Hacker News Reader

Comment by mothballed | Hacker News Reader

The US is not a democracy. The majority did not want this war.

Though the majority will help bear the costs, and several family members will grieve dearly for the sacrifice of entertaining some brutal geopolitics that do not serve America first.

View on HN

America is a democratic republic, not a direct democracy. The only restriction is the president can’t declare war, only congress can do that.

They are pretending these strikes are “preemptive” in response to a nuclear bomb being developed, just like the “emergency” that was declared to enact the tariffs.

It’s all illegal

If it were a democratic republic, as you say, the representatives would have to vote on war. Representatives would also have to vote before 190,000 pages of CFRs are created by unelected bureaucrats and then enforced as if they were law (sometimes, by the exact same bureaucrats that write the rules they enforce as law [ATF for example]).

Most of what people think they know about this country is a facade. They are living on lies, confirmed to them through the legitimization of a SCOTUS that lies to your very eyes about what the constitution says, so that people don't rebel when a politician tells them peace is war and love is hate.

When is the last war congress officially declared?

WW2

The United States is a Constitutional Republic.

It’s both?

The majority absolutely voted for this war. You're attacking the democracy when you insist that the elected politicians following through on campaign planks are not representing the country. That's exactly how this works.

Wait, I'm confused, wasn't the campaign plank to end wars??

How do you go from a campaign motto of "No new wars" to "War with Iran" and still maintain it was a central campaign plank of the Trump Admin?

> geopolitics that do not serve America first

IDK, "America first" is practically speaking, the financial interests of the current president and his ruling clique, nothing more. This does serve them by, among other things, distracting from the Epstein files and asserting lucrative control over petroleum-producing nations. These brave servicemen died for that.

I have been quite impressed by UK politics.

Entertain paedophiles ... land up in jail. Be rude and patronizing to women, there goes your prime-ministership. Keep it that way please.

Accountability feels so rare in recent US politics.

What UK Prime Minister lost their office because they were rude and patronising to women?

Starmer is still in office, Sunak lost because the Tories were unpopular and because he didn’t win an election to get the Prime Ministership, Johnson lost because during Covid people stayed at the office a little bit longer and had a birthday party, teresa May lost because she couldn’t deliver Brexit, Cameron lost because he gave people a vote on Brexit, Brown lost for the same reasons as Sunak, Blair lost because of the Iraq war.

You left out Liz Truss, which is understandable really.

Liz Truss lost because she was barking mad, manifestly wildly out of her depth and her and her think tank buddies tanked the economy. She was rude and patronising to women (but only because she was rude and patronising to everyone).

Now that you ask, the name eludes me. Am I misremembering ? was he an MP who lost office? I certainly remember a flurry of news reports.

PM Gordon Brown did call a female voter "bigoted" on a hot mic (1) - with some justification actually, as she did say some unpleasant anti-immigrant rhetoric. Mr Brown lost an election shortly after, but this incident was not in itself what brought him down.

1) https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/full-conversation-betwee...

Ah yes that was it. Thank you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com