495
Donald Trump Stuns With 'Maybe We Shouldn't Even Be There' Admission About Iran War
(www.huffpost.com)
this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2026
495 points (98.4% liked)
Not The Onion
20845 readers
1025 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In the age of misinformation and people using influencers and podcasters as "news and information" it's become the norm unfortunately. I tend to try and get as broad a view as possible and filter out the bullshit. And admittedly I don't understand the PAC system or the electoral college, and I can't condone lobbying as we've seen it's detrimental effect on general rights to Americans as well as pushing policy. Again, these don't affect us as foreigners, but they tend to push certain policies that end up with wider reaching effects.
The PAC system is legal bribery with the added bonus of the public being unaware of who is doing the bribing.
Nations use it to "influence" our representatives, from Israel to Saudi Arabia; the USA is open to all interests with enough cash involved.
Corporations and billionaires also prefer Super PACs, as what they actually want can be very unpopular publicly (like keeping minimum wage down to seven dollars an hour).
So, for example, if your (the briber) position is right wing, you contribute to the R party; if the R party won't accommodate your position for some reason, the Ds will (but it will cost you a lot more); if your position is left wing, you contribute to the D party; if the D party won't accommodate your position, the Rs will (but it will cost you a lot more).
With enough money, you can actually change the major parties political platform. See the history of unions, for example. The Democrats were once the "labor party", when unions were 40% of the workforce in the 1940s. Over the decades, it's now down to 10%. Or "state's rights", the Republicans position for many decades. Now, today they are all about flexing federal power.
This has absolutely nothing to do with what the American voters actually want at any time.
Electoral college? Oh dear God I won't even try to explain, it's different for every state (like a province, and there are 50).
considering the state of mainstream american news, pretty sure those listening to "influencers" are better informed. especially as far as iran/isreal/american imperialism in general is concerned
That's the part that's relevant...
Whether a state goes 51% of 100%, counts the same.
This leads to depressed turnout and obviously no elections being on "all Americans". Most of our votes for president don't matter because most states go one way or the other.
While the Electoral college has it's own major issues. Awarding of the votes is done because 48 State Legislatures believe all the votes should go to the winner. Maine and Nebraska award their vote on a semi-proportional system. A true proportional system would go a long way of addressing some of the major issues such as a someone's Presidential vote being utterly meaningless. A Republican in California or Democrat in Idaho. (https://electoralvotemap.com/which-states-split-their-electoral-votes/)
This is the problem when people say "Vote Blue". Sure voting Democrat/Republican for US House or lower elections does matter, Senate and Presidential elections? If you live in a Red State, a vote for the Senate or President is completely meaningless in having a say of who gets elected.
Sure, states flip from red to blue and vice versa. However, that only happens if Parties really invest in that state to change it. Parties don't have unlimited funds, they pay attention to swing states which would have a better return on investment.
It's the inherent flaw of first past the post/winner take all style of voting.
That's rather f'ed up.
That's not even the worst...
Our House of representatives is supposed to make up for it, but each rep represents over 20x the people they did when the country was founded.
The reason we lost so much representation, is the room they occasionally meet in would be too cramped if they kept adding chairs to it.
But just in general, it's almost always best to blame political leaders for a government's actions and not just blame every person living there.
Good and bad.
the cap on House seats was a deliberate move to restrict the power of cities/progressive forces of the time, it wasnt some accident/short-sightedness
make it more expensive to campaign (because you have to reach so many more people) and you effectively force out independent canidates
even if House seats were increased to something sane like 150-200k pop/seat (currently at 800k+, iirc), the senate effectively gives 2/3rds of national political power to 1/3rd of the country. there is no means for the House to completely bypass the Senate
What if those reps had a big, beautiful former ballroom to occupy? That would be pretty cool, someone should get on that.
Agreed, frustration gets to me, considering I come from the Middle East I tend to have very conflicting emotions, having grown up in England I appreciate law and order, equality and an attitude of live and let live. But when my friends and family are in direct danger, my anger rages.
If they do it right they only need 22% of the popular vote to win the presidentance, so yeah don't say it is all Americans that want this when such a small number is needed to win.