418
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2026
418 points (97.9% liked)
politics
30994 readers
1964 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You can't win with just that one type of guy, is what I'm saying. There's the macho nationalist type of guy on the right, absolutely, but there's also the libertarian type that's generally "anti-war" on the basis that war is the government doing stuff and the government doing stuff is always bad.
In 2000, Bush ran as being more isolationist than Gore and staying out of foreign conflicts (after the failure in Vietnam, nobody wanted to be associated with that), then as soon as he got ahold of power started and lost pointless wars of aggression. So then Bush became unpopular on the right and Trump ran as an "anti-establishment" type (after the failure in Afghanistan, nobody wanted to be associated with that) claiming to be a "peace" candidate, and he won, and as soon as he got access to the levers of power he started bombing Syria but nobody really noticed or cared for some reason so then he just repeated the same lies and got into power again and immediately went and bombed Iran, and going forward nobody's gonna want to be associated with that.
There's plenty of figures that are positioning themselves to step into that role next, like MTG, Tucker Carlson, and Tulsi Gabbard. The sorts of people who bought into Trump being a peace candidate are dumb as rocks and lack basic pattern recognition so they will absolutely just keep falling for the same trick over and over again. But they do need to be tricked and lied to for the right to have a winning coalition.
It is kinda exciting on some level, like, say Tucker Carlson got his hands on the levers of power, he'd obviously start another war of aggression somewhere, but who really knows where it'd be? And when that war proves to be a hopeless debacle, who will be the one on the right to say that, unlike Tucker who just loves getting into pointless destructive conflicts (who could've predicted it?), they actually... you know what, I can't do this, it's not exciting, it's literally just rebooting the same plotline over and over, and I'm gonna be forced to watch it until I'm dead in the ground.
Point being, my prediction is that the Republican nominee will either be someone who has some pretense of being able to distance themself from the Iran War, or they will lose.
Thanks for taking the time. It's a good read and very informative.
I think you're right but will have more confidence when I see the result of the midterm.
I want to see how many Trump endorsed republicans will win vs Regular republicans.
You're words make lot of sense but the world we're living in right now doesn't so I guess will wait and see.