Some dork with 200,000 followers saying the CCP is bad probably has 1/1,000,000,000th the influence on your average Americans opinion than one Fox News or CNN host has.
And on the flip side them stanning the CCP would have a similarly meaningless affect.
So idk why we spend so much time getting pissy at them for their hot takes when all when all of them disappearing tomorrow wouldn’t change anything.
Partially. In general, you can see from election results that the American people are pretty subtly anti-war, which is why so much consent needs to be manufactured and they can't ever be given a meaningful opportunity to express that desire with a major candidate.
That's a great bit of clarification. People do lean anti-war (at least "real" wars that the U.S. directly fights); it's more the endless variety of regional crises that most people tune out entirely. No appreciable amount of votes are determined by our relationship with Saudi Arabia, for instance.
15 years ago this would have been a laughable idea. Today, maybe not.
2004 is like the only election in thirty years where the candidate perceived as being more pro-war and pro-interventionist won.
1980? 1984? 1988? 2000?
Reagan and Bush and Bush were less interventionist than Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, and Gore?
Sorry, I meant 30 years from today. But yes, Bush in 2000 was perceived as less interventionist than Gore. This history has been completely forgotten, but he ran against expanding America's NATO and UN commitments.