5 ms·

Part of the reason people voted for "no more wars" was because of the long history of more wars from both parties. Desperate people make desperate choices.

newaccountman2 6mo ago
There was literally no evidence voting for Trump would have reasonably led to less wars, and enough evidence, in fact, to the contrary.
- kxkdkdisoskdnen 6mo ago
  aside from the first term? guy lost his marbles after 2020 but there were no new wars in the first term and that was evidence. turns out he has different handlers this time. and dementia. but there were 4 years with no new wars. I liked that.
  - newaccountman2 5mo ago
    There weren't any "new wars" during Obama's and Biden's terms either, and Trump was clearly for years before he ran in 2016. Ukraine is something Russia started and the cost to the US is DoD dollars and military hardware. Iran is something the US and Israel started. It has led to casualties among American soldiers, civilians in Gulf countries, as well as economic cost that is falling on all of us.
- ryandrake 6mo ago
  Yes, MAGA ran on a broad platform of chaos, griefing, and personal vendettas. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to connect the dots and know war was on the agenda.
- parineum 6mo ago
  There is a long history of evidence that voting for establishment candidates leads to more wars and Trump didn't start any new wars in his first term and reduced troop deployments in places where existing conflicts were active so I'm not sure what you mean by no evidence. Supporters were happy about that aspect of his first term. But, like I said, desperate people make desperate choices. If you're a person who feels strongly about something the establishment wing of both parties agrees on, anti-establishment candidates look very appealing, warts and all.
  - newaccountman2 5mo ago
    The level of moral fatuousness and practical nonsense your post involves is appalling and hard to unpack. > There is a long history of evidence that voting for establishment candidates leads to more wars Literally just the US invasion of Afghanistan and the Iraq War. There were no "new wars" during the Obama Administration or the Biden Administration. You'd have to stretch the meaning of the word "war" rather far to argue otherwise. This Iran war is a totally unnecessary actual war that has claimed the lives of American soldiers, as well as others. If someone votes for an openly bellicose, jingoistic, bigoted wanna be "strongman" dictator, they aren't voting for less war. How stupid.
joe_mamba 6mo ago
[flagged]
- mothballed 6mo ago
  I voted for the only candidate (Chase Oliver) that appeared on my ballot that was basically 100% certain to not get us into wars, and I've had absolute vitriol spewed at me (including here on HN) because I was informed it was a default to Trump. There's no way to act where you won't be hated by someone. Even if you stop paying taxes for the bombs someone will scream that you hate old people or the children.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - anonymars 6mo ago
    Idealism is for the primaries. You knew with certainty that Chase Oliver wasn't going to win the presidency, which meant you were okay with either of the two candidates that definitely was going to win the presidency
    - phainopepla2 6mo ago
      Only about 20% of Americans live in swing states. So for 80% of Americans, idealism is for the general as well. Or at least it could be
      - deleted 6mo ago
        [deleted]
    - programjames 6mo ago
      Maybe not this year. The next cycle though will better pander to Chase Oliver voters.
  - triceratops 6mo ago
    > I was informed it was a default to Trump. Were they wrong?
runako 6mo ago
> long history of more wars from both parties Which wars were started by Democratic presidents in the last half-century?
- zulux 6mo ago
  Vietnam.
  - triceratops 6mo ago
    That was more than a half-century ago.
  - KptMarchewa 6mo ago
    While Kennedy and then Johnson escalated US support to South Vietnam significantly, Eisenhower started it.
    - triceratops 6mo ago
      And Nixon prolonged it in order to win an election. [1] Regular people would call that treason. 1. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vietnam-candidate-conspired-with-foreign-power-win-election-215461/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vie...
    - runako 6mo ago
      This point came up in a discussion of whether the Iran war is the first US war to be started and lost by the exact same team. Vietnam was floated, but they had a few shift changes before defeat was clear.
- ryeats 6mo ago
  Syria, Libya, Kosovo probably more I am just naming the ones off the top of my head.
  - runako 6mo ago
    "started by" here was used to indicate that there was not already a shooting war in progress.
IncreasePosts 6mo ago
Trump would have had the same outcome if he said "more wars". People voted for the man, not his policies.

newaccountman2 6mo ago

There was literally no evidence voting for Trump would have reasonably led to less wars, and enough evidence, in fact, to the contrary.

kxkdkdisoskdnen 6mo ago
aside from the first term? guy lost his marbles after 2020 but there were no new wars in the first term and that was evidence. turns out he has different handlers this time. and dementia. but there were 4 years with no new wars. I liked that.
- newaccountman2 5mo ago
  There weren't any "new wars" during Obama's and Biden's terms either, and Trump was clearly for years before he ran in 2016. Ukraine is something Russia started and the cost to the US is DoD dollars and military hardware. Iran is something the US and Israel started. It has led to casualties among American soldiers, civilians in Gulf countries, as well as economic cost that is falling on all of us.
ryandrake 6mo ago
Yes, MAGA ran on a broad platform of chaos, griefing, and personal vendettas. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to connect the dots and know war was on the agenda.
parineum 6mo ago
There is a long history of evidence that voting for establishment candidates leads to more wars and Trump didn't start any new wars in his first term and reduced troop deployments in places where existing conflicts were active so I'm not sure what you mean by no evidence. Supporters were happy about that aspect of his first term. But, like I said, desperate people make desperate choices. If you're a person who feels strongly about something the establishment wing of both parties agrees on, anti-establishment candidates look very appealing, warts and all.
- newaccountman2 5mo ago
  The level of moral fatuousness and practical nonsense your post involves is appalling and hard to unpack. > There is a long history of evidence that voting for establishment candidates leads to more wars Literally just the US invasion of Afghanistan and the Iraq War. There were no "new wars" during the Obama Administration or the Biden Administration. You'd have to stretch the meaning of the word "war" rather far to argue otherwise. This Iran war is a totally unnecessary actual war that has claimed the lives of American soldiers, as well as others. If someone votes for an openly bellicose, jingoistic, bigoted wanna be "strongman" dictator, they aren't voting for less war. How stupid.

joe_mamba 6mo ago

[flagged]

mothballed 6mo ago
I voted for the only candidate (Chase Oliver) that appeared on my ballot that was basically 100% certain to not get us into wars, and I've had absolute vitriol spewed at me (including here on HN) because I was informed it was a default to Trump. There's no way to act where you won't be hated by someone. Even if you stop paying taxes for the bombs someone will scream that you hate old people or the children.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- anonymars 6mo ago
  Idealism is for the primaries. You knew with certainty that Chase Oliver wasn't going to win the presidency, which meant you were okay with either of the two candidates that definitely was going to win the presidency
  - phainopepla2 6mo ago
    Only about 20% of Americans live in swing states. So for 80% of Americans, idealism is for the general as well. Or at least it could be
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
  - programjames 6mo ago
    Maybe not this year. The next cycle though will better pander to Chase Oliver voters.
- triceratops 6mo ago
  > I was informed it was a default to Trump. Were they wrong?

runako 6mo ago

> long history of more wars from both parties Which wars were started by Democratic presidents in the last half-century?

zulux 6mo ago
Vietnam.
- triceratops 6mo ago
  That was more than a half-century ago.
- KptMarchewa 6mo ago
  While Kennedy and then Johnson escalated US support to South Vietnam significantly, Eisenhower started it.
  - triceratops 6mo ago
    And Nixon prolonged it in order to win an election. [1] Regular people would call that treason. 1. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vietnam-candidate-conspired-with-foreign-power-win-election-215461/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vie...
  - runako 6mo ago
    This point came up in a discussion of whether the Iran war is the first US war to be started and lost by the exact same team. Vietnam was floated, but they had a few shift changes before defeat was clear.
ryeats 6mo ago
Syria, Libya, Kosovo probably more I am just naming the ones off the top of my head.
- runako 6mo ago
  "started by" here was used to indicate that there was not already a shooting war in progress.

IncreasePosts 6mo ago

Trump would have had the same outcome if he said "more wars". People voted for the man, not his policies.