6 ms·

It wasn’t predictable that he would start a war. He presented himself as the anti-war candidate and then betrayed his electorate.

by joshrw 3mo ago

N_Lens 3mo ago
It was evident to anyone aware and paying attention.
cryo32 3mo ago
The real question is should you have trusted his manifesto after the last time?
simonask 3mo ago
From outside the US, nothing about him has really been predictable, except that he consistently lies about everything. The only predictable thing about this American presidency is the total chaos that has been inflicted on the world by millions of intellectually degenerate Americans. This is what the world sees. Almost nobody is making excuses for him, everybody is trying to move on without the US. So yeah, in that sense another war is simultaneously an unpredictable outcome and an unsurprising outcome.
torben-friis 3mo ago
During his first term, his continuous threats to north Korea were enough to force congress to restrict presidential powers (the whole fire and fury stuff), and that's not counting Venezuela, Syria and others.
krior 3mo ago
Since January 6th it was clear that he would be willing to secure his power in any way. The most obvious way in america is to start a war. And even if noone could predict that - the worst part is all the Americans sitting by, twiddling thumbs after seeing Trump making the whole world worse. You are the loudest "democracy" on the planet, but noone demands the necessary accountability from the dear leader. Democracy does not only happen on election day.
danaris 3mo ago
If you paid attention to his actions while in office, rather than a selection of his words while on the campaign trail, it was pretty clear he wasn't in the least bit interested in being a "peace president;" he just wanted the Nobel Peace Price because Obama got one.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
constantius 3mo ago
I agree with this. What was certain and predictable was that Harris was a war candidate (the Democrats presided over the first year of genocide and were intending to continue). MAGA was going to be bad in some way, but the Democrats were very bad in very known ways, so voting for whoever was at least saying they were against war was the rational decision for anyone who cared about not having genociders at the helm of the state.
- krapp 3mo ago
  >MAGA was going to be bad in some way, but the Democrats were very bad in very known ways, so voting for whoever was at least saying they were against war was the rational decision for anyone who cared about not having genociders at the helm of the state. This implies that Donald Trump/Republicans weren't pro-Zionist and didn't support Israel which is obviously untrue. The truth is there was no "non-genocide" candidate between the two parties and pretending otherwise - particularly by voting for Trump - was simply self-delusion.
  - throw37842 3mo ago
    Both sides are against the genocide of Israel, thank God - and against the genocide of Arabs. (Unlike the meme-puppets who now believe that some genocides are better than other genocides).
- inigyou 3mo ago
  Both Harris and Trump were identical in that respect, so it shouldn't have swayed your decision.
  - kelipso 3mo ago
    Harris was a known to be bad with respect to the war issue, became very obviously bad when she started campaigning with Liz Cheney. Trump was less known bad, so that difference should certainly have swayed your decision.
    - 3mo ago
inigyou 3mo ago
How many wars and military actions did he start in his first term? How many times did he do the opposite of what he said he did? The specific case is unpredictable, the general pattern isn't.
ithkuil 3mo ago
He presented himself as someone who has utter disregard for any form of coherence and people actually argued that that's what made him palatable to the masses. I don't think that someone who voted for him can in good faith claim they didn't know he would betray his promises. All they wanted Is for him to own the libs

It wasn’t predictable that he would start a war. He presented himself as the anti-war candidate and then betrayed his electorate.

by joshrw 3mo ago

It wasn’t predictable that he would start a war. He presented himself as the anti-war candidate and then betrayed his electorate.

N_Lens 3mo ago

It was evident to anyone aware and paying attention.

cryo32 3mo ago

The real question is should you have trusted his manifesto after the last time?

simonask 3mo ago

From outside the US, nothing about him has really been predictable, except that he consistently lies about everything. The only predictable thing about this American presidency is the total chaos that has been inflicted on the world by millions of intellectually degenerate Americans. This is what the world sees. Almost nobody is making excuses for him, everybody is trying to move on without the US. So yeah, in that sense another war is simultaneously an unpredictable outcome and an unsurprising outcome.

torben-friis 3mo ago

During his first term, his continuous threats to north Korea were enough to force congress to restrict presidential powers (the whole fire and fury stuff), and that's not counting Venezuela, Syria and others.

krior 3mo ago

Since January 6th it was clear that he would be willing to secure his power in any way. The most obvious way in america is to start a war. And even if noone could predict that - the worst part is all the Americans sitting by, twiddling thumbs after seeing Trump making the whole world worse. You are the loudest "democracy" on the planet, but noone demands the necessary accountability from the dear leader. Democracy does not only happen on election day.

danaris 3mo ago

If you paid attention to his actions while in office, rather than a selection of his words while on the campaign trail, it was pretty clear he wasn't in the least bit interested in being a "peace president;" he just wanted the Nobel Peace Price because Obama got one.

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

constantius 3mo ago

I agree with this. What was certain and predictable was that Harris was a war candidate (the Democrats presided over the first year of genocide and were intending to continue). MAGA was going to be bad in some way, but the Democrats were very bad in very known ways, so voting for whoever was at least saying they were against war was the rational decision for anyone who cared about not having genociders at the helm of the state.

krapp 3mo ago
>MAGA was going to be bad in some way, but the Democrats were very bad in very known ways, so voting for whoever was at least saying they were against war was the rational decision for anyone who cared about not having genociders at the helm of the state. This implies that Donald Trump/Republicans weren't pro-Zionist and didn't support Israel which is obviously untrue. The truth is there was no "non-genocide" candidate between the two parties and pretending otherwise - particularly by voting for Trump - was simply self-delusion.
- throw37842 3mo ago
  Both sides are against the genocide of Israel, thank God - and against the genocide of Arabs. (Unlike the meme-puppets who now believe that some genocides are better than other genocides).
inigyou 3mo ago
Both Harris and Trump were identical in that respect, so it shouldn't have swayed your decision.
- kelipso 3mo ago
  Harris was a known to be bad with respect to the war issue, became very obviously bad when she started campaigning with Liz Cheney. Trump was less known bad, so that difference should certainly have swayed your decision.
  - 3mo ago

inigyou 3mo ago

How many wars and military actions did he start in his first term? How many times did he do the opposite of what he said he did? The specific case is unpredictable, the general pattern isn't.

ithkuil 3mo ago

He presented himself as someone who has utter disregard for any form of coherence and people actually argued that that's what made him palatable to the masses. I don't think that someone who voted for him can in good faith claim they didn't know he would betray his promises. All they wanted Is for him to own the libs