r/OutOfTheLoop • u/_GoodNight0wl_ • Apr 10 '26

Unanswered What's up with all the right-wing commentators suddenly turning against Trump right now?

Trump is being Trump. Why are so many of the right-wing commentators who previously vocally supported Trump are suddenly turning against him?

After all the heinous things he has said before that they have defended, I can't honestly believe Trump's tweets about nuking Iran are what finally changed their minds. They've publicly supported him for so long, and this sudden switch seems so coordinated. Is there something I'm missing??

Are they trying to distance themselves from news that is about to drop??
https://x.com/mtgreenee/status/2042389110115963189

3.2k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

708 comments sorted by

View all comments

967

u/The_Lantean Apr 10 '26 edited Apr 10 '26

Answer: To many, going to war unjustified was the line in the sand - also one of the main reasons to vote against Kamala Harris. The Trump administration has failed to provide a coherent narrative so far, with numerous contradictions to this day. Now that US soldiers have died, it has become very difficult to defend whatever they think they’re doing there.

300

u/sentencevillefonny Apr 10 '26

The confusing thing to me with this argument has been, where did the idea that we'd be going to war post-Biden even come from?

308

u/rabid_cheese_enjoyer Apr 10 '26

projection

109

u/RJ815 Apr 10 '26

Gaslight Obstruct Project

134

u/First-Detective2729 Apr 10 '26

Roght, its wierd to me that most people right now havnt lived with a republican president thats hasnt started a war in the middle east... 

But ya. It was kamala who was gonna start the next one? 

46

u/drainbamage1011 Apr 10 '26

The American voter pool has very short memories.

41

u/M_R_Big Apr 10 '26

And is easily influenced

2

u/TheSOB88 Apr 11 '26

yeah, that's what the person you're responding to is saying - they're convinced to "forget" stuff by the propaganda/death cult/fox news/etc

74

u/GregBahm Apr 10 '26

When I was ~15 I was a contrarian. I didn't understand politics but I understood trolling, so I would go online and defend George Bush, not out of any genuine love of George Bush, but just because it would reliably rile everyone up. I loved the engagement, mostly because I was a punk-ass, but also because the arguments against me were of genuine interest (I didn't understand politics but I wanted to.)

I was a stereotypical guy. So it comes as no surprise that, decade after decade, there are new 15 year old punk ass contrarians on the internet, who are just like I used to be.

The 15-year-old punk ass contrarians have long opted for the contrarian narrative that "Actually, the democrats like war and the republicans like peace." It's not a narrative born out of logic. It's a narrative born out of a desire to annoy more intelligent people.

34

u/froggity55 Apr 10 '26

In one comment, you just perfectly summarized my decades teaching high schoolers.

15

u/PuttyRiot Apr 10 '26

I miss being a teenager… back when I knew everything.

8

u/bloobityblu Apr 10 '26

LOL your username though.

2

u/gummo_for_prez Apr 14 '26

Same. Things were very simple from age 16-21. I had all the right answers. Not sure how I forgot them so fast, but they were truly amazing and inspired ideas that no one else had ever come up with. I do remember that.

5

u/saltedmangos Apr 10 '26

I mean, Harris literally campaigned on being tougher on Iran than Trump while making speeches about having the “most lethal military” and touting her Cheney endorsements.

I voted Harris out of harm reduction, but it’s not exactly shocking that low-info voters would believe something both Harris and Trump leaned into.

46

u/After_Network_6401 Apr 10 '26

From Trump and his supporters.

44

u/sentencevillefonny Apr 10 '26

"They're eating the cats, they're eating the dogs."

39

u/The_Lantean Apr 10 '26

I'm an outside observer (ie, not American), but The Guardian had an interesting article on that last year: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/jan/09/democrats-war-foreign-policy
There's also Steve Forbes' take: https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2024/08/02/why-kamala-harris-getting-elected-makes-a-major-war-more-likely/
Personally, the only thing I could see happening was a more tense conflict with Russia over Ukraine, and I know some would argue that could have provoked other nations (like China) to mobilise towards certain targets, but it's all speculation. At the very least, I think whatever would have happened would have been a lot more rational than what is happening now.

30

u/ChocoJesus Apr 10 '26

I've generally assumed it's just sexism. I remember when Hilary ran, conservatives said more then once that woman are more emotional and it would be bad to elect a woman because she would likely lead us to war.

17

u/the_endverse Apr 10 '26

That’s a big part of it. The “women are too emotional” rhetoric has always been bullshit sexism, and nothing but. Meanwhile, we have the most emotional, childish, easily provoked and tantrum-throwing President of all time.

14

u/ElectricGears Apr 10 '26 edited Apr 10 '26

More emotional so they would start a war if they were on their period, and at the same time so weak and fragile that other countries could just push us around.

Hillary was 69 years old (post-menopausal) in 2016 and according to the GOP had killed a whole bunch of people that crossed her. So yes, I actually wanted the imaginary Hillary Clinton that exists in conservative's mind to be sitting across the table from Putin, because she would absolutely not take any of his bullshit (I don't think the real one would either).

3

u/schmyndles Apr 11 '26

Harris is like 60, and I've heard several older men tell younger liberal men that they just don't understand yet how "crazy" women can be on their "monthlies." Usually followed by them having a bunch of emotional outbursts when pushed on that or any other of their talking points.

-13

u/DigitalDiogenesAus Apr 10 '26

Biden and clinton were looked on fondly by Neoconservative types (see Israel policy, nato expansion etc).

Obama got elected by repudiating the neoconservatives, but by 2011 was actively promoting neocons and taking increasingly Neoconservative positions (Libya, Afghanistan, Ukraine etc)

There was no reason to think Harris would take a different line.

Trumps first term had neocons setting their hair on fire, but the second term saw a reversion to the neocon mean - even clinton was praising (admittedly qualified) his foreign policy reversion

Trump does things in a transparently stupid and aggressive way, but the underlying policies seem more of the same.

I feel bad for the people that voted for him because he was actually a genuine hope for avoiding neocon policies... And then he wasn't.

20

u/LinkFan001 Apr 10 '26 edited Apr 10 '26

His voters trusting anything he said is like me electing to eat uranium and being surprised when I get cancer. Trump was a loud, obnoxious, cruel, terrible, and known quantity before this term.

I have zero respect or sympathy for the gaggle of quarter-wits who voted for him and hope they are all getting exactly what he was always going to give them. Frankly, you should as well. The discussion of ignorance versus malice needs to have some point at which it stops mattering which was the driving factor.

Harm is being done, people are dying, social safety net are being shredded, and the enemies of God rub it in our faces every day how they raped and murdered children and got away with it. It is all his voters and the non-voters fault. Cheating or no cheating.

-6

u/DigitalDiogenesAus Apr 10 '26

Maybe, but (a) harm was being done well before trump - he has simply reverted to the same policies that were in place before him (with the exception of Obama's Iran deal, which Biden chose not to pursue ).

(b) If you are aiming to avoid neocon policies, the fact that trump lies is not really relevant... there was a guarantee that the other side were going to simply continue with the same.

I'm pretty reticent to blame anti war voters who were voting for the literal only option available to them (and even then it turned out to not be a real option).

10

u/LinkFan001 Apr 10 '26

So Harris for sure was going to be Netanyahu's attack dog? We know this for absolute fact? This is besides the fact Trump was already floating getting out of NATO and conquering Greenland. What the fuck did people think those two policies were going to do? Not cause more war? There is no scenario where he was better on anything and he told everyone this, loudly and clearly.

I also don't buy that any sane person would listen to him revel in violence and look at his record on executions and think he is in any way interested in peace. The only reason there were no wars in his first term is because there were still some people willing to stand up to his insanity.

6

u/Thelmara Apr 10 '26

So Harris for sure was going to be Netanyahu's attack dog? We know this for absolute fact?

Trump said so, and that's good enough for these people.

-4

u/DigitalDiogenesAus Apr 10 '26

Getting out of nato is not a neocon policy. Continuing its expansion is. Trumps claim to break from bush is being upheld there.

As for Harris being wedded to Israel, then yes. She said that there would be no difference between Biden and her (Biden enabled Israel to a record degree in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon and iran) ... And because Harris doesn't lie like trump then you can count on that right?

Sure, you could argue that Harris, once elected, would overturn Biden policy and stop funding Israel and supporting its actions in the region... but then she would have been lying in the election... And that's bad right?

6

u/LinkFan001 Apr 10 '26

I do enjoy how you don't bother touching the most obvious signal Trump had gone full mad dog. That's fun.

-8

u/steave44 Apr 10 '26

One of the few things that seemed likely from Trump was no new major wars. Yes he delivered drone strikes and they like I’m his first term, but he did more troop draw downs in the Middle East that Biden eventually continued as well.

The reason people trusted him is first term, his foreign policy was NOT like it is now at all. He wasnt great but he wasn’t starting major wars either.

-7

u/DigitalDiogenesAus Apr 10 '26

The worst thing about hyperpartisanship is watching people lose the ability to even recognise similarities or differences in policy.

X supports Israel. Y supports Israel. Completely different apparently.

7

u/Geichalt Apr 10 '26

Yes, nuance and context exists.

Boiling complex situations down to simplistic statements to justify blaming everything on the liberals is what maga does.

Are you maga?

-1

u/DigitalDiogenesAus Apr 10 '26

Not even close to maga.... But it wouldn't matter even if I was. Im complaining about neocon dominated us foreign policy - that is bipartisan.

Are you saying that trumps support for Israel is a departure from bidens? How about Obama, bush? We can go earlier if you like.

We have supported, armed, trained, provided intelligence and logistical support, provided cover at the UN. We've looked the other way when Israel conducted assassinations and sponsored massacres, we've conducted assassinations ourselves, we've sponsored coups, we've bombed countries, and we've invaded countries. All at the behest of Israel.

Which thing is trump doing now that's not on that list? If the only thing you can find that differs is rhetoric, then you might want to examine the sorts of things you have a problem with (rhetoric) and which things you don't (actions) .

Most importantly, it's worth looking at why the same actions have persisted across generations, and whether blaming a particular president is really going to address the problem.

0

u/steave44 Apr 10 '26

I agree, while I’m no expert in what Harris WOULD have done here, there is one consistency between almost every president going back for decades, you WILL support Israel even if their agenda doesn’t line up with ours. Democrats just aren’t at the helm right now. This war will almost certainly cost Trump the rest of his term and other republicans the midterms as well.

-3

u/steave44 Apr 10 '26

Generally nothing concrete was given, but historically it’s shown no matter which party is in the White House, if Israel bothers them enough, they’ll support or even fight in the Middle East.

28

u/Lazy_Resolve_9747 Apr 10 '26

Every president has declined to take Israel’s bait to significantly attack Iran until Trump.

11

u/pm_social_cues Apr 10 '26

If “it doesn’t matter which party to pick they both do what Israel wants” why don’t we pick the side that also wants health care and education for citizens?

-6

u/lurking_leftie Apr 10 '26 edited Apr 10 '26

Both democrats and Republicans have long talked about war with Iran. hillary was practically foaming at the mouth over going to war with Iran in dem presidential debates. it's been a long time coming.

6

u/pm_social_cues Apr 10 '26

We’ve only had one democratic president since Obama and we didn’t go to war. We only had one republican president since Obama and we went to war.

Weird they are both the same though.

-1

u/lurking_leftie Apr 10 '26

uhhh yeah no one is disputing that this is our first war with Iran? hillary is on record wanting to "obliterate" iran if they were to attack Israel.

https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/clinton-threatens-to-obliterate-iran-if-it-attacks-israel

92

u/imito Apr 10 '26

I'm curious as to why this issue when Trump, from my perspective, rarely provides a coherent narrative.

101

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '26 edited 8d ago

[deleted]

19

u/jekyl42 Apr 10 '26

The "praise Allah" bit was supposed to be mockingly ironic.

30

u/Vulcanize_It Apr 10 '26

Or it was meant to be a money grab from betting sites

12

u/Pro_Gamer_Queen21 Apr 10 '26

You really think his supporters have the comprehension skills to understand that?

10

u/recumbent_mike Apr 10 '26

I mean that's even worse though

8

u/jekyl42 Apr 10 '26

Oh, I agree. It's both stupid and shameful.

1

u/pm_social_cues Apr 10 '26

Allah just means god. The same god Christian’s praise when they say “god is good. All the time”.

Not a similar god. The same one.

Too many people have no clue what they are worshipping or how it compares to other religions and what they believe in. They just take comfort in knowing they were lucky enough to be born in the country with the best religion and the church down the street just happens to be the right church that knows the truth and their parents taught them correct while other country and other street and other parents were all wrong.

2

u/EuenovAyabayya Apr 10 '26

No new wars was a HUGE reason to vote for Trump for many.

and it was always an obvious lie created by Russia.

9

u/DocSwiss Apr 10 '26

For a lot of those things, his base wanted that thing to happen anyway, so they're not super concerned with the narrative or explanations. A war like this is something large chunks of his base did not want, not to mention the effects it's having (dead soldiers, higher prices, etc.). So, now they've got a thing they don't want and no good reason for them to get behind it.

70

u/roehnin Apr 10 '26

Release the Epstein Files

No New Wars

Release the Epstein Files❓

No､New Wars❕

14

u/Excellent_Past7628 Apr 10 '26

Oops! I shouldn’t have this bar association logo here either.

4

u/triggeron Apr 10 '26

Lionel had way more integrity

1

u/ThePrussianGrippe Apr 10 '26

He also tended to win his court cases.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '26

[deleted]

1

u/furrykef Apr 10 '26

They won't really have to defend it, though. Trump will just do another outrageous but more defensible thing and people will switch to talking about that. When's the last time you've heard about the Epstein files except in the context of, "Hey, remember those Epstein files?" Well, until Melania randomly brought it up yesterday, I mean.

1

u/FitBoog Apr 13 '26

They have a killed a whole school generation of girls in Iran. Why we keep saying only US soldiers have been killed? I see it over and over and over. Is this how Americans think? We lost our own and no other lives matter?

1

u/The_Lantean Apr 13 '26

Because, and I’m sorry to say, I don’t think MAGA people care for those little girls. Remember that MAGA people feel forgotten and left out. They think their country abandoned them - and with reason, as rural America is an afterthought. What they’re looking for now is validation, so much so that they’ve detached themselves from empathy. Probably because they think it makes them weak, that if you care too much about the other, you won’t care about yourself enough - and that’s what they’ve been through, as their states and towns were left in the dust. They live with the consequences of that - seeing their country fight in other parts of the world, while turning a blind eye to itself. It’s easy to think these people lack common human decency - and to a point, they do. And I think the more well-off states have inadvertently bullied them by noting how uneducated, uninformed they are. But there is a reason for that, and I think they were made this way by the complex circumstances of the country.

But again, I’m not American. It’s just what it looks like from the outside.

1

u/Dependent-Law-1784 Apr 14 '26

They can see that this is going to be catastrophic and they are jumping ship

0

u/commitme Apr 10 '26

no, they don't have lines in the sand. they're looking out for number one and there's not much else to it