'You are no longer my mother': How the election is dividing American families | Hacker News Reader

'You are no longer my mother': How the election is dividing American families

reuters.com

61 pointsandrewon101 comments

As an atheist growing up in a fundamentalist Christian family, I learned a long time ago that maintaining relationships required tact and self-restraint. That practice makes it easy to also maintain friendships across political divides.

But some of my deepest regrets are the times when I was timidly silent while bigotry was voiced.

In addition to the intrinsic value of family and community, I think we can catalyze change in our communities if we refuse to dehumanize the people we disagree with and engage them with empathy. But it's also easy to lapse into mere complicity.

> As an atheist growing up in a fundamentalist Christian family, I learned a long time ago that maintaining relationships required tact and self-restraint. That practice makes it easy to maintain friendships across political divides, too.

I learned that self-restraint too. But then there was point where I realized that it is all fundamentally unfair and biased. I had to be careful not to voice opinions to keep good relationships. If I would openly disagree, I would be seen as problem. And they would not use the same restraint nor be expected to.

One set of opinions was allowed and the other one was not. Empathy gotta go two ways.

Otherwise it is situation in which my kids hear something quite anti-semitic on occasion, but I am expected to be silent in response.

To provide a story of the opposite, I'm another atheist with very center-left politics with extremely Trumpy Christian family (they moved out to a rural area, prepping with guns and supplies, the whole nine yards) and I never took the "high road" of being silent with them when they went on their tirades.

My rule was I never brought up religion or politics, but I would defend my religion and politics to the fucking end of the earth if you bring it up, condescend to me, attack my views with conservative media talking points etc.

And my family learned, through the years, to never ever touch the subject because it isn't worth another big the-family-versus-me as I'm max volume playing evidence debunking their stories on my cellphone louder than they can shout their next narrative.

It doesn't hurt that my grandfather is known to be "extraordinarily stubborn" and so, if he can, so can I, and if they accept his, they accept mine.

The result is very civil and completely de-politicized family events. It's actually lovely for everyone. They know to turn Fox News off and keep their opinions on politics to themselves, and we've continued to have an active and healthy relationship even though they live much further away.

Standing your ground isn't a bad option, because if your family doesn't respect you at all, why would you want to be around them anyway?

The word for your grandfather would be "obdurate". Rather than stubborn or obstinate, obdurate specifically means an unwillingness to alter one's position in the face of valid argument.

This is a lovely story. Thanks.

I’m quite a bit more liberal than my family, and we manage to get on too, with basically this approach.

Over the years we’ve also found plenty of areas of agreement, if we stay off the hot button topics. It gives me some hope.

Well, you're minority amongst them, so it's you who should show restraint and politeness! /s

> I realized that it is all fundamentally unfair and biased

(apologies for the long post)

imho it's all about boundaries. You may have have a strong disagreement with a family member about a topic. But if they have a car accident you will drop everything there and then, and run to them, even if you 'hate' them for voting XYZ, or believing in Zeus or Ganesha. Silly example: when I donate blood, I don't care (EDIT: care = I am not concerned) about the religion, colour, nationality, etc of the person that will receive it. I do it to help save a life. Anyone who is a donor does it to save someone else's life.

It could be the case that your (vs your family/loved ones) lifestyles are fundamentally different i.e. you are married to a person of X religious persuasion, or Y nationality, or X colour. In which case, "hi, Boundaries, bye" and then THEY made the conscious choice to remove themselves from your life, and NOT the other way round.

In your example, (again imho) saying something anti-semitic bad, just like saying anti-black is bad, same like saying anti-(i.e.)-italian is bad, etc. I have written in this forum before, we all got 1000 reasons to dislike/separate and/or hate one-another (vegans vs meat-eaters, followers of Y religion vs followers of Z religion, ManU fans vs ManCity fans, and so on).

My definition of freedom is the following: your rights stop, where my rights begin, and my rights stop, where your rights begin. I know, this leaves a pretty large grey line. If I like Sepultura, I will use my headset but leave me alone, and I will leave you alone while you listen to your Spice Girls (using simple example to avoid passionate responses).

> I had to be careful not to voice opinions to keep good relationships.

The Minimalists say "you cannot change your friends, but you can change your friends". If you have to fake everything to be liked and accepted by a certain group, then perhaps withdraw yourself from that group? In the end it is your choice.

Sure but this is about relationships and how our government should be run.

I'm not required to be friendly to racists, even if they're family. I am not required to be meek and silent in order to preserve family unity.

I can't even say that certain "opinions" on basic human rights are even valid. Allowing it to be mooted is already giving it more credibility than it deserves.

Just be sure when you define a racist that they actually are, rather than just by association.

The trouble is that when Group A is actively dehumanizing and harming Group B (e.g. Trump immigration policy supporters are unequivocally actively harming immigrants, especially children), then if Group C acts like we can all be civil and tactful and just get along with Group A, now Group C is also directly and unequivocally harming Group B too.

If Group A holds horrific enough points of view, and this is just beyond dispute about supporting Trump at this point, then Group A effectively holds civil discourse hostage, and Group C is either in the position of negotiating with terrorists or in the position of upholding baseline acceptable civil society norms by ostracizing Group A, and Group A has not allowed Group C any other option.

We used to have the cultural value of keeping politics separate from work and (mostly) separate from family. In the workplace, this was fairly strongly enforced via the concept of "professionalism", i.e. not personal. You didn't discuss your political or religious views because the workplace wasn't the appropriate venue. On the family front, you didn't discuss religion or politics at Thanksgiving. And so on.

But, furthermore, I think, because the concept of "personal" was precisely that - personal, private. There was no social media ecosystem encouraging you to output your entire self into the public sphere. The fact that voting is private is an indicator that in the final analysis, your political opinions should be a private matter.

In the last few decades, we've seen a wholesale rejection of this idea. Instead, you should "bring your whole self to work". Your political opinions are now a key, or even the only, important part of your personality. Markers of professionalism like wearing a suit or not swearing at work are seen as antiquated.

A lot of this polarization would evaporate, IMO, if we brought back the professional-personal distinction and strongly enforced it.

This is a pure and perfect version of the past that did not exist. Bigotry was always here. And even in the few "polite" places that smacked of Leave It To Beaver that didn't talk about "those people" at the dinner table, it was just under the surface. Or, like sexism, openly accepted, so don't worry your pretty little head about it, honey. Social media did not change this.

The larger change has to do with where people get their news. It's not the same big 3 networks anymore. There are fewer actual local news sources (like papers). The stuff that's marketed to people as news is targeted but generally untethered from everyday life. It can be pretty raw ideology.

People have problems. That's society. The issue here is that society is ceasing to function because the mechanisms for addressing said problems have failed and the dam has burst, overwhelming every other aspect of life. It's unsustainable.

Remember all those nerd types that told you not to use Facebook, not to take everything serious and not to post personal information?

Yeah, they are still not popular.

There is a lot to critique at professionalism. In a good working environment you don't really need it. But otherwise you are correct. It allows for distance.

But social media companies have other goals in this regard.

I wish people were taught in school about the various manipulation techniques that are being used against them. Unfortunately that would mean currently both sides would not be voteable, but that should in the long run make democracy healthier. Currently democracy is legal, because if you have enough money you can easily manipulate people into anything, and if you can print money they your power is unrestricted. I believe that whoever wins, there will be a minor difference to day to day life, except that one side will have this group oppressed and the other side another, whoever wins. If you use divide and conquer, you need to follow up with the work against imaginary threats to be seen as trustworthy.

State committees, bureaucracies and advisory boards (it varies by state) that set school curriculum are ultimately accountable to politicians. They will never include strong education against indoctrination or how to balance a budget because that would be biting the hand that feeds them.

Look at the incentives and the outcome is obvious. Nobody wants to do things that might draw the ire of their boss's boss's boss.

They won’t do that because governments do not, in fact, need balanced budgets.

While bureaucracies are formally under politicians' control, politicians are elected, and bureaucrats are not. They easily outlast politicians, and definitely set their own conditions for politicians to follow if they don't want their orders obstructed and sabotaged.

I would hazard to say that it's in the bureaucrats' best interest to have politicians unpleasant and unqualified, of the "both worse" kind. Interestingly, quite often election candidates tend to resemble this description, at least if their opposition is to be believed.

This "both sides are the same" narrative is utter nonsense.

If one side wins, handling of Coronavirus will be based on science and medical advice. Relief bills will be passed, allowing people to pay rent. Thousands more will live. That will make a huge difference in daily life.

The last time Democrats had any real power, they gave health care to people with pre-existing conditions. That has changed my life and the lives of millions of other people.

Maybe your daily life would be the same either way. Don't try to generalize that to the rest of us.

Biden is the guy closest to Trump that the Democrats could find. Do you disagree? Democrats didn't solve any core issues in USA the last times they were elected and Biden has promised to not solve any either. Corona is a very small issue in the long run after all, USA's very short expected lifespan compared to countries with similar wealth kills way more people every single year and nobody has a solution. Instead they squabble over minor things when millions of preventable deaths happens every single year. I'd argue that any candidate who doesn't acknowledge the issue and aims to fix it is not a valid candidate. Obama at least tried even though his solution failed.

There are very important differences between Biden and Trump. Why do you think there aren’t?

> There are very important differences between Biden and Trump

There is one I can see right away Biden is not gloating about his family side hustles.

They are both turds, sides of same coin, and both are evidence that current system is broken.

If you are given choice between two thieves and you are arguing that one stole less in the past so its better choice, then you don't see the irony of your 'free choice'.

Sure voting biden is clearly better outcome but the system is intact.

You have a free choice, especially in the primaries. You could've voted for a democratic socialist or a libertarian.

But in the end, if your candidate isn't popular, you vote is wasted.

So I guess what I'm saying is that in any democracy, anyone who isn't toward the middle is probably going to have to compromise (possibly a lot).

> Biden is the guy closest to Trump that the Democrats could find. Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree strongly. For what sense of "closest" do you think this is true?

The other side thinks their political opponent is just as deluded and misguided too. That's the problem.

In my nieces school (public school in Phoenix) they had to watch “the social dilemma” and write about it.

I was trying to explain to her how tik tok, Instagram etc. will try to influence her thinking, and she was basically like “Uncle Ryan yes I know. It’s an algorithm that wants to make you mad. We learned about it in school.”

I was proud.

It still does work if you know about it and still use the service.

People should be free to allow themselves to be enraged by an algorithm if they want to, just as they should be free to drink alcohol.

My problems with social media are that they aren't transparent about the rage-inducing nature of their algorithms and that they are monopolies. Those of us who want to opt out of the rage are also forced to opt out of our online friends and families.

No school can protect you against social engineering except if you study psychology then you can recognize threats and try to dodge them.

Going to catholic high school did a good job of teaching this.

However, it was an atypical catholic school. It that taught the dark ages honestly: “We let the Catholic Church run Europe for a few hundred years... It turns out that’s a terrible idea”. They also had a few months of “how to avoid cults” in religion class, and a separate, well-done world religions semester.

They had a Spanish language “if you want justice fight for peace” poster up (the officially sanctioned Catholic US translation is “work for peace”) and covered multiple instances of the Catholic church working to overthrow corrupt dictatorships, and also covered the abuses of global captialism in a semester on social justice.

That was all mandatory.

I also remember a talk a holocaust survivor gave proudly proclaiming that the Catholics in Germany overwhelmingly voted against the Nazis.

Don’t get me wrong; even that school was offensively conservative in many ways, just as the rest of the church is.

I think the obvious cognitive dissonance mostly just helped most students develop their BS detectors.

It’s been shocking to hear which right wingers from that crowd are voting for Biden this year.

Isn't school one of those manipulation techniques?

To add a fresh view on this:

Not American, so outside this particular story, but these artifacts of language are causing people to isolate, index on invisible and intangible impressions, confuse real people with symbols and objects, and act out by attacking people who they perceive as representing reflections of their internal model.

When you abstract away the meaning from television, the internet and entertainment, and look at what people physically do, they sit in front of a flickering light, talk themselves into a froth, and then go out and kill each other. There is a virus, and it is causing mass panic. It dislodges your ability to index on your physical experience of self and replaces it with an externally reflected one transmitted through language and filtered through an ego that has been isolated and fed like a foie gras duck or a veal calf. Whether you want to call it evil, a virus, society, or poor upbringing, doesn't matter. If it's words, it's a filtered reflection, and very likely a simulation for the virus to propagate its primitives and make a place for itself in your mind.

I don't see how this view could be any crazier than the ones causing people to wreck their own relationships and societies. If you can, help others step back.

No one is the villain in their own narrative.

Approach people with a good faith belief that everyone want's the world to be a better place. They may be misguided, manipulated or misinformed, but they want a better world and a better life just like you do. And if your especially gifted with an open mind, accept that informed, intelligent, people of good will can look at the same facts and reach different conclusions about policy.

amen to this, if there's anything that's present across the political spectrum: hubris and joylessness

We could only be so lucky if they looked at facts instead of dismissing them as some new elaborate hoax, concocted just in time on Facebook.

This is what my approach is, but I've found that it's very difficult to find people who disagree with me, but do so in good faith, and who are just as willing to be skeptical of their own beliefs as they are of mine, and I am of mine.

I know from my personal growth that I've been wrong often in my beliefs about what is true in the world, and so I must account for that. I'm always prepared to change my mind when faced with contradictory facts. Unfortunately this is not a very common mindset.

We are slaves to ideology and ego.

I'm sometimes a villain. I try to avoid it. I try to accept and acknowledge it when I am. Hard as it is, I have even apologized for what I have done to people who did not expect, let alone demand, an apology.

There are people who don't act in good faith. People who will harm those who love them because those who love them deserve it. Thinking about it as agreeing to disagree is a categorical error.

This is orthogonal to familial obligations one might observe. It is healthy to recognize that difference. To recognize that observance does not require assuming good will. By not making one's self vulnerable in the way that such an assumption makes one vulnerable.

There are times for "my colleagues on the other side of the aisle." And there times to accept that some people are harmful to one's well being.

> but they want a better world and a better life just like you do

Who they want that better world and better life for differs, though. Who they include, and who they exclude, matters, and how do you communicate around that difference?

Y'all realize the silliness here? People are willing to end their family ties due to becoming a fan for a political figure. I don't care which side you are on, but to be hateful against someone close to you, literally an individual that would, I don't know, give/lend you money to eat if you're broke, just because they "support" someone. And yes, it's a two way street, which makes it even sicker.

99% of people will never meet these humans playing government. Which is all they are. Flawed humans.

No matter how good or bad you think a politician is, you shouldn't revolve your life around them and their ideals. Just basing your personal ideals on someone else's bullshit marketing platform just so you can have an easy category bias against people is pretty fucked up. In truth, if you're a pro-politician anything, you're generally a complete idiot. Yea, unpopular opinion. But that was the real lesson from WW2. Don't follow any type of political trend or leader, no matter how well intentioned because the road to Hell is paved in good intentions. Make your decisions for yourself and judge people on their own character and actions. But hey, everyone loves a good witch hunt mixed with a lynching.

It’s twitter. I genuinely believe in the next 10 years or less, twitter will be looked at the way we look at cigarettes.

There was a point when cigarettes were looked at as a mere nuisance, but eventually we as a society realized how terrible they are for us.

That’s twitter. And to be clear: I mean twitter specifically. Facebook and the others are bad as well, but twitter is by far the worst. Tech journalists don’t tend to write about it though since they are the ones using it. They’d rather write about Facebook.

You know: those dastardly OTHERS who are RUINING things and need to better. Pay attention!

I disagree. Mainly because Twitter doesn't mix politics and relationships as much as the average Facebook feed. Most people don't use twitter to interact with their family - it's Facebook where idealogical differences start harming real world relationships.

If you can't forgive people for their mistakes, that says more about you than about them.

Let's not lose nuance about the scales of "mistakes" about Transcendental Meditation or bell bottoms with taking and placing children in concentration camps (places where people are kept against their will, but not killed) when beliefs and choices reveal fundamental attributes about a person such as their ability to be manipulated, willingness to ignore criminal behavior, and acceptance of scapegoating as a panacea.

Does forgiveness forget, condone, or excuse reprehensible behavior? If not, then how do we punish brutal malice that suddenly becomes normalized?

As not Godwinnian, how do we forgive the next Nazi supporters?

Also, perhaps these times provide a unique opportunity to identify who are truly awful human beings?

First of all, Obama had already been putting immigrants in concentration camps, so I don't think that example works towards an argument of "this time it's beyond the pale". And "but think of the children!" is a very old trope.

Forgiveness is about letting go of anger, of putting aside mistakes of the past. It doesn't mean you stop seeking justice, or holding people accountable. And seeking justice is complex.

Nazi supporters should be forgiven just like anybody else. They should be tried and held responsible based on laws, but holding a grudge is counter-productive.

Every human being is awful. That's what I think some people are missing here. There's nothing inherently more rotten in a Nazi than in you, you've just lived a different experience. You might have ended up a Nazi if you were unfortunate enough to grow up on the wrong side of life. And even Nazis can be rehabilitated, like prisoners can. But that doesn't happen just by punishing them.

In a certain sense these 'truly awful' people are just ethically sick and need help. Are you going to go out of your way to help these people? Or, like the lepers, will you shun them? Is that latter decision just or ethical?

Nobody has a responsibility to help anyone in this world, but when we choose to, we are exercising a morality that benefits us in multiple ways. On the other hand, when people look at others as less than them, and use that as justification to treat them poorly, that's what's really unjust.

Voting for someone you might not agree with is a mistake now?

> A September report by the non-partisan Pew Research Center found that nearly 80% of Trump and Biden supporters said they had few or no friends who supported the other candidate.

As someone in the other 20% there are some weird things going on that are kind of new, for example, I can see that the caricatures of "the other side" are pretty inaccurate. "Both sides" care about different things, they weigh different things differently, the thing they don't like about the other side isn't what the other side weighs heavily or actively thinks about at all.

Yes, whatever side immediately came to mind is different from what someone else immediately thought of.

No, I'm not saying "both sides are the same".

Yes, there are some things done the same and it is weird that people tune out as soon as "both sides" was said in any context whatsoever, as if there is a better word to convey the same message.

Yes, someone on the other side was just as quick to say the exact same thing to convince me that both sides are not remotely similar and cannot be mentioned in the same context. How original and unique.

Yes, it's weird that you all aren't talking to each other and don't even realize you're both doing the same things to maintain cohesion and temporary power by vilifying everyone that's not putting your party on a pedestal, whether they actually are on "the other side" or simply not repeating the stances verbatim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

It seems like this article solely blames Trump for this state of affairs. There's no agency given to the people who break off relationships based on political disagreement. It's all Trump's fault for being the most polarizing figure in the world today.

There's no question he's polarizing, but you can't blame him for every disagreement.

My suggestion - don't disown your family over Trump.

I've disowned by family for their willingness to reject common and simple facts, their hostile attitude, their repeated willingness to denigrate all I stand for, and an utter lack of self-awareness. I'll let you guess who they vote for, because I can't be bothered to care.

Did they reject you or only some facts and something you cared for?

What's the difference? Let me quote them directly:

"Oh, you're one of THOSE people." (What people?)

"Trump is not being impeached." (Simple to verify, not up for debate.)

"Biden is not Trump's opponent." (Didn't need to be questioned, but apparently it's also up for debate?)

"There is no truth." (Then what are we talking about?)

"You can't trust CNN." (But anyone with a YouTube account and a webcam is trustworthy.)

"Vindman is from Ukraine, so we don't know what his loyalties are." (You can't tell how trustworthy a person is based on where they were born. Textbook racism.)

"Watch the DOJ." (My spy van is in the shop and I lack a desire to confirm your biases.)

"I love you." (You can't cross a bridge after you've just burned it to the ground.)

The fact is, a person can only form correct beliefs if they test those beliefs in the crucible of reality. Sitting on the couch in some shit-smelling hoarder's hovel living off of your retirement is not a recipe for finding the truth.

Beliefs must have consequences, and as a consequence of their beliefs, they won't be seeing me alive again. It's really the least I can do. I'm not interested in playing a stooge for them to gleefully fling their ignorance at.

The difference is that your beliefs are not you. Beliefs change and you remain. They disagree with your beliefs but not with you. They do love you.

We all have family members from which we, either actively or passively, have disconnected because of their beliefs. In the past we just called them crazy people but now "crazy" and "politics" are joined at the hip. For me it was relatives who started believing 9/11 conspiracy theories. Then Obama was a secret muslim. Then climate change was a "China hoax". Then came rants against vaccinations. Today, masks are a democrat tool to wipe out old people. The final inevitable descent into madness will be flat earth. That hasn't come to them yet but it will. Not wanting to witness that final plunge, a few years ago some of the younger members of the family actively disconnected from them. We do not invite them to family gatherings and stay away from those at which they may appear.

It is a cliche, but it is about the kids. We don't want the new generation hearing speeches about how chinese people are out to destroy democracy, or how teachers are all liars because schools teach "the climate hoax". There is only so much crazy we can mitigate.

You forgot "Little children were not mass murdered at school and the grieving parents are all faking it". The beliefs espoused by certain people are abhorrent to the point that you wonder if they're still human beings.

We aren't a very gun-heavy family and so the crisis actors subject has not come up.

Personally for me, it was the double standards of boomers that made me raise my voice within the family. My grandparents came "illegally" from Europe. Caging their kids would have caused outrage. They are outraged at trees dying in their parks but its ok if entire cities drown elsewhere. White mentally deranged criminal => "poor kid", black criminal "those uncivilized people". We want tax cuts but we also want massive social security and medicare payments.

And the worst of all, the mental gymnastics to justify Trump's actions.

I raised my voice and have only cursory ties with them. My entire life is ahead of me and I don't want to go back to their era of bigotry. These boomers will die in 15 years but I can't leave their racist, sexist and selfish legacy to myself and my children.

This article is getting flagged and unflagged repeatedly.

Because it is about US politics directly. Per the guidelines:

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics

PS - I didn't flag, or unflag the story. Just providing context.

Sometimes I feel like a real piece of crap for being relieved that my father isn't around to have these arguments with. I'm 99% sure he would be a staunch Trump supporter if he didn't pass away several months before the 2016 election.

Not to say I don't miss the hell out of him.. but statements like "I don't remember being raised by a racist" when he'd throw around racial slurs to describe the then-current president led to a few fights that I didn't know how to reconcile. It felt like it was out of left field because I never saw such crap in my family growing up, but all of a sudden he was flooding with it because he didn't like Obama.

> I'm 99% sure he would be a staunch Trump supporter

And that somehow automatically makes him a bad person? If you truly think that, I recommend rethinking your priorities and taking a self reflection look.

I'm 99% certain they never called their father a bad person.

Didn't say it would.

My father was my best friend. He had flaws, like any of us. He was difficult to deal with when it came to politics because it could never be an 'agree to disagree' type of deal that I strive for whenever I disagree with somebody.. but we did so much together and it was really hard when we had to bury him.

If he voted for Trump then so be it, I'd shake my head and get in the truck for that fishing trip he wants to take me on because that's way more important to me.

I'm honestly not surprised that this was the reaction coming from a leftist. Cutting off your mother for voting for Trump, even if you disagree with him, is just loathsome and disgusting. This is peak virtue signaling and cancel culture.

> “He specifically told me, ‘You are no longer my mother, because you are voting for Trump’,” Gomez, 41, a personal care worker in Milwaukee, told Reuters. Their last conversation was so bitter that she is not sure they can reconcile, even if Trump loses his re-election bid.

I have a pretty strong suspicion that they didn't have the greatest relationship before that final moment. Otherwise, that's a massive over-reaction (same as it would be if the vote were reversed).

My worry that has happened with Trump’s presidency is the normalization that has occurred. For example, it is not my impression or understanding that Trump has any actual policies or stances and that he does not actually do any presiding. My understanding is that if he is not rallying, he is either tweeting, vacationing, or watching TV and barely takes on more than a few meetings a day. A president who reportedly spends upwards of six to eight hours a day watching TV is no president. The problem is that he is simply a caricature of a president, letting others do the actual policing making and tasks behind the scenes. For example, Trump doesn’t have anything to do with his own supposed immigration policies. They’re primarily written by a third generation Jewish immigrant who somehow is a white supremacist.

The secondary effect of this normalization is the normalization of hate. That is, the idea that these policies rooted in hate and bigotry are somehow normalized into legitimate stances. It’s mind boggling to me that a person with the last name of Gomez as found in the article could somehow support policies that have Mexican children in concentration camps on U.S. soil. We’re all immigrants here who forcefully took this land. It’s mind boggling that anyone in the U.S. could hate immigrants enough to want them treated the way the Trump “presidency” has.

It’s just very concerning. A president who is not a president is treated as one, and it legitimatizes his hateful and ignorant words. Trump likely has clinical personality disorders, and I would not be surprised if his mental capacity is extremely low. He took on running for presidency as yet another attempt to recover his brand and be a source of revenue, and it’s in all likelihood that if he loses, he will be launching his own TV network, i.e. continuing to abuse his presidency to further his brand. He basically only won in the first place due to the undue influence of Robert Mercer, a living breathing Bond villain.

Trump is a literal cancer and has been used as a character actor by the Republican Party. That is it. Whether someone dislikes Democrats or whatever, you cannot argue for the legitimacy of Trump and his presidency.

A lot of this is due to the blatantly undemocratic actions Republicans have been taking to maintain their hold on power. There was a lot of this sort of familial strife during the run-up to the Civil War.

Both sides, for different reasons, feel increasingly frustrated that their political wills aren't being fulfilled, and Trump's pure recklessness in, basically stating that he won't accept any result that isn't a victory, is making Democrats feel that nothing short of a landslide will ensure that this mess won't get worse.

Peaceful power transitions have historically been one of America's great advantages, look to our Southern neighbor for just how not having that can hold us back.

> “ “The damage is done. In people’s minds, Trump is a monster. It’s sad. There are people not talking to me anymore, and I’m not sure that will change,” said Gomez, who is a fan of Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigrants and handling of the economy.”

The real shame here is that she seems to mistakenly think her son is actively cutting her out. If she views Trump’s actions towards immigrants as defensible or even good, which is something that at this point is just utterly incompatible with the basics of civil society, then her own actions are forcing people away from her.

It’s sad to see people clinging to aspects of Trump, going down with the ship like this, still so lacking of self-awareness of the extreme degree of (not hyperbole) fascist violence inherent in Trump’s presidency, that she can’t realize this is entirely and unequivocally her own doing.

I wish we were still at a point where it was ideologically tractable to vote for Trump not because you like him but because of benign centrist Republican ideas, like generally lower taxes or states rights (regardless of the debates around these, at least they are legitimate, debatable aspects of the moderate Republican core).

But we are waaaay past that possibility, to the point where a vote for Trump that claims to be based on other innocuous, normal-time-debatable right-leaning issues is no longer that, and is literally (again, not hyperbole) a tacit vote for fascism and anti-science.

I think you are one of the people with extreme positions like those discussed in the original article.

Interesting. I view the OP's position as a moral one. If you think it is extreme then you're suggesting one compromise ones morals to "come to the center" or whatever.

I mean, to throw in an admitted straw man, were abolitionists too extreme 150+ years ago?

No, abolitionists weren't too extreme, but for your straw man to work you'd have to think that Trump has done some things analogous to maintaining slavery.

Well, for example his administration has put people in concentration camps and separated their children from parents. Which is quite analogous on a level of sheer horribleness.

If you're referring to the "cages" at the US/Mexican border, these were also used and indeed built by Obama.

It’s hard to imagine a more direct icon for supporting open fascism in America right now than someone saying “Obama built the cages” as if it is somehow related to Trump dehumanizing immigrants and separating children illegally or mitigates what Trump has done or in any way makes Obama or Biden or the Democratic party culpable for what Trump has done.

It means both parties committed atrocities, and the position of some leftists that they hold absolute morality somehow is baseless and delusional.

Claiming that “Obama built the cages” means both parties committed atrocities or that the parties are anywhere close to “equal” on this topic is a direct endorsement of violent fascism from the right.

That is not spin, that is not leftists unfairly claiming moral superiority, nothing remotely like that at all.

It is just purely the fact of Trump’s immigration dehumanization. It transgresses against the base requirements of civil society in a way that is deeply worse and not comparable to Obama’s own poor record on immigration, they are not comparable at all.

Any attempt to legitimize Trump’s behavior by acting like “both sides” did wrong things is directly equivalent to endorsing violent fascism at this point. It’s morally repugnant and incompatible with baseline civil society - any option to try to excuse Trump’s behavior has been removed.

The left is also engaging in facist policies. If neither party is willing to admit their atrocities then no progress is going to be made, and just more polarization is going to ensue. It's quite sickening to see the leftists claim moral superiority and virtue signal. I see more willingness to engage in debate from the right.

No, this is simply false. Your efforts to convert a nearly 100% far-right, Trump-led problem into an obfuscated “both parties” 50/50 issue is completely untethered from reality and is so extremely far away from basic civil discourse that it’s unacceptable. By repeatedly trying to dogmatically assert it’s an issue of both parties, you are doing nothing but assisting horrific fascism from the far right. We are way past any point where someone can just casually claim this is debatable.

Got you. It's only fascism if Trump does it.

Absolutely not. Trump is the only one who did it. Your comment is completely wrong. Acting as if Obama “also” did something wrong here is utterly disingenuous in an intellectually bankrupt way - it is not comparable to Trump’s behavior and any attempt to argue it is comparable is, at this point, literally the same as legitimizing fascism.

I think your comments are so blinkered and one-sided there is literally no point in debating with you. Trump Derangement Syndrome is alive and well.

The empirical reality of the situation is completely one-sided. “Both-sides-ism” at this point is straight equivalent to endorsing fascist violence by trying to legitimize Trump’s sweepingly fascist and violent rhetoric and actions.

If a person has normal, healthy skepticism and tries to derive their reactions dispassionately from the facts, they would have no intellectually honest choice but to conclude the blame is one-sidedly with Trump and his supporters who are openly calling for fascist suppression of democratic electoral process.

When reality is one-sided by all evidence, then fair-minded people are also one-sided too.

I don't think it is an extremest position to paint Trump and his supporters as largely fascist. Just yesterday I had to hear about voter intimidation by Trump supporters in my own home town. That's not the actions of a few nutters, that's action called for and promoted by Trump himself. At the risk of Godwinning, this is straight out of the Nazi playbook. It is not ok to ignore that we are potentially becoming a fascist state.

Yeah, the caravan that attacked another Presidential candidate on the highway is straight out of a third world country.

I'd love to hear the defense for this .

"attacked"

Someone on the Trump side rammed someone on the Biden side so I'd call that an attack

Not really:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24969112

Here's a video of at least part of the incident: https://twitter.com/truthserum4all/status/132239359596236390...

At the start of the video, the bus is in the second from rightmost lane and looks like it's starting to merge into the rightmost lane, which will put it directly in front of the black truck. There's a white crossover SUV that is directly behind the bus and will no longer be directly behind the bus once the bus finishes merging.

The camera turns away unfortunately, then pans back to show that the bus has merged and the white SUV crossover which was behind the bus before the lane change is now trying to merge directly into the black truck, in order to stay behind the bus. The black truck then pushes the white SUV crossover back into its own lane.

Obviously what the white SUV crossover did was illegal. I think the most charitable interpretation of its behavior is that the driver didn't see the black truck.

The black truck driver could have rapidly decelerated to allow the white SUV crossover to merge in front of it, but I don't think it's fair to characterize pushing back on someone trying to force you off the road as "attacking." A more accurate description might be "defending." I probably would have done the same, since I don't like bullies and don't like to endanger the innocent people behind me by rapidly decelerating due to distracted/angry driver next to me.

This isn't the best video, but if you pause it and determine which lane each vehicle is in, it seems fairly straightforward. Do you have a different interpretation of this video, or perhaps a better video?

EDIT: clarified wording about "attacking" vs "defending"

Jesus, this is even worse than I had seen in the past. These Trump vehicles are clearly harassing and surrounding the bus and that black truck is trying to get into the chase position. This is something you shouldn't see in a first-world country.

You can very clearly see the Trump truck swerving left into the car. That driver needs to be under arrest.

Other reports indicated that the Trump caravan was trying to drive the Biden bus off the road [1]

The driver apparently bragged about it on Facebook as well ("that was me slamming that f_cker") [2]

Regardless of who is at fault, a collection of Trump supporters were harassing the bus of their opponent TRAVELING ON A ROAD, using their vehicles.

[1] https://twitter.com/ericcervini/status/1322336226792321025

[2] https://twitter.com/bookbaybe/status/1322883111626178560/pho...

I can see how you would interpret it that way if you don't pay attention to lane crossings. But the white SUV crossover is merging into the truck and the truck has nowhere to go...so it pushed back. What would you have done? Decelerated rapidly? Physical contact was made no matter what the black truck driver did.

As for the driver bragging about it, so what? He did slam into the vehicle trying to push him off the road.

All the Trump vehicles were stopped in the video you linked. I think we should focus on the actual video of the incident, it helps keep us honest.

I wouldn't have been tailgating a political opponent, that's for sure. Slowing down would have been a smart move. Leaving an appropriate length behind that bus would have been a smart move.

What I see in a video are a bunch of Trump supporters attempting to intimidate a political opponent. If that doesn't terrify you, you might be too far gone.

Your pains to defend outrageously fascist behavior by the drivers supporting Trump is terrifying to me.

I even agree with you that the white car crossed into the right lane, but the idea that this discussion is about whether that car crossed the lane or not is psychotic.

Zoom out just a minute. Before you have any cars crossing any lanes, you’ve got a caravan of cars for one political candidate aggressively flanking and boxing in a bus for the other candidate and trying to intimidate any drivers associated with that campaign.

That is so deeply, deeply wrong and horrific. There is utterly no excuse for it.

How can you not see that by acting as if there is any semblance of a legitimate discussion to be had about the microscopic details of the white car changing lanes that could in any way mitigate the horrific election interference that the black car and others are perpetrating, you are yourself literally (not hyperbole) tacitly supporting fascist repression of fair electoral processes.

Your comments here are disturbing to a literally violent degree.

You obviously haven't seen the Antifa riots for the last 6 months then or the shops being boarded up in case Trump wins.

Those protesters were >99% peaceful.

The remaining were members of radical groups on the left (mostly anarchists, maybe some antifa) and the right (neo nazis) that want to tear down our democracy.

This is all well-documented.

From my perspective the center in American politics has steadily shifted rightward since the Regan administration. As such the perception of what is extreme right was similarly shifted and what was once considered extreme right is mainstream. This is similarly to the idea behind the paradox of tolerance.

I suggest that if Trump has not lied enough, grifted enough, broken enough laws, or is not incompetent enough to dissuade people from voting for him then the country has gone too far down the path of tribal politics. Obama was a moderate Republican president by the standards of the 1970s and there are large numbers of Republicans who consider him extreme left.

When we shift the center too far to one side of the spectrum then this causes too many people to become unbalanced in their views as they look to the center as their guide. In my opinion this is what is happening in the United States.

> her own actions are forcing people away from her.

This reminds me about a situation when a parent says to the kid: I didn't want to beat you, but you forced me to.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com