[keiferski]

This whole situation made me realize that the mechanism for holding presidents accountable for campaign promises really doesn’t exist. None of this is what people voted for, and is almost directly the opposite. That isn’t a new thing, of course, but this seems like a pretty huge turnaround from what the campaign was about.

This seems like a fundamental problem with the system to me. If you can’t count on the candidate to at least attempt sticking to campaign promises, then the entire process is irrational.

Presumably the mechanism is supposed to be Congress and impeachment, but that doesn’t work if the president is directly influencing their election campaigns.

I do wonder if / how something could be implemented that addresses this, beyond just losing at the next election.

[ikr678]

This used to be the job of the third estate, but traditional media has all been captured and the algorithms have done the rest, drowning us in a sea of content.

[ethbr1]

> but traditional media has all been captured and the algorithms have done the rest

We should be explicit about what happened:

Google and Facebook skimmed off most of advertising revenue that previously supported journalism.

Then neither originated new news in quantity or quality to replace what they ate. Revenues (from ads) without costs (of paying journalists) = their profits.

Now, we have orders of magnitude less professional journalism.

When you boil it down, their business models are less about being clever and more about redirecting a huge, previously-social-good flow of money through their toll gates and taxing it.

[yubblegum]

Sorry, have to call b.s. on lack of funds. Our media are owned by a very few, a handful, of corporations. And this happened before Google even existed. It happened in the 90s.

> business model

I don't know, is this willful ignorance? Press is political ...

[ethbr1]

A prior ill doesn't excuse a subsequent one.

That Sinclair, Nexstar, CC/iHeartMedia were allowed to consolidate in the 90s is bad.

That Google et al. decimated newspaper revenue from the mid-00s onwards without replacing their newsrooms is worse.*

I wouldn't have as big a gripe if Google or Facebook had started their own news bureaus and funded them with their profits. It still would have been a rounding error on their balance sheet.

But instead they destroyed a social good, took their bonuses, and called it a day.

* See 2007, the year Google was allowed to buy DoubleClick https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/newspapers...

[davkan]

The media is the fourth estate. In the modern US the first three are often interpreted as the branches of government. Historically estates were often some combination of the nobility, the clergy, and the commoners.

[deeg]

I think people did vote for this and the proof is that Republicans are still supporting trump almost unequivocally. The senate just voted to not curtail his actions in Iran and only one GOP senator opposed.

[Schmerika]

> the proof is that Republicans are still supporting trump almost unequivocally

That doesn't prove what people voted for. It proves the quality - or lack thereof - of the voting population, the political class, and the media.

Few want to hear that. Fewer still understand it.

[nickthegreek]

Those people aren’t in the streets shouting that this isn’t what they voted for. Stands to reason that many are just fine with how everything is playing out.

[sshine]

There's an election in my country, and every campaign is full of lies:

Every bold change, whether it's more or less taxes, will not realize.

It is just meant for people to vote on, not for the government to realize.

I do think that in multi-party systems, parties have more to lose long-term.

One crazy president won't fundamentally change your color.

[John23832]

That mechanism used to be shame.

[kdheiwns]

A lot of people voted on a platform of pissing off a lot of people. A lot of people are pissed. Polls on the day of the invasion indicated a lack of support; since then a lot of people have shown that they're pissed, and now that voter base is supporting the admin and these actions because they see people getting pissed.

It sounds petty and dumb. Unfortunately, that's what's happening. 44% support the invasion. [1] That's identical to the constant 40-45% support the admin has had since day one. There has been no change in support and there never will be. There's absolutely no convincing them, leaving us with the only option of figuring out how we're supposed to deal with a country where nearly half the population has a mindset no different from willing kamikaze pilots.

[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/majority-of-americ...

[insane_dreamer]

Not to mention that a good proportion of those 44% are Christians who dgaf about Iranians; in fact they're probably "heathen" being visited by "God's judgements".

[_DeadFred_]

The religious bigotry on this site is out of control. Christians are labeled/talked about as a block. But Muslims are treated differently, and when it's Muslim thought that is interpreted as bad, we refer to Islamists not Muslims to avoid blanket labeling.

You should edit your post because it represents Christians in a way that is not true the majority are not aligned with a weird minority subset nor the views you are assigning them.

[throwaway-11-1]

Christians are clearly a powerful voting bloc in the US and support reactionary politics by a vast margin. Many of them see these wars as fulfilling end time prophecy and you know it. Muslim opinions in the US aren't anywhere near as influential in national elections and do actually shift on material conditions (see Gaza & Harris in the Midwest). Like get real, you will never see a christian at an anti-war protest.

source - grew up in a baptist church, grandfather was a pastor

[_DeadFred_]

This right here is the bigotry/double standard I'm talking about that is accepted here. 'Muslims are a death cult and you know it' is not acceptable speech, but you proudly just made the same claim, only towards Christians.

The majority of Christians are not in an end times death cult, and the size of a religious voting block in the USA doesn't change that fact. Again, we use language to separate moderate Muslims from minority extremist views normally referred to as Islamist here, but Christians are an end times death cult who don't protest war (pretty sure the Pope is on record as being anti-war).

I talked about how we refer to different religions with a bigoted double standard here, not Muslim/Christian voting influence. You followed with the very bigoted:

"Like get real, you will never see a Christian at an anti-war protest."

HN has a bigotry/stereotyping/double standard problem towards Christians. Bigotry against a religion as a political weapon/lashout is wrong.

[nullocator]

I think you are misunderstanding the situation "The majority of Christians are not in an end times death cult" sure maybe, but the majority of people in the "end times death cult" would loudly and proudly proclaim they are christians and represent christians. It is a failing of "real christians" to not reject and excise this.

[insane_dreamer]

> good proportion of those 44% are Christians

I was referring to the "44%" which the previous post was making a case for represent MAGA people who support Trump no matter what he does -- not Christians in general.

MAGA has a very strong Evangelical block who are rabid "Christians" (though frankly they more closely resemble the Catholic Inquisition and have very little to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ)

[lukan]

The source seems bad, for some reasons they added the 10% of "unsure" to "supports".

"the new survey found 56% of Americans oppose U.S. military action in Iran, while 44% support it."

But later:

"A majority -- 54% -- of Americans disapprove of how Trump is handling Iran. Another 36% approve and 10% are unsure"

36% support it.

[kdheiwns]

They're different questions. One is whether they support the way Trump is doing it. The other is whether they support a war overall.

Their reason for supporting a war but not the way Trump is doing it could range from it being too extreme to not being extreme enough. Some people unironically want nuclear weapons to be dropped and will settle for nothing less.

[lukan]

I missed that, but then it is still not correct to say 44% support the invasion. In a very different framework (clear plan, cooperation with iranian opposition, working exile government, transition plan ..) I also can see myself supporting military action against the religious fanatics in power in Iran. But this invasion I do not support.

[fabian2k]

Trump was mostly a known quantity when elected a second time. And on foreign policy it was clear that he would be at least erratic and unpredictable. This is not an unexpected result of voting for Trump.

People voted for a vindictive and petty criminal that doesn't care about rules or laws. This is the result of that.

[JKCalhoun]

I, agree. It's impossible for me to afford any cover for someone who says they thought they were voting for a guy who would not start any wars.

I can't think of a time in my life when the choice was any more clear.

[vkou]

That mechanism exists, it's called congress, the problem is that half the country is dancing in the streets over this.

Or at least, it's going to vote the fuckers doing this in again in November.

[thisisit]

Trump has always been incoherent.

On one hand he had "No new wars", he also was pretty clear on his disdain for Middle Eastern countries - the ones not giving him millions in bribes.

People knew that he was incoherent and inconsistent. He proved that during his first Presidency. So, I don't think it is a case of "not what people voted for". People are getting exactly what they voted for - chaos and incoherence.

As you said, Congress doesn't want to do anything due to elections. And courts have declared that President actions are always justified.

Choices beyond losing election requires either of these branches to act. Without that, wait for the next election.

[ryandrake]

> And courts have declared that President actions are always justified.

To be more specific, the SCOTUS has only declared one particular President's actions as always justified. I would be willing to bet any amount of money that they suddenly reverse this opinion as soon as someone from the other team becomes president.

[Server6]

Unfortunately this is exactly what people voted for. Did you not listen to Trump during the campaign? He promised chaos, revenge, racism, and incoherent nonsense. We're getting exactly that 10x.

[motiw]

Maybe the solution is a referendum that would allow forcing elections at any moment

[Neil44]

Pretty big assumption you're making, that you know what people voted for.

[entropyneur]

It may indeed be the case that the candidate promised one thing and the voters acting irrationally (or correctly assuming he's a liar) voted with an expectation of him doing the exact opposite. The GP, however didn't say anything about voting. He was talking specifically about the mismatch between campaign promises and actions taken once in office.

[keiferski]

I’d be glad to see evidence that people voted for interventions in the Middle East, if you have any.

My impression is that a key part of Trump’s campaign was ending excessive foreign wars. There are lots of clips going around with him saying this.

[kakacik]

Well yeah but he is a pathological liar, fraudster and a criminal. This was well known during 2nd election campaign.

Expecting to hold any promises just because they were said and got him where he wanted is a bit naive, don't you think? Or does the idea of 'but now he will act completely differently to his entire prior life!' makes any sense to you?

[tgma]

Trump also has said "I will bomb the shit out of them -- I don't care" on the campaign trail.

I think a relatively accurate model of the people's opinion towards intervention might be quite simple: it is good if we win relatively swiftly and bad if we lose and/or don't gain anything, and the opinion at the time is shaped (and over time altered) based on their estimate of the outcome, but no politician says it that way so it is always cast as black and white pro-war/anti-war.

In the current case, I think many Americans, even Democrats, recognize the regime in Iran as a threat that needs to be dealt with somehow (a deal or an intervention). Their worry is the cost and ramifications, not some ulterior principle. If Trump brings home a win and some oil to boot soon-ish, you're going to see positive sentiments more clearly. If this drags on, the backlash will be there, and will be phrased as "MAGA never wanted the war" and along your lines of isolationist promises not kept.

[applfanboysbgon]

Trump's approval rating among his base is still overwhelmingly high. They know what they were voting for, and they still support him. They know that Trump lies like he breathes, and they are perfectly fine with that. Trump supporters themselves are largely liars. They do not openly state the positions they actually hold. That Trump says X and does Y is fine because his supporters say X and believe Y. Words are a game to them, a means to accomplish a goal rather than something to communicate honestly with.

The most important thing to understand about Trump and conservatism in general, by far, is that there is one central principle that underpines the entire ideology: hierarchy. Going back to the time of kings and nobility and clergy, through to the present day.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

One set of laws for the people higher in the hierarchy, and one set of laws for the people lower in the hierarchy. Things that are okay for them to do are not okay for you to do. Wars started by Democrats are bad. Wars started by Republicans are good. They know this is not convincing rhetoric to anyone who is not part of the in-group, so they lie about their reasons and play games with words. This, however, is what they truly believe.

It is why every action they take appears hypocritical to their opponents, but in actuality, it is perfectly consistent with their values - it is good when they do it, because everything is good when they do it, and it is bad when somebody else does it, because everything is bad when somebody else does it. It is why "the only moral abortion is my abortion". It is why the exact same policies executed by different presidents will have the same approval rating by democrats, but a completely inverse approval rating by republicans (eg 40% of Democrats approve of either Obama or Trump striking Syria, while 20% of Republicans approve if Obama does it and 80% approve if Trump does it). It is the single consistent trend through all of their policies. They know exactly what they were voting for, and that is for the man who represents their hierarchy. The games he plays with words are part of the platform.

Edit: I have rewrote the message quite a bit, apologies if anything doesn't make sense.

[keiferski]

This is too simplified of an answer.

It may be the case that his base is still just following him and supportive of whatever he does.

But the number of people who voted for him vastly exceeds his “base”, and the entire MAGA movement is basically predicated on a form of isolationism, or at least not pro-intervention. Part of the reason it became popular was as a reaction against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So I don’t think it’s as simple and one dimensional as you paint here. Which is exactly why I think it’s a systemic problem: many people probably voted for him because of the campaign promises of being against foreign wars.

[Al-Khwarizmi]

But will they still support him if gas prices and general inflation spike hard, as is nearly a given if Trump doesn't back out from the war?

My impression is that most of his voters are selfish and couldn't care less for other people's woes (migrants, sexual abuse victims, Iranians or whatever), but will care if his antics hit their own pockets. I'm not American so I may well be wrong, though.

[applfanboysbgon]

Yes, they will still support him. Republicans dying of COVID would still deny its existence on their deathbed, so you can be sure there is no consequence that is too far for them. Farmers bankrupted and people who lost jobs because of Trump's policies continue to support him. Inflation is bad when Democrats do it, but it is fine if Republicans do it, as with all things, because that is how their hierarchy works.

Their support is not the result of a rational calculation of self-interest, and never was. If it was, a base of rural and poor people would never be supporting a coastal city New York elite born with a silver spoon in his mouth as "one of them". But they do, because he is one of them in the way that matters to them. They are fighting for something larger than themselves, and are completely committed to a cultural war for social hierarchy.

> if gas prices and general inflation spike hard, as is nearly a given if Trump doesn't back out from the war?

As an aside, I don't think there is any backing out of this war. If somebody launched a missile at your country and killed hundreds of schoolgirls, and destroyed ships on diplomatic missions while leaving the survivors to drown, while also assassinating your country's leader (but not out of any intention of liberation), would you just let things go because they stopped bombing? Of course you wouldn't. Your country would continue to retaliate. And it is trivial to punish America. Even if America unilaterally decided to "declare peace" and withdraw from attacking Iran, Iran has every reason to continue locking down the gulf and making Americans pay the price. Unlike with tariffs, there is no backing down from these price increases even if Trump gets cold feet. But, even so, there is no reason to believe it will move the needle on his base. There is already talk of "short term pain for long term gain" among those who realise this.

[JKCalhoun]

As much as I tried to discount sweeping accusations made against voters, increasingly I am beginning to think that a lot of those who support this administration really want to see a "whiter" and more Christian U.S. It's getting harder for me to deny.

If there are single-issue voters supporting this admin, I suspect for many that issue is not "stay out of foreign wars" but something closer to going back to some mythical time in the U.S. that looked more like Currier and Ives.

[Al-Khwarizmi]

> As an aside, I don't think there is any backing out of this war. If somebody launched a missile at your country and killed hundreds of schoolgirls, and destroyed ships on diplomatic missions while leaving the survivors to drown, while also assassinating your country's leader (but not out of any intention of liberation), would you just let things go because they stopped bombing? Of course you wouldn't. Your country would continue to retaliate. And it is trivial to punish America. Even if America unilaterally decided to "declare peace" and withdraw from attacking Iran, Iran has every reason to continue locking down the gulf and making Americans pay the price. Unlike with tariffs, there is no backing down from these price increases even if Trump gets cold feet. But, even so, there is no reason to believe it will move the needle on his base. There is already talk of "short term pain for long term gain" among those who realise this.

Yeah, that's a good point. And the fact that the new leader's closest family members were killed in the attack won't help. But I suppose the Iranian regime might want some stability, and the Gulf countries are very interested in the end of the war because for them it's pretty much an existencial treat. So maybe there's a scenario where Trump gets to declare a GREAT VICTORY because he supposedly destroyed Iran's nuclear capability or whatever, Iran gets money from the Gulf countries and the regime gets stability, and the Gulf countries get... well, avoiding ruin.

[gehwartzen]

Trump is a known liar. He had been for his entire adult life. It looks like the people got exactly what they voted for.

[nullocator]

> None of this is what people voted for, and is almost directly the opposite. That isn’t a new thing, of course, but this seems like a pretty huge turnaround from what the campaign was about.

Citation needed. I think there is demonstrable evidence that this is exactly what people voted for and they will continue voting and behaving exactly as they have been for the foreseeable future.

Around ~30-40% of the U.S. population is basically subject to the whims of of the other 60-70% who are either A. Cult members B. Completely apathetic or C. Stupid/Insane and openly hostile to any techniques that could be used to bring them around.

It's seemingly impossible to get off this progression, and no the apathetic people being shocked into making an opposition based choice every ~4 years before they go back to fucking off is not going to pull us out.

[thunky]

> If you can’t count on the candidate to at least attempt sticking to campaign promises, then the entire process is irrational.

And then people wonder why the voter participation rate is so low.

[nebula8804]

Correct me if im wrong but didn't Trump bring out a large swath of non-voters during his runs?

[spankalee]

The US needs a parliamentary system. Trump would have been dumped already. Instead we have to wait 3 more years to end this insanity.

[jjgreen]

Are you sure? https://www.draftbarrontrump.com/

[stef25]

> Instead we have to wait 3 more years to end this insanity.

Pray that you'll see the end of it in 3 years. It would be surprise if that ship can be turned around.

[whycombigator]

Pray? Is this the new federalized form of voting for November and onward?

[kakacik]

My gut feeling is that next person after him (if he actually gives up office which is in land of wishful thinking at this point) may be worse, and even visibly worse and US folks will still vote for him/her.

I sure hope my gut is wildly incorrect this time, for me, you, and mankind overall.

[aa-jv]

>Pray

This kills the democracy.

[mike_hearn]

In Parliamentary systems, governments still regularly do things that violate or weren't in their manifestos.

[spankalee]

Of course, but at least there's a realistic, actually used, mechanism for replacing an administration. Impeachment in the US is a complete non-factor, so you can only wait for four years, no matter how bad things get.

[SadErn]

You're watching the wrong game.

This isn't politics. This is American imperialism. The constant wars happen regardless of who is elected or what they believe in. Even Obama had his Libya

The first thing you must understand, is this is the US protecting the Petro-dollar. China and Iran were trading goods for oil, and bypassing our currency. Nukes are a factor as well.

The rest is laid out plainly here: https://datarepublican.substack.com/p/data-analysis-of-the-s...

[nebula8804]

This person is FAR from an unbiased source and has made regular mistakes that have hurt countless people due to her biases over the last year.