Where we read “democracy”, they read “economic benefit” or “geopolitical benefit”. As far as I’m aware, any “democratic movement” that the US has ever supported has been either to get rid of a not sufficiently capitalist regime (whether or not they were democratic), or for some other geopolitical strategic reason.
I haven’t heard of a single example of the US supporting a democracy purely for democracy’s sake. Sometimes it just so happens that the goals of supporting democracy and getting rid of pesky regimes that pose an economic or strategic obstacle align.
Not to mention that the US has been involved in regime change of many democracies over the last 80 years because they weren’t sufficiently friendly to American companies or didn’t support American strategic goals strongly enough. This is open, well-documented history. The CIA admits to many of the ones which were done at least 50 years ago.
If I give you a dollar and I give Steve a dollar, I’ve supported you both.
Your example is also wrong. BLM and KKK are organizations. You absolutely can support both organizations by giving them money. It makes you a hypocrite and means you don’t believe in equality. But when has anyone claimed the United States isn’t hypocritical?
Yes, I can, if I choose to be a hypocrite. I can push for both.
Picture a seesaw. Polar opposite sides. Raising one lowers the other. We can support both sides with bricks to make it a table. Both sides are supported. But neither shows progress.
You can do both. Saying they’ve supported dictatorships doesn’t mean they haven’t also supported democracy. It’s bordering on being a non sequitur.
If the US ever supports democracy, it is purely by accident.
Where we read “democracy”, they read “economic benefit” or “geopolitical benefit”. As far as I’m aware, any “democratic movement” that the US has ever supported has been either to get rid of a not sufficiently capitalist regime (whether or not they were democratic), or for some other geopolitical strategic reason.
I haven’t heard of a single example of the US supporting a democracy purely for democracy’s sake. Sometimes it just so happens that the goals of supporting democracy and getting rid of pesky regimes that pose an economic or strategic obstacle align.
Not to mention that the US has been involved in regime change of many democracies over the last 80 years because they weren’t sufficiently friendly to American companies or didn’t support American strategic goals strongly enough. This is open, well-documented history. The CIA admits to many of the ones which were done at least 50 years ago.
Here is a list to get started: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change
It is to own the winner.
No you can’t. You cannot say you support racial equality while holding a BLM sign one day and attending a KKK rally the next.
If I give you a dollar and I give Steve a dollar, I’ve supported you both.
Your example is also wrong. BLM and KKK are organizations. You absolutely can support both organizations by giving them money. It makes you a hypocrite and means you don’t believe in equality. But when has anyone claimed the United States isn’t hypocritical?
Steve and me are entities. Democracy is an ideology.
You cannot support an ideology while also supporting its polar opposite.
Yes, I can, if I choose to be a hypocrite. I can push for both.
Picture a seesaw. Polar opposite sides. Raising one lowers the other. We can support both sides with bricks to make it a table. Both sides are supported. But neither shows progress.
I think we’re disagreeing on the word supported.
Removed by mod
Exact same thing but you are too hypocritic to admit it.
How can I have made a straw man argument when I didn’t even make an argument!?