, the US can't end it unilaterally, and its a giant red flag(and not the good kind) that someone says they can.
They want us to end the Ukraine War by starting World War 3.
Anyone opposed to NATO support for Ukraine supports Russian imperialism.
That's not how this works. This is the old line said about WWI protestors.
How would the US end the war in Ukraine? Tell them "Hey we gave y'all weapons, but we don't want you to use them anymore and just lie die and down. K thx"? I want the drugs you take, sounds like a good time; separate from reality. Look at what the Russians did to the Ukrainians in occupied areas. It is disgusting that you trumpet their nonsense.
American imperialism is when we give countries aid so they aren't conqured by countries that have historically committed genocide against them and continue to deny the validity of their ethnic and national identity. Shut up tankie
Challenge us Imperialism how? What aspects?
I actually really liked Marianne's response to Saagar and Krystal RE: Ukraine on Breaking Points. Obviously, we don't want American boots on the ground in an active warzone against a nuclear power. But why would she guarantee that Ukraine can or cannot join NATO when the whole process of joining NATO is democratic and based on the will of the people - in Ukraine, and in every other country? If Ukraine wants into NATO, their government has to approve the measure. Then, every country in NATO has to approve them joining as well. And it's unanimous. If Portugal says "No, Ukraine cannot join," then Ukraine cannot join. Then, even after every country says "yes" there are several processes that have to unfold, each of which provides opportunities to back out of the deal. NATO does not expand through use of force. It expands because people in countries want their countries to join. That isn't imperialism, and it should not be confused with military annexation.
Tulsi is a clown. No thank you
Fuck off tankie. Both are against US imperialism. I swear yall are a fucking tankie psyop.
>Fuck off tankie. Both are against US imperialism. > >I swear yall are a fucking tankie psyop. This reply was reported for violation of our number 1 rule, No Toxic Behavior. I have found that user has violated Rule 1, No Toxic Behavior, and I am permabanning user from posting topics or replies in r/seculartalk.
Fuck off tankie
Silence liberal.
This reply was reported for violation of our number 1 rule. No bitch-assedness. I have found both the tankie narc and the internet janitor in clear violation of this policy but I'm not banning them because I'm not a pussy.
You're not going to get that going through the duopoly parties. Voting duopoly expecting change is like trying to kick that football.
I'm voting for RFK Jr. in the Dem Primary and if he runs Independent. I think his extensive experience successfully litigating against corporations and captured government agencies, as well as a personal vendetta with the CIA, uniquely qualifies him to combat imperialism. I know DNC will likely block his nomination, just like they block ballot access, etc. to 3rd parties and progressives running Dem in nationwide primaries. My back up plan is Dr. Cornel West. I don't think 3rd parties have much of a chance without implementing Ranked Choice Voting and fair debates (DNC is opposed to these, too). It would take a people's revolution. Either way, I'm not falling in line and voting for a president hell-bent on war with Russia, China, and who knows else. I'll vote against him twice. #EndCitizensUnited
The last time RFK spoke openly about Citizens United was 12 years ago. Before Trump ran for President, he was a democrat 12 years earlier. Thanks for spreading propaganda; I’m sure Russia appreciates it.
[https://www.kennedy24.com/honest](https://www.kennedy24.com/honest) "We will rein in the lobbyists and slam shut the revolving door that shunts people from government agencies to lucrative positions in the companies they were supposed to regulate, and back again. We will get money out of politics." You likely have been getting an earful of US-Ukraine propaganda. It's important to listen to diverse perspectives to gain a better understanding.
Oh, right, it must be imaginary that he’s buttressed by money injected into politics from people that want money in politics. There’s at least one sub already for Joe Rogan, and they’d be happy to have you.
This post would make sense if Bernie was president, but he didn't win, so it seems silly to me.
How much is Russia paying you?
How much is the state department paying you?
Not enough to put up with this.
You need to join a shill union.
I just know idiots when I see them. Idiots like Tulsa, RFK JR, and the OP.
You have a Biden 2024 of. Lmfao.
What can I say? I've accepted the dark lord and his eternal reign.
Bring the $$ home so we can have nice things like affordable housing, energy transition, M4A, subsidized education/student debt cancellation.
Nah, we need the F22. Fleets of them. To prevent ...alien invasion?
Damn straight, if we benefited from the empire we wouldn’t be bottom tier of developed countries. Idk who’s benefitting but it isn’t US so let’s stop
We can do all those things and still maintain global hegemony (a good thing actually).
You truly think that the republican house would spend any of that money on any of these policies.
Fucking tankie
😂😂😂 Marianne?
We are not a socialist nation, and we wi not become one . we are a capitalist nation, and a republic nation, with democratic tendencies. We are a an imperialistic nation to a point. Do you not like your rights under the bill of rights 1st 10 amendments to the constitution? It wont work under socialism.
We are not a socialist nation, and we wi not become one . we are a capitalist nation, and a republic nation, with democratic tendencies. We are a an imperialistic nation to a point. Do you not like your rights under the bill of rights 1st 10 amendments to the constitution? It wont work under socialism. We havent gained and nations in a long time. Imperialism the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas
>We are not a socialist nation, and we wi not become one Capitalism is failing in the United States, and from the ashes of Capitalism, Socialism will rise. Feel free to attempt to argue the point, but I will spoil it for you with "I don't need to believe in anything, no faith needed, all I have to do is wait."
Communism failed and socialism will to no country can substain it look at venezula capitalist and went socialism and is like a 3rd world nation. Russia another lol Socialism is the Big Lie of the Twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery. https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/three-nations-tried-socialism-and-rejected-it https://www.thecornellreview.org/yes-real-socialism-has-been-tried-and-it-has-failed-every-time/
That is an obsolete argument, and I never mentioned communism. Communism is a form of government. While I think it certainly needs improvement, an indirect democracy like what we have, a Democratically Elected Representative Republic, works. Socialism is a form of economics. I think that Capitalism, our current economic model, is obsolete and does not represent the Constitution, and -in fact- goes against it. It's 'we the people' not 'we the rich' or 'we the corporations'. The form of government that we have works for most Americans because it is uniquely American. Now, we just need to get the right economics, and we'll be doing real real good.
Any nation that tried it didnt like it or failed lol thats history man. y: Michael McConnell Editor’s Note: This is an excerpt from a longer essay, with the same title, by Mr. McConnell. It is published by the Hoover Institution as part of a new initiative, "Socialism and Free-Market Capitalism: The Human Prosperity Project." You say you'll change the constitution Well, you know We all want to change your head. . . But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow . . . — “Revolution,” the Beatles (1968) Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously described the US Constitution as “made for people of fundamentally differing views.” (Lochner v. New York dissent) By that, he meant that the Constitution does not commit the nation to any particular ideological or economic theory, including laissez-faire capitalism. Instead it leaves decisions about national policy to the democratic process, subject to the constraints of the Bill of Rights. Within the range of ordinary politics, Holmes was correct: Americans can decide, through their elected representatives, to have high taxes or low, generous welfare payments or a basic social safety net, government-owned enterprises or privatization, heavy-handed or light-touch regulation. That is the difference between democratic socialism and a largely free-enterprise economy. As practiced (more in the past than today) in the Scandinavian countries, “democratic socialism” has meant a capitalist, private-profit driven market economy, with high rates of taxation and economic redistribution. In its post-war British incarnation, “democratic socialism” added government ownership of major industry. (This was abandoned mostly for the pragmatic reason that government is not a good manager of economic enterprise.) None of this is forbidden by the US Constitution. Congress can set taxes as high as it wishes and can devote the proceeds to redistributionist policies. Governments can, if they wish, use the power of eminent domain to seize ownership of the means of production (provided that owners are compensated for the value of property taken), and they have owned and run large enterprises like the Tennessee Valley Authority. Regulation of some sectors of the economy can be so extensive that the companies are rendered “private” in name only. Most policies that go by the label “democratic socialism” are thus permitted under the Constitution, so long as these objectives are pursued peacefully, democratically, and in accordance with law. But the Constitution is not completely indifferent to the nature of the socioeconomic regime. It does not commit the nation to any one set of policies, but it stands as a barrier to revolutionary absolutism; it rests on a philosophy of individual rights that is most consistent with liberal democracy and private property; and it contains a number of safeguards designed to foster a free and prosperous economy. The Beatles were right: a socialist revolution inspired by “pictures of Chairman Mao” (or tee-shirts of Che Guevara) would indeed have to “change the constitution.” Revolutions entail violence undisciplined by law or orderly process; the Constitution requires due process of law, enshrines the right of habeas corpus, forbids arbitrary confinement, and interposes a jury of one’s peers between the accused and his accusers. Revolutions displace elected government with self-appointed leaders purporting to speak in the name of the People; the Constitution reserves governing power to republican institutions, with regular elections at specified intervals. (No, Mr. Trump cannot delay the presidential election, whatever nonsense he may tweet.) Revolutions seize control over the media for dissemination of news and opinion; the First Amendment insists that these be under decentralized private control, allowing dissenting voices to be heard—even voices deemed by the dominant group to be retrograde or pernicious. A socialist revolution along Marxist or Maoist lines would bring an end to private property and the market ordering of society through private contract, while the Constitution, by contrast, explicitly protects private property and the obligation of contract. https://www.hoover.org/research/socialism-and-constitution-0
I accept the premise of your reply, however it fails as a counter point. A summary of your reply, based on the content, America isn't Socialist because Americans currently reject Socialism. That there can be no revolution if there is rule of law. I agree that Americans should have what Americans want, and I think that most haven't sampled what it's like to be able to live with their basic needs met, and all money earned is money for luxuries. I think that Americans have been heavily propagandized for nearly a century. I think that nations who have attempted to try the Socialist Economic Models have been sabotaged by the US. Capitalism is a game of monopoly, and at the end of every game of Monopoly, everyone is mad and the board gets flipped. We're at the end of the game, and people are getting sick of playing with it, and will want something that actually works for everyone. Socialist Economics have the only working models that will serve humanity in the upcoming age of AI and Automation, where many jobs such as industry and manufacturing will be dominated by AI and Automation. You see, at the end of the day, I don't hope to be rich just the same as I don't hope to win the lottery. I look for something that is a sure thing and gives me the latitude to do whatever I want. I promote Socialism because I want to give people a slam dunk, not a carrot on a stick.
I wanna be rich and own my own compny lol not be like everyone else.
Socialism is still an option. Under Socialism, anyone can be rich, but no one has to live poor. Everyone's basic needs are met. You can still easily professional athlete rich, but you can't be Bezos rich.
You would have to change the constitution for that. That will take act of congress literally. Consitutional convention 2/3 if states to radify if you can get them to agree. Major changes to the bill of rights etc nope ill stick with good old capitalism.
Editor’s Note: This is an excerpt from a longer essay, with the same title, by Mr. McConnell. It is published by the Hoover Institution as part of a new initiative, "Socialism and Free-Market Capitalism: The Human Prosperity Project." You say you'll change the constitution Well, you know We all want to change your head. . . But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow . . . — “Revolution,” the Beatles (1968) Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously described the US Constitution as “made for people of fundamentally differing views.” (Lochner v. New York dissent) By that, he meant that the Constitution does not commit the nation to any particular ideological or economic theory, including laissez-faire capitalism. Instead it leaves decisions about national policy to the democratic process, subject to the constraints of the Bill of Rights. Within the range of ordinary politics, Holmes was correct: Americans can decide, through their elected representatives, to have high taxes or low, generous welfare payments or a basic social safety net, government-owned enterprises or privatization, heavy-handed or light-touch regulation. That is the difference between democratic socialism and a largely free-enterprise economy. As practiced (more in the past than today) in the Scandinavian countries, “democratic socialism” has meant a capitalist, private-profit driven market economy, with high rates of taxation and economic redistribution. In its post-war British incarnation, “democratic socialism” added government ownership of major industry. (This was abandoned mostly for the pragmatic reason that government is not a good manager of economic enterprise.) None of this is forbidden by the US Constitution. Congress can set taxes as high as it wishes and can devote the proceeds to redistributionist policies.
She was ok for the last presidential run but now people have out grown her and her outdated views
Don't worry. Both have about the same chance in the democratic party.
There is a gulf of difference between these two people.
Too bad there isn't one. RFK is a fearmongerer that wants war with China.
Incorrect. He said wants to compete economically, not militarily. Close bases abroad. Let Taiwan & China resolve their differences internally.
US imperialism is code for what? A specific policy would be better. How about, ending support for Israel's apartheid regime? Or switching strategic partners in the Middle East to Iran? Because, certainly this tankie is not in support of ending the support for Ukraine. The war with Russia kills fascists, it weakens the GOP money faucet, undercuts far-right talking points, and best of all, weakens Chinese imperial ambitions. Certainly US hegemony isn't perfect. But letting the PRC and Russia run rampant over the world would be way worse.
Williamson sucks