[flagged]
They stand up for this.
> only that they would rather support him than the Democrats.
This literally counts as "uniformly supporting Trump". Nothing less. They are all in for Trump agenda. It is straightforwardly absurd to claim that this somehow represents someone against that agenda. And no, "I do it only because I prefer this over voting with people who are against it" does not changes anything on it.
If you would rather support Trumps agenda then vote with Democrats, then you are supporting Trump. And no, it is not as if they had to make some ideological or ethical sacrifice by voting with Democrats here. They cant do it simply because they support Trump.
Okay, but I can just as easily say that you are pro-crime because you share a coalition with progressives that get district attorneys like Chesa Boudin elected (just this week the newly-elected Democratic state legislature in Virginia introduced bills to reduce the penalties for burglary, a violent crime - no normal person was asking for this).
You have a point that anyone in a coalition supports the most extreme actions of that coalition, but if you can’t make any distinction between the intents of different actors in the coalition, the only option becomes total defeat of the other side. But that is difficult to achieve in practice, particularly with a near 50-50 party split like we have in the US today. Even when the US decisively defeated the Confederacy, there were still a lot of people that either sympathized with the South or at least thought an indefinite military occupation of the South wasn’t worth it (like the US tired of occupying Iraq and Afghanistan), which is why Reconstruction ended.
So counting on total defeat of the other side is a fool’s errand, unless one side or the other executes a coup, which sadly is looking more and more likely. Trump supporters argue that the Democrats and their sympathizers in the Republican Party performed a soft coup during Covid and the 2020 election, which is why Trump has taken care to surround himself with loyalists this time around.
That did not happen in the first term.
In what world does the president have the authority to annex an autonomous territory from an ally?
Oh wait, that's the history of humanity - especially the bloody brutal history of Colonialism & Imperialism.
USA (rather The Five Eyes led by USA), EU, China are not just nations or blocs. They are Empires.
And this is what Empires do best: war (war for oil/resources, war for territory, war for wealth & glory, war for slaves, etc.)
If anyone threatened to take your home by force if you didn’t sell at his favorite price, the sane social discussion would focus on their uncivil threat and pro-social responses, not on victim blaming “the core issue is that I’ve abdicated my ability to defend my house by force.”
You could have a reasonable conversation about sovereign defense budgets and alliance contributions, but not while you’re threatening the sovereignty of an ally.
And all of this will make American citizens less safe, not more. It’s madness. There’s nothing to be gained here for most people by threat of force or hybrid warfare.