President Donald Trump said Friday during remarks in Florida that the United States would take over Cuba “almost immediately,” suggesting an aircraft carrier could be positioned offshore after the conflict in Iran.
[…]
While the president’s comments appeared partly joking, they followed concrete policy action in the form of broadened sanctions.
I’m pretty sure invading Cuba during this Trump administration would result in the next(Democrat) administration following through with complete annexation and, I’d wager, the creation of a new US State of Cuba.
It may even result in Puerto Rico statehood and D.C. statehood simultaneously.
Because, by the time Trump is out of office, the news cycle will have moved all the way through outrage to regret to acceptance and finally to “what is the most humane thing to do now?”
Democrat liberal voters will conveniently conclude the most ethical path is to make more left-leaning states while they have the chance, because not doing so means the following elections lean rightward again and risk another Trump-like administration takes over.
I hate that. Because that means some philosophers are right about modern liberalism. You pretend to have tolerance, freedom, open-debate… until you really want or need something, then you elect a tyrannical leader who will break the rules to get you where you need to be. After that, you collect your wins and the charade of liberalism goes back up.
We need a long reckoning after Trump. Not a win.
I don’t follow philosophical literature, but I almost 100% agree with that.
The only thing I would add is that modern American “liberals” are like the modern American “religious”. They vote for people who call themselves “liberal” and they call themselves “liberal” but they don’t read and they don’t really believe canonical “liberal” things if those positions do not serve them personally on issues they care about.
I do not believe there is a monolithic “liberalism”. To have a philosophical discussion about “liberalism” we have to paint in broad coalition strokes to stipulate that “liberals” are a cohesive group anymore(going back as far as I can remember, not just the last decade).
I think the prevailing popular realization is that both the Democrat and Republican parties are parties of the wealthy capital class and, importantly, that the wealthy capital class majorly overlaps with an unethical and violently extremist “Epstein” class.
Progressive candidates begrudgingly run under the Democrat banner while Libertarian candidates begrudgingly run under the Republican banner, but there is now a single “liberal”(read “change”) issue on the minds of the American electorate across both parties: Will the candidate bring the “Epstein” class to sufficient justice?
I think this single issue will override voting axes for a decade, beyond even questions about going to war or annexing another country.
I don’t think “liberalism” is a charade per se, I just think Americans are facing so many existential political problems that they have to prioritize and I’d wager they will prioritize voting for someone who will force Trump’s cadre of pedophiles to trial even if that someone is also annexing Cuba.
Uh huh. 😒