Yeah, that’s a good point, I didn’t think of that.

That’s cute, but the point is that despite Hilary’s very broad appeal to the big dollar doners, she was beaten by Obama in 2008 due to his, at the time very novel, online small dollar fundraising campaign. She was again defeated in 2016, despite having far more money given to her campaign than Trump.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16 https://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/02/campaign.money.schneider/index.html?iref=nextin

So the idea that the big doners actually dictate election results does not match our recent historical realities at all.

Kudos to the guy for doing the right thing, but lets be real here. What else was he going to do, just keep rolling?

“The waters have risen to the roof of her car, and her screams seem to have stopped now. This indicates these are very dangerous floodwaters folks, and I’ll say again that it is recommended that you never…”

All that aside, still humansbeingbros.

Tell that to Hilary Clinton.

Some people just want it at the bottom of the comment section instead of floating in the middle somewhere. If we could pin its comments to the bottom that would address this.

I wonder why we don’t have an active HumansBeingBros style community here on Lemmy yet. The Wholesome community does fairly well, but HBB was one of reddit’s largest subs.

This is key. It’s why they tend to message on virtue signaling so much, there’s kinda a fundamental belief that all people are shitty deep down, and they’re just more “real” about it. All the rest of us are just pretending so we look good, but we’re all just as bad as they are, and they’re just the courageous ones.

It’s pretty twisted.

That 36 million is a global figure. And yes, by 2005, two years after it started, public opinion had turned against it.

Here’s an except from that article with some specific events noted:

On September 12, 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush spoke to the United Nations General Assembly. Outside the United Nations building, over 1,000 people attended a protest organized by Voter March and No Blood for Oil.

On September 24, Tony Blair released a document describing Britain’s case for war in Iraq. Three days later, an anti-war rally in London drew a crowd of at least 150,000.[11]

On September 29, roughly 5,000 anti-war protesters converged on Washington, D.C., on the day after an anti-International Monetary Fund protest.[12

Note how much larger the London crowd was than the Washington DC crowd.

Largest that ever happened according to what?

Here what I got, asides actually being alive back then and remembering: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/03/14/a-look-back-at-how-fear-and-false-beliefs-bolstered-u-s-public-support-for-war-in-iraq/

Getting its ass kicked after halting the Tet Offensive in its tracks, eh?

And comparing that to the tiny protests against the ME wars? You’ve got some funny ideas. Desert Storm was a UN coalition move at the invitation of Kuwait. Iraqi “Freedom” had around 90% support in the immediate post-9/11 era.

I don’t know where you get your information, but I’d be curious to see your sources.

That’s cute and all, but history just doesn’t agree. Vietnam is a good example of a war being stopped by public backlash. Regarding the takeover by the neocons and now attempted takeovers by fascists, yeah, that’s sort of what authoritarians do. That does not reflect the system that continues to resist them though.

Depending on how things fall out in the coming decades, you may see what America under a real dictator is truly capable of, and how markedly different it will look from today.

Yeah, that’s unlikely when such a high percentage of his fanbase is Christian Nationalist, doing their best to fight back against their perceived evils in favor of Judeo-Christian rulership, while very conveniently forgetting that Islam is part of that same religious tree.

They’re probably right that he wouldn’t follow Israel into a regional war, but I doubt Biden would either. Someone should remind them that despite Israel fighting many, many wars with US support, we have never deployed ground forces alongside them. We simply have no obligation to do so.

Shooting down some missiles is one thing, sending arms sure, some drone strikes whatever, a lot of Americans still strongly support Israel and don’t mind all that. But putting our forces into ground combat would be broadly unpopular here.

Well, nowadays its become far less common, but we actually used to require Congress to declare any wars.

Ah, I didn’t realize you were coming from a non-American perspective. I can’t speak for the usage of the term in other places, but here in America it was not in academic usage outside of discussions on conspiracy theories, where people in those circles would use it to refer to the part of the US government they suspected of orchestrating the assassination of JFK.

Trump’s firings were not exactly unprecedented, either. Gerald Ford presided over an event that became known as the Holloween Massacre, where he did significant reshuffling within the DoD. Nixon, Reagan and Clinton also did their fair share of firings when they felt it was necessary. What made Trump special was the sheer hostility he demonstrated to the government he was supposed to be running, preferring to make decisions directly instead of delegating by frequently leaving leadership positions unfilled, and installing sycophants when necessary.

The idea that there was some entrenched resistance to him is his propagandistic spin on the idea that our Separation of Powers restrain the President, preventing him from performing any actions that would be deemed illegal by Congressional law, of which there were many. Until the recent SC ruling that granted our President a king-like immunity anyway.

He’s a professional salesman, though, it’s best not to fall for his bullshit and thinly veiled desire to run the country like a family business or cartel, with concentrated power in a single figure.

Don’t eat fissile cucumbers.

Not necessarily. Kinda like how blood money could sorta be emotionally redeemed if you just donated it all, the equipment could be redeemed if it was used to produce something useful and beneficial instead of manufacturing fear.

Wonder how cheaply it’ll all go for.

Uh, no it’s not a technical term.

Yeah, there is a large bureaucracy that implements policy, no question. That policy was initiated democratically though, and can be similarly reversed. Just not unilaterally by a President, who is not supposed to be a king, especially if Congress decided it.

And the blob term to describe the bureaucracy was used by an Obama aide, not Obama btw. Not that I expect honesty out of Trumpets.

edit for clarity

I swear this Trumpian deep state crap somehow seeps into everything.

For the record, the Constitution requires that each state decide how its electoral college votes will be distributed. The federal govt has no authority to intervene.

What dems in federal govt could potentially do is some campaign finance reform, to add some transparency to all the money that flows into PACs since the Citizen’s United ruling.