• ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    15 hours ago

    The best-fit to Trump’s actions certainly seem to be to systematically destroy the US’s standing in the world. Maybe Putin proposed a trade in exchange for supporting a new fascist regime, but I suspect we’ll never really know.

    • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Maybe Putin proposed a trade in exchange for supporting a new fascist regime, but I suspect we’ll never really know.

      Asking “What would Putin do?” explains pretty much everything out of this regime.

      Destabilize daily life? Install Russian-friendly authoritarian order? Break all international alliances? Slow trade and destabilize markets with insane tariffs? Have all world leaders constantly in reaction-mode to whatever faux or real crisis the orange turnip has created today, distracting them all with the latest text of “Squirrel!” to Truth Social, squandering their resources and attention in the constant churn of political drama? Pitting neighbor against neighbor and pissing off even the most stable, long-held alliances? Ensuring that the US military is under thoroughly incompetent leadership and possibly about to be tasked with shooting at its own countrymen? Doing shit out of fucking nowhere that threatens WWIII with absolutely zero provocation?

      Well, if Putin could control a US president, what would Putin do?

      And there it is.

      When it comes down to it there’s not much at all that the orange shitheel has done that does not also serve Putin very directly, in ways large and small.

    • FishFace@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      14 hours ago

      No, the best fit is much simpler. Republicans hate immigration and, to a large extent, hate immigrants. That means that a huge amount of measures that can be described as “anti-immigration” are popular with his voters. Illegally breaking into the apartments of US citizens, kidnapping them, then releasing them an hour or two later is obviously not “anti-immigration” but there are three caveats:

      • the regime can pretend it is the necessary consequence of being tough on immigration. It’s not; it’s a consequence that’s so severe that it needs to be avoided to the maximum extent practical. Human rights aren’t optional just because you’re trying to get rid of immigrants.
      • as long as the regime is targeting visible racial minorities, immigrants who are also not white are discouraged from coming to the US (legally or illegally) because they don’t want to get kidnapped and roughed up by the brownshirts
      • a lot of people (and this one is just as true for those on the left, it seems to me) judge everything based on vibes; kidnapping brown people has anti-immigrant vibes and so people against immigration are generally in favour of it.

      The first two combine with the fact that anti-immigrant Republicans generally don’t care about human rights to mean that the negative side (violation of human rights) doesn’t matter to them and the positive side (from their point of view - fewer immigrants) results in approval.

      When it comes to international relations things are different; there IMO it’s largely about Trump’s ego.