This is more of a support question, related to using Lemmy. Please see the sidebar for a list of communities that offer support. Removing under rule #3.
Lemmy.ml removed the ability to create communities to (I believe) encourage using other instances. You can create a community on other instances still - like lemmy.world, for example.
The longer I stayed on Lemmy.world, the more I realized how counter-productive everyone migrating to the biggest, most popular instance was. They should be actively encouraging new users in the Fediverse to explore
I actually made a new account today on .ca for that reason. I have had a .world account for two months now but they’re having some growing pains so I figured I’d do my (tiny) part to help distribute the server loads a little better.
I’ve been floating between .ca, shitjustworks, dbzer0 and kbin for the last few months before I settled on .ml. I like being given the choice of what content I want to see, on the platform that I like most
Wtf this looks super old but I’ve never seen it before and I am old enough to remember when icanhazcheeseburger, fml, and people of Walmart were popular websites . Yeah bruh and the ads were so minimal; like a banner at the top and at the bottom. Weird times.
I don’t care about that. I care about the fact that American soldiers committed fewer murders with Trump as president compared to GWB or Obama as president.
“The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families,” Trump said.
The Trump administration’s quiet decision this week to roll back part of an Obama-era transparency rule that mandated reporting of civilian casualties from airstrikes has renewed the stark debate over who dies, and how, in U.S. military action abroad.
—-
Well its pretty convenient to state that your guy didnt kill anyone if he orders the military and government to stop keeping count, now doesn’t it?
Thats like saying you arent broke because you refuse to look at your bank account and see those overdraft notices.
Your government. I don’t care about that. I care about the fact that for a brief period of 4 years American soldiers committed fewer murders around the world.
Trump assassinated an Iranian general, who was largely responsible for the downfall of ISIS. This almost started a war, but for the fact that Iran shot down their own airliner.
You have a source for Trump killing fewer people around the world? Because from what I’ve seen, he killed more. The U.N. says that he killed more people in the middle easy than Obama and ordered more airstrikes.
He wanted to bomb shithole countries and kill terrorists’families but was too inept to know how to actually get it through congress. Painting him like a dove of peace is a weird way to interpret how shit played out
That’s just objectively wrong, but go ahead with the disinformation.
If we consider the Koran War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the war in Afghanistan and the Iraq War, Trump joins Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, John F. Kennedy and Dwight D. Eisenhower in not having officially brought the United States into a new war since 1945. - <a href="">Link</a>reuters.com/…/uk-factcheck-modern-us-presidents-n…
Yeah it’s actually insane that the dude is accusing someone else of spreading misinformation and he’s covering up Syria and Libya. Lmao and people say this community is unbiased…
Fwiw, all he said was that Trump was the first president in his lifetime to not start a new war. If he was born in 2016 or after, this would be correct by default. And judging by the quality of their comment, I wouldn’t put it past them
Obama involved us in Syria and supported the Saudis bombing Yemen.
Clinton got involved in the Balkans.
Reagan funded rebel groups in South America.
Carter… Actually idk anything this far back.
You should listen to Noam Chomsky. He’s very very liberal and has some good criticisms of the US involvement overseas. I don’t agree with everything he says but it’s worth listening to.
Our involvement in Syria was to annihilate ISIS, and was the largest post-WW2 coalition allied against a common enemy. Comsidering that they were about to genocide millions of people amd conquer half the middle east, ill give obama a pass. It would have beat watching LA amd London being actually nuked by terrorists.
“They are trying to prevent any comeback by the Islamic State group, which swept through Iraq and Syria in 2014, taking control of large swaths of territory.”
Unless the person you replied to is almost 70 years old, Eisenhower wasn’t president during their lifetime. They’d have to be over 50 for Nixon to have been, 60 for kennedy, 45 for Ford, 42 for Carter.
Reagan, Clinton, and Obama are probably the only ones applicable from your list, and “starting new wars” can be applied to a few of them in terms of the USA becoming infolved, as others have mentioned.
Because much of US politics at the moment is wedge issues. The leadership of both parties agree that Israel has the right to exist, but there’s a split there too. Democrats have started calling out Israel’s excesses with settlers in the West Bank and extremist right wing politics. Meanwhile, Republicans have allied themselves to extremist right wing authoritarian Israel politicians.
lemmy.ml
Active