TLDR: No they won't
The peace candidate usually wins, and President Trump promised repeatedly on the campaign trail that not only would he not start wars, but he would end existing conflicts. But we’ve heard it all before. George W. Bush was elected promising a “more humble” foreign policy. After eight years of Bush’s Middle East wars, Obama was elected as the “new” peace candidate. However soon the “Saddam must go” of the Bush era became “Assad must go” and “Gaddafi must go” in the Obama era. Trump was elected after Biden took us to the brink of war with Russia over Ukraine. He promised that this time he would be the real peace candidate. We got war on Iran instead – a war that we did not win and cannot win.
What would we think of a Peace President who cowered when confronted and allowed widespread catastrophe?
That is, it is conceivable that a person might promise, "I will start no new wars" and yet decisively act with, "I will engage in a war if drawn into one, to protect our citizens."
We may argue whether or not that happened but that is different than scorning a peacemaker who may have been compelled to respond. We do not know many things and should be cautious about our opinions formed in our ignorance.
My bigger concern is whether democrats will overread their mandate
They're going to be Democrats. They'll make it illegal to draw Muhammed.
I'd like to see them try
110% they are based off of what I am seeing in DC right now.... I am working on a post about it cause MAN is it getting wild up here with the Freshman Dems and their supporters
We keep pendulum swinging between extremes because republicans and democrats all seem to over-read their mandates. It's probably because of the echo chambers they all exist in. Voters repudiated Biden and the crazy libs, then voters repudiated Trump and his crazy MAGA. But no one seems to learn the lesson that regular voters are much more moderate than either party has become.
The military-industrial complex is too powerful
Iran is a democrat war, started in 79 under Carter... arguably that though is just a continuation of what the British (globalists) started in 1941.
Big fan of Ron Paul, participated in his 08 campaign, and got to meet him a few times since. That was back when he personally pointed out the history of these situations.
Unfortunate how his name is now used by an institution running information operations to corral short-sighted retards that can't grasp ending a nearly century long quagmire isn't as simple as they are.