3 ms·

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 reduce

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.