Hacker News Reader

Comment by CamperBob2 | Hacker News Reader

There's a school of thought that says that Trump needed to be stopped by whatever means were necessary, fair or foul. The events of January 6 did a lot to vindicate that admittedly-troubling school of thought.

My own thinking is that when you exempt yourself from constitutional constraints, as Trump did in lying about the election and inciting a riot, it's game on. I'd be curious to hear a counter-rationale other than the obvious (and equally true) "B...b...but FISA is just as unconstitutional" or the equally-true "But Trump hadn't yet done that at the time the FBI investigated his campaign." His relationship with Paul Manafort alone was arguably sufficient to set an aggressive counterintelligence investigation into motion. If Trump didn't wish to be treated like a captive Russian asset, he might have tried not acting exactly like one.

View on HN

Once you bought into "whatever means necessary", what evidence would it take to change your mind?

I'm not necessarily saying that I buy into that position myself, just that I've found myself surprisingly sympathetic to it.

At this point, I agree with those who suggest that America cannot survive a competent Trump. So given the hypothetical future appearance on the campaign trail of a similar character with all of his faculties intact, I may have to revisit the question.

And how will you tell such a monster appeared? Through your independent research? Or because the TV told you?

A worthy question, but one that goes too far afield for this thread IMHO.

I'd listen to the people who correctly called Trump out as being an authoritarian wannabe. They were completely right, and he proved that beyond any doubt on 1/6. Those who spent spent 4 years apologizing for him, and still are to this day, should be ignored when those predictions are made.

Keeping in mind that we're talking about someone who ran a full-page ad in the New York Times that called for the death penalty for the Central Park Five. Few people listened to Trump himself when he told us who he was.

When confronted with the NYT ad, reactions from over 30% of the electorate fall into one of four categories: "Wait, what? I never heard of that. Must not be a big deal," "Fake news, the ad never actually accused anyone by name," "Meh, he didn't really mean it," and "Hell yeah, fry 'em all and let God sort 'em out."

So it's not clear that anyone else's warnings could have made a difference. It was up to the Deep State to stop him. They failed. Not much of a Deep State, I guess. Only Trump's own incompetence saved us from a horrific outcome... and that won't scale, as people like to say around here.

The people who correctly called out Trump from what he was were:

- people who had spent a lot of time in authoritarian dictatorships and recognized his personality in the dictators of those countries.

- people who are familiar with history, and saw that he mirrored the personalities of historical dictators.

- people who are familiar with cluster B personality disorders, who correctly recognized his narcissistic psychopathy.

- people who were close to him, like his family, who warned us about how he treats people close to him.

- people who went into business with him, who were unilaterally screwed over by his business practices.

- Hillary Clinton.

Listening to any of these people, or even better, all of these people, would have saved us from this whole mess.

Notably, all of these people are saying the same things today, and he's still the front runner of the Republican party. So really, the problem isn't Trump anymore, it's that a lot of people actually want a dictatorship, because they perceive they can use it to their political advantage. That's where we are now. There are no more excuses about who the man is. Trump wants to be a dictator, and Republicans like that idea. There's no more assumed good faith to be had here.

So really, the problem isn't Trump anymore

Exactly, that's my point. It has been clear for a long time who Trump is and what he stands for. Long before he ever ran for office. A great many people are either fine with his positions, indifferent to them, or vote without bothering to inform themselves about the candidate they're voting for.

Once that cohort grows to dominate the electorate, there's nothing (legal) that anyone else can do. Hence the "fair means or foul" part of the question. But it may not matter: he can't be stopped by fair means if he actually does represent the values of the electorate, and if he is stopped by foul means, his supporters will pick someone even worse.

Amazing. A collection of "People who don't like his personality", plus his literal political opponent, are your best sources on how to identify the next Hitler.

Let me say that again: If a democrat you like says somebody is Hitler, then all is fair to stop him.

Brilliant! I hope you're getting paid for this.

The problem for you is that they were right. He proved that beyond all doubt when he attempted to overturn the election, and continues to lie about it to this day. That level of sociopathy has proven to be a literal national security threat.

And yeah, Hitlers are not hard to identify. They are psychopaths who find their way into positions of leadership. Like Trump. There’s nothing special or unique about Hitler —- he wasn’t the first and he won’t be the last.

But we don’t need Democrats to identify them, because they identify themselves with their actions (like trying to topple democracies when they lose elections). Some just notice it sooner than others, and now that Trump has made himself know as a psychopath beyond all doubt, we can look back and recognize those who called it years before he metastasized, and learn from the heuristics they used.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com