Iranian protests/revolution

And?

I voted for Harris, do I win something?

Trump’s approval rating is somewhere in the mid 30s. A fair number of people inside the US would agree with you. Do they win anything?

And if your sticking point with the American people is that Trump started a completely stupid war, and you want to hold them accountable…for supporting him…do recall that Trump actually campaigned to do exactly “not that”. If its 2024, and your top choice is the candidate that promised to not start unnecessary wars, Trump was the right vote.

So here we are, two years later, and we have a politician that did not do what he promised, and the Trump voters are to blame?

I think many people correctly assessed that Trump was not trustworthy. I am not sure how many of them decided to vote against their preferred policies and select Harris. That is not generally how voting happens in the US. It’s the same 10% in the middle that decide the winner each cycle.

In any case, blaming all voters for Trump starting a war with Iran fails a lot logical tests and is not very helpful.

2 Likes

It’s the complete indifference of so many in the US that annoys me.

I’ll wait and see if Americans re-elect the congress and senate that are enabling Trump.

1 Like

If the US electorate does not repudiate Trump during the mid-terms…

Would you then change your view?

FTR, I don’t disagree with your logic (it sucks being in the electoral minority when a truly shit politician is elected) but real people (and countries) are being materially damaged by the orange lunatic.

And I don’t think there will be much forgiveness for Americans (of all stripes) even once Trump is gone*

*I often wonder if the people behind Trump wanted it this way. To make the US so despised abroad that it would concentrate their authoritarian grip on domestic american issues for their own benefit.

Keep in mind that the architecture of how American elections work (especially as regards the federal House and Senate), it’s difficult-to-impossible to effect meaningful change.

I would not damn those Americans who acknowledge that the value of voting in the current system is extremely limited. It is, however, fair to damn Americans for letting things deteriorate to this extent.

The Americans who supported the politicians who’ve been gerrymandering elections for decades?

That’s why I say it’s fair to criticize Americans for allowing the flawed architecture to exist.

There aren’t very many politicians who have campaigned in favor of gerrymandering – gerrymandering is just something that comes from the unfortunate reality of power corrupting – and the American system of government doesn’t really have a good way for citizens to consistently push for changes that push back against politicians who seek to preserve their power.

There is no realistic way to change that within a generation’s time short of extreme measures (breaking apart the US, actual rebellion, etc.)…or convincing a critical mass of corporations and billionaires to alter their political spending to support changes that might erode their power.

Unfamiliar with the concept of the Electoral College?

From the poster that has stated that the US attack would bring stability to the region and the fall of the current regime was imminent.

1 Like

Donald Trump: popular vote: 77,302,580 percent: 49.8%
Kamala Harris: popular vote: 75,017,613 percent: 48.3%

Pretty safe to say Trump received nearly 50% of the vote.

1 Like

Then you conclude by saying “Americans are OK with it.”
48.3% are NOT.
So, don’t go generalizing.

It seems like a majority of them are ok with it based on a combination of voting and indifference.

1 Like

This is almost certainly true for Trump himself. He looks at dictators like Putin and Xi and Kim Jong Un with jealousy. He aspires to their status, and knows that he has to tear the US apart to attain it.
I think the Christofascists like Russel Vought and Steven Miller and Pete Hegseth are true believers. They are twisted enough to think that forcing their version of Christian sharia law on all of us will bring about some sort of utopia.
Not sure about the big tech companies. I get the feeling they know they have overstepped and will be looking to distance themselves from the worst of it, while still working toward their techno-feudalism behind the scenes.

I don’t agree with that interpretation of apathy, and you’re also overlooking the phenomenon of (for lack of a better term) “voter’s remorse” that has emerged among some of the folks who explicitly or implicitly supported the Glorious Leader’s election.

Despite that, even if a majority of Americans are not “OK with it” (now or back during the 2024 general elections), Americans do bear collective responsibility for setting the stage for the current farce.

Reminds me of another situation some time back where a small, mobile army fought in a fashion that was not what the larger, more experienced army was expecting.

about 250 years ago, FWIW

1 Like

What do you base the claim of “indifference” on?

Numbers from 2024 doesn’t say a whole lot about sentiments felt in 2026 (and beyond).

The best that could be said is that Congress might be indifferent as they have lots of levers to pull . . . and unlike Parliamentary systems, we can’t get a “no confidence” vote enacted to re-elect MP’s and effect an executive branch change.

Lots of people were unhappy with Trump in his first term, but they still came out and voted for him anyway in 2020.

Then they ignored the BS on Jan 6th and voted for him again in 2024.

A whole bunch of others didn’t even bother to show up and vote.

1 Like

Couldn’t be bothered to vote in 2024 after seeing his actions during term 1 and Jan 6th.

1 Like

Maybe the 48.3% should be more vocal? Where are the mass protests of my youth?

Of course, a large percentage of that 48.3% are enjoying strong returns on their equity assets so the increase in wealth is an incentive to go with the flow?

I suspect this is part of it.

Covered a bit in this FT article:

Outcomes on the battlefield can make wars more popular with Americans, but not always. The Tet Offensive during the Vietnam war demonstrated how the US could beat back the Vietcong and yet lose American support. The Korean war, on the other hand, created very little public outrage even as thousands of US service members died — an example of how Americans can become inured to loss, implacable or apathetic, even, in the face of failure.

Polling suggests most Americans disapprove of the Iran war (even a growing percentage of Donald Trump loyalists). And yet, it has so far generated very little public disruption. There have been no mass protests, no mass resignations from within the military. Even the death of a Navy helicopter pilot in the Arabian Sea drew very little public attention. The stock market, despite some dips, is booming and oil prices have come down. The US military budget is still dominated by expensive precision munitions delivered by destroyers and stealth planes, which are difficult to scale or quickly adapt; its unmanned systems are focused on decreasing personnel loss instead of decreasing costs or innovating new missions; its industrial base is still incentivised for large and rigid weapons programmes.

Perhaps the real test will be in November, when midterm elections reveal whether the public will penalise Republicans for initiating the conflict. Absent that punishment, it is highly unlikely that Congress or the White House will change how they expect to use the American military.

https://giftarticle.ft.com/giftarticle/actions/redeem/aadb9466-33f5-4fa4-bc07-4417ed08d00f

As has been pointed out, the election is not decided by the popular vote, and as a result the popular vote is a poor judge of popular sentiment. Voting Democrat in a solid Republican state (or vice versa) can take significant time and achieves absolutely nothing; in those circumstances I would not begrudge someone for not voting.

3 Likes