this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2026
23 points (100.0% liked)

United States | News & Politics

9003 readers
238 users here now

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 10 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

In response, the US launched a war to paralyze global energy markets.

Huh.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

My thoughts as well.

Donald doesn't just need a distraction from being publicly proven as a pedophile. He needs a distraction because gaslighting us on affordability isn't working.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

... how would paralyzing global energy markets distract anyone from affordability? That's just going to make things more expensive.

I think he's just not very smart.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

Because we're a people who, at least historically, tend to line up behind a president in war time even if it's abominably and demonstrably stupid. That's how the War on Terror almost became a forever war and lasted two decades.

And I'm certain Donald remembers 2017 when he ordered the MOAB dropped on Afghanistan and he got a whole month of every network singing his praises.

I agree, though, that they clearly didn't think this through well. Probably to be expected when the two guys running the war are narcissistic tv show hosts.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

The War on Terror had a massive, long-term propaganda campaign behind it to win public support. They didn't bother this time. The media are trying but they didn't let the propaganda campaign cook long enough, so actual public support is very low.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

It helps at the start of a war, for sure.

For me, the WoT is a symbol of the powerlessness of the people and, by extension, the vote at the federal level. It was massively unpopular toward the end of Bush's term, and Obama became less popular over the course of his term because rather than ending the wars like he promised, he expanded them, and then by the time he was gone we were bombing seven countries at once. (That we know of.)

This one, however, has been bungled from the start, but you'll still hear every pundit who isn't on alternative media throwing their hands up and saying: "Well, we're in it, so now how it has to continue indefinitely," even though it's abundantly clear that this war is botched and the best choice is to stop it now. (Obligatory recommendation: Watch Breaking Points, very good alt media agency and one of their reporters even punched Jesse Watters in the face once.)

I'm also sure Donald would rather hear about what a shitty war leader he is every day than the fact that he molested kids.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

The difference, here, is that the wars were popular in the beginning for Bush. The people wanted war in Afghanistan and Iraq, because the regime put in the effort and spent the time necessary to propagandize the population. The wars became unpopular.

In this case, the war started unpopular. That's the difference. Wars aren't inherently popular, there needs to be a mass mobilization of the propaganda networks to drum up support for war. They have the whole thing backwards, they're forcing the war on us and the pundits are trying to convince us its good after the fact. That absolutely won't work, it's all downhill from here.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago

That absolutely won’t work

Time will tell. I'm not sure I trust our country to give enough of a shit for it to matter.

[–] Bullerfar@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

So, it is finally heading in the right direction.