Hacker News Reader

Comment by keybored | Hacker News Reader

The man was given the choice of what to eat: manchineel bark or feces. The man made a choice. “Ah”, said the offerer of two choices: then that is what you deserve.

View on HN

The man must be reminded that he did not demand more than two options. He did not demand a system that guaranteed more than two options. He allowed the Excrement Party to bring forward feces as it's candidate, and he allowed the Bark Party to bring forward manchineel as it's candidate.

The man is entirely responsible for this situation he finds himself in unfortunately. Also, if the man selected feces the first time round, and suffered for it, then maybe the deadly poisonous bark is the only other logical choice, if only to stop the torture?

The offerer of two choices then makes the man choose between his daughter getting shot and his wife getting shot. “Remember now”, he says, “whoever I shoot will not be killed by me but by you.” The Offerer cackles. “You could have prevented this from happening if you had only worked harder to thwart my first supervillain move fifteen years prior. You are entirely responsible for this situation.”

[flagged]

I'm a little bewildered by this sort of prediction. How will you update your priors in 2028 when this doesn't happen? What will be the excuse for why this didn't happen?

I dunno, to quote the new top dog "in four years, you won't have to vote again"

I'd say if it doesn't happen he failed to deliver on an election promise.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-tells-christians-they...

This is just taken wildly out of context. And that’s coming from me, who can’t stand DJT. You’re literally fishing for a retort that doesn’t even make sense.

I am having a heard time reading his exact words and understanding them to mean something else. When he says to 'my beautiful Christians' that in four years you won't have to vote again, what is he trying to say? What is the missing context?

The full quote being:

> "in four years, you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good, you're not gonna have to vote."

One can reasonably interpret that as meaning that in the next 4 years, Trump and his party are going to fix the country so much and so well that Christians won't have to go out to vote next time.

Not only is that the most reasonable interpretation of the words, it's the one he explicitly gave when asked [0]. The only way to arrive at the alternate interpretation is to be coming from a place where you already assume Trump is a threat to democracy.

I think there are reasons to have arrived at that place (Jan 6th), but this quote is not evidence for it unless wildly misinterpreted.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/30/dona...

> where you already assume Trump is a threat to democracy

You know, the people who see him as a threat to democracy are not just putting words in his mouth. Maybe they just listen to what he says, and believe him. Is that unreasonable?

Well we've already covered one quote that was grossly misinterpreted. What others have you got that implies he's a threat to democracy in America?

The only people arguing it was misinterpreted are people who support him. Not by providing any context that actually supports it meaning something different.

How about the innumerable times he claimed the election was rigged despite lacking any evidence to support it? Does denying that free and fair elections exist not count pretty specifically as being a threat to democracy?

I totally get that he has an artful way of making alarming statements over and over, but doing it with just a hint of humor, so that his supporters can claim it was all just a joke. In your view, at what point do we get to take a politician at their word?

> The only people arguing it was misinterpreted are people who support him.

Bullshit. I'm as anti-Trump as they come, but I don't let that blind me to reality. What he meant is obvious to anyone who isn't already looking for proof of their preconceived ideas.

I'm not even arguing that he's not a major threat to democracy—I think he is! I disagree that that quote is useful as evidence of that fact, and I disagree with the tactic that the left intentionally adopted of twisting the truth to make a point. People saw through that tactic and it contributed to Trump's victory.

The facts about Trump are scary enough, there was no need to twist his words.

Everything he said and continues to say about the 2020 election, and the attempts he made to overturn said election

Makes me feel like I'm on crazy pills that this guy was electable after this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_memos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Raffensperger_ph...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_...

"What I want to do is this. I just want to find, uh, 11,780 votes"

What you are doing has a name these days, they call it sanewashing. Had Harris or Biden said anything even close to trumps comments the maga crowd would have yelled bloody murder, but somehow for trump everything is excusable and can be explained away.

So the most favorable interpretation of his words is that his supporters are delusional? What is their interpretation of "fix the country"? Because if it does not involve changing the constitution (a very tall order) then every single thing he does can be undone with the same effort by the next democratic president. Surely these people know that, right? How could they possibly believe that he will magically "fix the country" so they don't have to vote any more, unless they anticipate that he means something permanent?

Because they don’t take things so literally.

I’m not trying to be flippant, that’s genuinely the answer to your question. Trump is literally being dramatic and funny by putting it like that. And you’re taking the bait and missing the joke.

I know I sound like the enemy and I dislike including this paragraph: But keep in mind, I can’t stand Donald Trump and didn’t vote for him.

Come on. We all know Trump effing talks weird, that's just part of his weird personality that no one likes. I don't like it, think it's confusing and winding around requiring much mental parsing to understand even for normal stories/sentences. But to take this tiny little sentence as definitive proof of some giant plan that's coming to end democracy is just... mental gymnastics in search of meaning for a narrative that they've already decided it means.

Here is the Full quote so everyone can see it. He even explains in the end what he means.

> "And again, Christians: Get out and vote! Just this time. You won't have to do it anymore! Four more years, you know what? It'll be fixed, it'll be fine, you won't have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians, I love you Christians, I'm not Christian, I love you, get out, you gotta get and vote. In four years you don't have to vote again, we'll have it fixed so good you're not gonna have to vote."

From Snopes:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/vote-four-years/

I'm just listening to his words and assuming he means what he says. He is either insulting his followers, or he is telling them he will "fix" the country in such a way that they won't have to vote any more. You can interpret this to mean he will try to subvert the electoral result again, or you can interpret it to mean that he plans to make some kind of permanent change so that christian voters will no longer be required to vote to achieve their goals.

Which is it?

> I'm just listening to his words and assuming he means what he says.

That's not how language works. There's a whole field of linguistics called pragmatics that is about how context contributes to meaning [0].

You're taking a few seconds of his words, joining them to all of your priors, and interpreting them in that context.

His original listeners were taking his words in the context of the whole speech, joining them to their priors, and interpreting them in that context.

It's entirely expected that your interpretation would be different than theirs given that disconnect, and the most reliable way to interpret meaning is to look at who the audience was and how they would have interpreted it, because the speaker chose their words for that context, not for yours.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics

Okay, I'll bite. You make a plausible point. Now tell me, what did his supporters think he meant?

Exactly what he said he meant [0]:

> It’s true, because we have to get the vote out. Christians are not known as a big voting group, they don’t vote. And I’m explaining that to them. You never vote. This time, vote. I’ll straighten out the country, you won’t have to vote any more, I won’t need your vote any more, you can go back to not voting.

Basically "the country is screwed up right now because ${reasons}, if you get out and vote I'll fix it for you for good and you can go back to not voting again". It's more or less the same line that politicians say every election to try to motivate the less-likely-voters in their base, just said in Trump's classic meandering way and with explicit permission to vote only this once if you want.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/30/dona...

So a couple untruths, and something ambiguous. Evangelicals have been a key voting bloc for years (I don't want to say Christians, because there are a huge number of Christian democrats too). If anything they're key to GOP success in the recent past.

But you kinda skipped past what I was asking. How and what do those voters think he was going to fix for good? And do they perceive themselves as being politically inactive except for just this once?

It sounds like you're just giving him a pass because hey, all politicians lie to get people to vote. At that point, why do we even care what a politician says, whether we agree with them or not?

I'm a "supporter" and I know exactly what he means. Means he'll fix all the voting shenanigans so that illegals can't vote and so that democrats can't "rig" and stack the election like last time. See? Not so much a hateful whistle as it is understanding your supporters, what's important to them, and appealing to that with your own words.

Thank you for the actually plausible explanation.

It does not even matter than there was no rigging, no illegals voting, no shenanigans. The truth has never been an effective counter to rhetoric, I get that. But it's an entirely plausible explanation for what a supporter would think.

But after yesterday, maybe we will all agree together than the elections are rigged? ;-). You guys can't put that genie back in the bottle. Everyone thinks it's totally cool until the other side uses it right back.

We’ll have it fixed so good could mean the system will be fixed, as in rigged. You are sanewashing the words of an unstable man

the missing context is that the Christian groups he was speaking to typically have low turn out/don't often come out to vote. He's asking them to please come out to vote, it's important this time. It's exactly the same rhetoric democrats use "this is the most important election, you really need to vote this time, this time it really matters"

“You know, FDR 16 years – almost 16 years – he was four terms. I don’t know, are we going to be considered three-term? Or two-term?”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/19/trum...

he has vowed to be dictator on day one

https://apnews.com/article/trump-hannity-dictator-authoritar...

On February 27th-the Reichstag in Berlin was set on fire. 4 weeks before, Hitler was appointed to chancellor. Hitler placed an urgency regulation to ban all political activities. He destroyed democracy in one month. Trump can now do it one day.

he is definitely signaling something, whether it will come true or not is another question.

Are you sure you know exactly what he meant by that?

That was the line the news media took for the first year or two - "we can't read his mind, so we can't call it a lie!" It's a mistake not to at least credit his own words and the logical conclusions they result in.

https://apnews.com/general-news-domestic-news-domestic-news-...

Exactly how many times can "nah you're not getting what he meant" be repeated? Is anything he says anything he means?

As many times as people deliberately twist his words to mean something different than he meant?

I despise Trump, but it's really disheartening to see how the elite doesn't realize that they actually lost the election in part because they lost credibility by fighting dirty. The ends do not justify the means, and the means were deliberate distortions, out of context quotes, and politically-motivated prosecutions.

I held my nose and voted KH because I think Trump actually managed to be even worse, but I can hardly fault other voters for deciding that the Democrats had it coming to them after all the intentional distortions.

How is it twisting words when the context is Trump refusing to say he will accept the results of the election every time he's asked, "joking" about staying more than two terms, and actually trying to overthrow the Republic on Jan 6th?

That will never happen because there are too many other power-hungry people in the GOP who are not going to just let Trump sit in the White House indefinitely, if for no other reason.

He's 78. I think there would be plenty of people willing to enable him to sit on his throne indefinitely because they know that's really only ten years or so at best. And then, once he's gotten it warmed up and did the hard job of making it the norm, they get to take his place.

Well said.

That is the same kind of thing people have been saying since the day he rode the escalator down. Ten years later, why does this argument still get made? Trump has power for one reason, and one reason only -- because enough voters love him. Many people on the conservative side loathe him and want nothing more than to see him gone, but they kiss his ass and fawn over him anyway, because why? The voters love him, and hate anyone who does not kiss the ring. Over and over and over this plays out.

If Trump wants to stay in office after this term is finished, all that matters are what the voters think. The supreme court will likely side with him and find an interpretation of the constitution that makes it work. But even if they don't, so what? The court doesn't have an army. Even if they did, if the voters want a king, that is what they will get. The republic is a reflection of our collective will and we can destroy it if we so choose.

I'm a citizen of a country where the authoritarian leader captured the state and mostly destroyed democracy. So we managed to find out whether he was a danger to democracy or not (he was). What sucks, is that when it is proved, then there is already too late to do anything about it (because by definition you can not send them away in an election). So my 2 cents: if there are any signs that someone is a risk to democracy, it is better be safe than sorry, and just choose a different candidate. Everything else can be corrected in the next election, but not this.

> if there are any signs that someone is a risk to democracy

All due respect, I'm curious as to what these signs actually are for Trump. Everything I've seen and heard has been horrifyingly taken out of context -- "dictator on day one" and "you won't need to vote in four years" and "he'll prosecute his political enemies", or exaggerated past the point of recognition, like "he tried to steal an election" or "he wants to put journalists in jail".

Under the Biden administration, we have seen actual criminal charges against Trump. Not theoretical, not threats, not innuendo, but actual criminal charges for trivial administrative offenses. We have seen extensive media collaboration with the administration (and the opposition when Trump was in office) in an attempt to distort Trump's words to portray him as being dangerous.

I do not agree that the US, under Harris or Trump, is at any risk of becoming an authoritarian nation. The "signs" here from both sides are all imaginary trivial things and political rhetoric. But if the watchword is "any signs" then I've got to say that I don't see how you can vote for anyone but Trump.

My forlorn hope is that people who think that Trump represents a threat of authoritarian backsliding can, in four years, revisit their assumptions and realize that the markers they have chosen to represent that threat are all wrong. They're just incorrect. Update your priors.

The most important sign is that he already tried to keep the power when he lost last time. And he still does not accept that he lost. This alone is more than enough reason to never vote for him.

He literally attempted a coup, it's pretty amazing people are still trying to act like this is exaggeration or unreasonable.

It's not guaranteed, no, and I sincerely doubt we are going to see Trump literally cancel elections, but it's a very reasonable assumption that they are going to do what they've said they'll do and tried to do: install judges that will swing things their ways, suppress voters who don't support them, punish anyone who opposes them, inspire and promote political violence against anyone who opposes them, and gerrymander as much as possible. That's enough to functionally end US democracy if they do it well.

That's not some wild prediction or unlikely outcome, it's the logical continuation of their previous actions. Someone attempting something they tried before isn't unexpected. He actively tried to subvert democracy and the public have rewarded him, why would he not?

> He actively tried to subvert democracy and the public have rewarded him, why would he not?

That's the key observation.

The USA uses a gerrymandered, two-party, first-past-the-post system with electoral college to boot. I for one would stop short from calling that a system that accurately reflects the will of the populace.

I agree but in this case he won the popular vote and took the senate and house taboot.

> I sincerely doubt we are going to see Trump literally cancel elections

The logical path here is for red states to cancel elections and appoint electors to send in January 2029. The feds cannot do it themselves, but they do not need to.

The elections clause of the constitution does not apply to presidential elections, and all the constitution says about that is that the states may choose how to appoint electors, as long as it all happens on the same day.

Where is any evidence he actually attempted a coup?

Here is evidence he told the protestors to be peaceful: https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1346912780700577792

He never said "Storm the Capitol!!" or anything like that.

It's a fact he attempted a coup, the evidence is in the public record, the Trump–Raffensperger phone call was literally recorded and we have it. He was calling around everyone certifying the results pressuring them not to do so, and asking people to "find votes" for him. The mob storming the capital was a part of the whole, not the coup in its entirety, focusing on it as though it was the whole thing is absurdly misleading.

Will you update your priors after searching a bit more how Republicans have already done huge efforts to eliminate parts of the voting population, between gerrymandering, voter rolls purges, putting polling stations in inaccessible places, counting prison population in the electoral weighting of districts...

It's insane, exactly the same slippery slope fallacy as "the left want to make your kids gay", people completely lost their mind on both side of the spectrum

What was insane was Jan 6th. Both sides are not the same.

“You know, FDR 16 years – almost 16 years – he was four terms. I don’t know, are we going to be considered three-term? Or two-term?”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/19/trum...

he has vowed to be dictator on day one

https://apnews.com/article/trump-hannity-dictator-authoritar...

he is definitely signaling something, whether it will come true or not is another question.

This is hyperbole.

His words: "in four years, you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good, you're not gonna have to vote." - explain! - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-tells-christians-they...

Trump already explained [0]:

It was stupid phrasing and might have been a Freudian slip, but his explanation also makes sense. "The country is on the brink of {insert terrible fears here}, but we'll fix it up this term and you won't have to worry about it for a while." The man isn't known for his well-thought-out speeches, his entire schtick is speaking off the cuff, and most voters don't hold that against him.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/30/dona...

So even when the Christians don't vote in 4 years, they still get the things they want?

What do the people who are voting get?

I'd guess they get a government that via the Supreme court, gerrymandering, voter suppression, cowed media, doesn't represent their democratic interests.

Which is a bad thing.

There's abortion votes that passed the other day at state levels that will not be put into practice because Republicans don't want to.

TLDR: In different context, but same feeling: "I need to vaccinate yourself when you are around me, but when you are no longer, I don't care". I dunno. That doesn't sound very presidential tbh...

It is a deliberate attempt to scaremonger people into voting for Kamala.

And hyperbole like this is why democrats lost in such a devastating fashion.

+ the fact that they had no brand power and marketing. Trump in a garbage truck is great marketing.

Ah, yes. Trump won because of his well-known ability for measured and rational speaking.

That's not what they said. "Measured and rational speaking" is usually terrible marketing. It barely works on college-educated adults and certainly doesn't work on the mass market.

The example they gave is Trump in a garbage truck, but that's just one way in which Trump made himself enormously appealing to the non-elite.

They can not even understand that 80% of the country does not talk like a rich, educated liberal. It is so frustrating.

Worse, they don't see that a near-majority of the country is actively put off by someone speaking like a rich, educated liberal.

The #1 exercise Democratic politicians should do over the next 4 years is to spend hours and hours and hours actually listening to working-class people in flyover country and trying to really understand them. They just don't get it yet.

Good luck with your Health Insurance: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/31/politics/aca-trump-repeal...

Shifting the goal posts much? Grandparent says democracy will end, parent says that's hyperbole, you bring out healthcare?

I am on disability and use Medicare. My health access has diminished to almost zero over the last four years.

What has any Democrat done fro me, the poor and suffering?

Give me a break. Obama Pulled a Lucy with Medicare for all and I hate him for it.

> What has any Democrat done fro me, the poor and suffering?

That is a very good point

Is it conceivable that Republicans will be any better?

The hold big business has on the mechanisms of state in your country, that is the problem IMO

Obama wasn't a candidate since 2012 or president since 2016.

Presumably the person you’re replying to knows these things? Try and respond to the best interpretation of a comment instead of assuming they’re an idiot.

What's the "best interpretation" of a non-sequitur look like, to you?

A specific example for this particular comment would be ideal, as even their reply doesn't illuminate the value of mentioning Obama despite referring to it and attempting to justify it.

Obama is a Democrat. Neither Biden, nor Harris, nor AOC pushed for Medicare for all when it was probably the easiest and most helpful time to do so; during a pandemic.

I brought up Obama's actions because it was just the ongoing legacy of neoliberalism that started under Clinton. They thought they would win elections by "going to the middle", and this is what happened.

Obama was also campaigning for Harris.

The Democrats are now the part of war and corporations and I was just done with it all.

> The Democrats are now the part of war and corporations and I was just done with it all.

So you voted Green, or Libertarian?

Because if it was Trump, I have bad news on all that stuff, including healthcare…

Yes, I voted for the green party.

Remember when all the brown people, gays, trans, blacks, and women were imprisoned in 2016? /s

I remember when he constantly inflamed a nation in turmoil and divided.

The difference was one of symmetry, not magnitude.

Biden (and Harris) have been no more "inclusive" of other political positions than Trump was.

Sure they were. Biden actively sought to pass bipartisan immigration legislation. Trump blocked it because it would hurt his chances at reelection. Neither Trump nor Vance denied this during the debates(they had multiple opportunities to do so).

We are not divided though. He overwhelmingly won the popular vote. Sure there is an opposition, but the truth is that the majority of American voters agree with Trump (currently winning by margins of 5 million according to NYT).

Yes, there's still work to be done, but the real inflamers of the nation are the mainstream media. Luckily they're slowly going away, and uniting figures like Musk, Rogan, etc are taking their place.

Also, he overwhelmingly wins with hispanic men (55-45). He is walking away with hispanics overall in many swing states. Black men are now 25% in his favor. Basically every single minority margin has shifted towards president trump (Including women). At this rate he will succesfully unite the country in a few more years as the remaining stragglers come over to see common sense.

Hey dude, you may be overdosing on those pills you’re taking when you start saying things like Musk is a uniter. The red ones are fine, just limit it to one or two, okay?

Of course he is. He and his companies are well loved by the American populace writ large.

The only thing he wants to unite are the dollars in your pocket with his wallet.

That makes him a uniter?

I remember when he pushed the lie that Pelosi's husband was attacked by his gay lover. Or when he pushed the lie that Democrats are stuffing voting boxes with illegal immigrants'votes, or that brown people are replacing white people.

Such a uniter, that South African emerald mine owner.

We have never been more divided. Neither side can even agree on definitions or facts.

I'm glad the great uniters of Musk and Rogan can take the reins in delivering high-quality information to our nation. Maybe in a few years, we will all agree on which conspiracy theories we should all believe.

> Maybe in a few years, we will all agree on which conspiracy theories we should all believe.

One man's conspiracist is another man's freedom fighters. You can't honestly tell me that mainstream outlets were free of conspiracies the last few years? Remember Russia?

Don't be coy, please enlighten us as to what this conspiracy is involving Russia that you think the MSM peddled, and what evidence you have that disproves the narrative.

The Steele dossier, which purported to contain evidence of the Trump camapign's links with Russia, turned out to actually be a Russian plant. That's what I'm talking about. People still peddle its contents as if they're anything other than fake news. That's a major problem. Same with Trump's 'very fine people' comment. You can accuse Rogan of spreading misinformation until the cows come home, but the mainstream media has also peddled its own share.

Now, let's tally how many just one of the prominent right-wing figures has pushed since 2016. It should be fun.

I don't think HNs database has the free space to contain such a list.

How many have you been doxxed for or impeached for or censored from spreading. as far as I'm aware, all your conspiracy theories have been promulgated by everyone and allowed to spread everywhere. I think that's the major difference. You should create your list. Twitter/X is a great way to spread such information to the public at large! No one will censor you. You are free :)

Thanks I feel much better knowing that I am free to squash the thousands of untruths spread and believed by the masses.

I guess there isn't a problem.

I haven't heard any mention of the dossier in years, other than as an artifact of the past. A quick search, and I can't find sources trying to claim its truth (or evidence of smoke, for which there might be a fire) in years.

I certainly didn't mention Rogan—I'm aware of his existence, but I've actually never heard him speak nor seen any transcripts of anything he's said. But trying to minimize the flood of absolute obvious shit that comes from right-wing outlets by choosing to point to Rogan specifically is a bit telling.

Anyone and everyone should be called out for lies they manufacture or spread. This includes lies on the left, lest you think I'm granting one side a pass.

See, we can't even agree on a starting point. Instead of admitting Rogan and Elon pedaling in absolutely insane conspiracy theories, you pull out your whataboutisms and think we are back on a level playing field. We aren't.

I remember when trump tried very hard to weaponize the justice department against his "enemies" (https://www.justsecurity.org/98703/chronology-trump-justice-...) but people stood up to him and refused, or just delayed acting as long as possible. Trump was very much "handled" by people all levels of government who tried their best to clean up after him, distract him away from his crazy plans, or obstruct him. Even in the the military. In the beginning it was the so-called "axis of adults" that kept things sane.

That's all changed since he's spent a considerable amount of time removing anyone who disagrees with him, threatening those who would dare to, installing people who will do what he wants including the judges who have granted him total immunity which he didn't have before. I think we can expect things this time to be very different.

Remember the Muslim ban?

Remember the children in cages?

Remember that a crook will cultivate your trust and lower your defenses before pulling a fast one on you?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/30/dona... from the man's lips to your ears.

Did you even listen to the video clip in the article?

I hate Trump as much as anyone, but deliberately misconstruing every word he says is part of what cost Democrats the election. People saw through it.

I think that given the context that he illegally tried to retain power after losing in 2020 that many people infer something into his words about reducing the need to vote

No, I think lolinder is correct.

People don't like being told "here is what was said, here is what was MEANT because you're not educated enough and can't possibly understand" did Harris zero favors.

I'm not sure in what respects you are disagreeing with me on, since I didn't mention anyone's level of education or intelligence -- I didn't mention anything about the people who interpret the statement in a benign way at all.

I added my thoughts on why people would take that statement and infer some other meaning than his literal words, since those words are said as part of a broader context. This says nothing about the people who didn't do so.

So, you starting a comment with "No" but then not addressing any point I made is confusing to me.

Cheers.

No, what cost them the election was the fact that Kamala ran a campaign of "I'm actually just a republican so you can vote for me". She dumped any sort of policy or position that'd scare away the mythical disaffected trump voter. She paraded around Liz Cheney FFS. WTF likes the Cheneys?

> She dumped any sort of policy or position that'd scare away the mythical disaffected trump voter

We just saw a national rejection of progressive politicians. To the extent she screwed up, it was in having a numpty VP instead of Shapiro and declining to be more specific on policies that would offend the left wing of the base. We’ll probably see a midterm backlash, however, so the message isn’t “everyone tack right.”

What policy?

The only leftwing policy she adopted was abortion. Otherwise, she ran on being tough on the border, upholding the 2nd amendment, and being an awesome cop. Her platform silently dumped policies like the death penalty.

One was conciliation on Gaza, an issue inflamed by the protests and that was material in Pennsylvania, the tipping-point state she lost in. She also wasn’t “tough on the border” in any specific way—Trump channeled that anger effectively.

Another was student loan modifications. This transferred wealth from non-college taxpayers to college graduates.

I am 100% sure there will be an election in 2028.

Yes,just like there are elections in Hungary, or Venezuela, or there were elections in the Soviet bloc.

You will have your banana elections for your banana Republic all right.

How would that work in our system. The election are distrusted and open by law. Trump is an authoritarian who will test the system but the system will hold.

As opposed to what the mass media has been doing and will continue to do ?

Ah, the self-proclaimed mass media critics! Everyone else is somehow badly influenced by the nasty mass media but they see right through it with their superior intellect. They don't need correspondents and professionals to actually go where something is happening, they know the truth intuitively, perhaps even a priori.

It's not about superior intellect, it's about incentive structures

Looking at how the incentive structures are laid out, it's clear there's no incentive to be honest to normal people. They need the advertising dollars to exist, and we are suppose to trust big pharma's enormous advertising budget doesn't impact the business decisions at media companies? That's just big pharma, who else is playing the game?

There's no medical test to diagnose depression, all you can do is observe behavior and talk about it

Seeing bad behavior and lies over and over, decade after decade erodes trust and reveals the kind of people they are, if it was some radical group with no real power there would be less concern, but they have a tremendous amount of money and influence

Equally bad incentives apply to smaller ("alternative") media outlets right wingers consume.

Fox News is by a huge margin the most popular news outlet. Throw in the New York Post (huge presence on the internet) and the WSJ, and conservative media is the mainstream media at this point.

They also shilled for Trump relentlessly, without pretense. But that's beside the point. The left should accept that they no longer represent the aspirations and priorities of the mainstream or even of ethnic minorities, and the right should stop with the underdog charade. They've swapped sides. Of course, neither side will make that admission anytime soon.

Mainstream media is Joe Rogan and whoever else your favorite comedian, business leader, scientist, or political analyst is

That is not mass media. Mass media is what your parents listen to

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_media_endorsements_in_t...

The "left" (whatever this means today) sold out the working class. It is plain and simple

Most right winners are listening to podcasts at this point, I don't think Joe Rogan's incentives are as equally bad when comparing to an industry that manufactured the opium epidemic or ones that constantly lie

Joe Rogan is fine I was thinking more these folks: https://apnews.com/article/russian-interference-presidential...

I don't think you're understanding the premise, the media is biased against trump and has no credibility

Articles like these are predictable and a meme

This is a lie and you fall for it:

https://www.axios.com/2024/11/05/presidential-election-newsp...

The bias doesn't come out that way, endorsements are meaningless anyways

The bias is calling him an agent of russia, a fascist, a dictator, a nazi, and a threat to democracy for 8 years

It's calling him crazy about Hydroxychloroquine and then 6 months later saying the same thing

The bias is blatantly miss quoting him with what he said about Liz Cheney

The bias is only fact checking one candidate in a debate

The bias is associating a trump rally where Israeli flags were flying in MSG with a nazi rally in the 30s

The bias is suggesting that we are suppose to think he wants to put his daughter in a gas chamber who converted to judaism

Then there's the work of Robert Epstein: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Epstein%20Tes...

The bias is suggesting that we are suppose to think he wants to put his daughter in a gas chamber who converted to judaism

So who is saying you're supposed to think that, actually?

The people claiming he's a nazi

And who is that, specifically?

And you actually think they're important enough to pay any attention to?

One role of the media is to set the Overton Window. And to more generally set the confines for reasonable opinion. Have you been living under a rock?

You can defend the ministry of truth as much as you want. There has been too much deception in recent years, people simply stop believing it. The meda were always there to steer "democracies", they even outright admit it by saying they are an integral part of the democratic process. People start to see through this deception.

Given that Trump is a well know career crook and got a lanslide, I would argue that people are just even more gullible than ever.

You're right. The media has been corrupted. It's only logical, over time the media is corrupted as an outgrowth of the Pareto principle applied to politics. Eventually all political systems are corrupted because those with power use their advantage to accrue more power in a self-reinforcing cycle. The media, as an obvious lever of power, is subject to this, just as are regulatory agencies, congresspeople, social media sites, etc. I don't understand how such an intelligent userbase can be so willfully blind and naive. What began to open my eyes was the pandemic and the Ukraine war. Not that the establishment positions were necessarily wrong, but I felt the manipulation was easy to sense.

You won’t get much traction on here but you’re right, I think democrats often project issues actually happening on their own side

Meh, you can watch MSNBC or Fox for quite different messages. Of course, the fascists are not complaining about the media because there is actually something wrong but to justify the eventual censorship.

Give it some time; this hyperbolic election rhetoric will wear off and eventually you'll be ashamed to admit you ever fell for it.

Given that this is a repeat of 2016, it wont wear off and they wont be ashamed. Yeah the crowd that touts itself as highly intelligent and techno-savvy apparently cant learn simple lessons.

Given the voting trends, many who initially fell for it eventually recovered over the next 8 years.

The way I see it is that Trump’s policies, if acted upon, will have a delayed effect. I see it as a major event contributing to the rebirth of authoritarianism in the 21st century. I think selfishly doing Trump’s America for four years by pumping money into oil production, cutting back on contributions to global stability, and creating distrust in alliances could have disastrous consequences over the next couple of decades. I believe the current structure of techno-feudalism will only become more concrete with the erosion of science and education. Whether there are immediate consequences to this leadership or not, I’m very pessimistic for the future.

What are some other perspectives or predictions regarding how things will go under this current Trump admin; namely foreign policy, global stability, and school system reform?

I suppose it depends how much you take Trump at his word.

Does he really intend to do the things he says he will or it just fun rhetoric for the base?

Part of the reason why Harris lost is because this line about democracy ending if Trump wins is about all she could offer as a reason to vote for her, and the average voter doesn't believe it. I guess now we'll all get to see if the dire warnings were at all founded in reality, but it was a critical mistake to turn up the rhetoric so hot and not realize that it made the moderate voters take her less seriously.

It was just a bad strategy in every way: it reduced their odds of winning the election, and if they were right it won't matter because there will be no election. If they were wrong, then they burned a whole bunch of credibility pushing what turned out to be a conspiracy theory.

And if both parties are conspiracy theory parties, the moderate voter can't use that as a razor.

So many reasons to vote for her and you remember only the democracy ending part? Also, the moderate voter would not take her seriously because of her saying that? Did you wipe out your memory about what happened when he lost not so very long ago?

To me this all feels like a far fetched tv drama became reality. It goes beyond any human understanding.

I want my taxes to go down, I want illegal immigration to end, and I don't give a shit about identity politics.

I didn't vote for Trump but these are the fundamental truths the democrats keep on missing. This is what Americans care about.

When you blather on about the other guy being Hitler instead of presenting real policy that people want, people are just gonna ignore you.

I want my taxes go down and want illigal migration to end as well! I want illegal drugs and illegal weapons and all wars to disappear as well. I want everything to be great and florishing for all Americans and the world. Still I would never vote for Trump because he just shouts he will 'fix' it, as if he would be some kind of Messias with some magic powers, without explaining realistically how that it can even work. A lot of people seem to believe it just because they 'want to believe' or maybe because he says it in such monotonic (hypnotising maybe?) way.

Ironically, the Democrats had a much more comprehensive policy position of course. But what matters to voters is what they _perceive_ and "what will you do for me". It's a propaganda war, and not yet clear to me whether we should blame the party or "the media" for losing it.

The 13 Keys to the White House model finally failed. I don't think it's because of the subjective keys, but rather the objective keys don't match what people actually believe about the world. Again, Democrats lost the marketing battle somehow.

> Ironically, the Democrats had a much more comprehensive policy position of course.

Given all the buzz around Project 2025, thats certainly not perceptually true _even to democrats_.

If Trump really had less comprehensive policy positions, then why did the media go on for months about this 1000-page policy document?

You cant have your cake and eat it too.

That's a fair point. I guess Democrats should have focused more on the "real policy" aspects of Project 2025 (besides abortion?) rather than the "completely reorganize the Executive" (implement fascism) parts.

Of course, Trump did distance himself from Project 2025, right? He clearly didn't like sharing the spotlight. How do we get to a situation where a candidate disavows knowledge of their presumptive policy paper, yet all the voters still believe that's his policy? Seems like an even more absurd example having your cake and eating it too.

An underappreciated reason why Harris lost is that Democrats tried to switch candidates just a few months before the election. I'm not on one side or the other, but when I heard that Lorraine Jobs was pushing for a different candidate last July, I thought to myself, this is the dumbest idea I've ever seen. Indeed, it was.

The whole artifical limitations on discourse and topics is a poisoned chalice the democrats seem not to be able to let go of, no matter how much depends on it. Ad to that a aristocratic inability to even perceive problems and a getting high on their own supply of virtue signaling and you get a recipe for disaster.

According to the exit polling, voters most concerned about democracy voted Trump.

My guess is that the worries on democracy have nothing to do with regular Americans getting riled up when their candidate lost (jan 6), and more to do with the entire political machine coming down on Trump after his loss in an attempt to take his wealth and imprison him in politically motivated lawsuits with made up charges.

Compared to Trump the Democrats are amateurs at messaging who seem to have no clue how to talk to the average Joe or Jane. Instead of using the Jan 6 riot to attack Trump's "law and order" image, they choose to frame it in terms of "democracy".

"Law and order" was clearly a dog-whistle for 'treating suspects and minorities badly will make you feel safer' from the start . As evidenced by the blazing hypocrisy in a fucking felon running on "law and order" from a straightforward interpretation.

Given the generally high regard that the US has for service people - military, police, emergency services etc - it always puzzled me that Trump was never held to account (in a political, rather than legal sense) for the harm caused.

Is there a reason why this has been glossed over? I thought that would surely be a red line for many of his supporters.

There were many ex-police and ex-military amongst the Jan 6th rioters.

Given the complete discrepancy in voter turnout for dems in 2020 v 2024, I think the core claim of the J6ers, namely that there was fraud that affected the 2020 election, is becoming more and more likely. Especially since the only person to be killed on that day was a regular American (no cops were killed), I think, based on the voting, that most people see it as justified. I mean they just elected the guy who lost with huge margins in the popular vote

If you want to know what Trump really believed about the 2020 election rather than what he wanted his supporters to think, look at the allegations that he and his election lawyers were actually willing to present in court. Since there would have been legal consequences for making stuff up, the court filings were far less sensational than his public PR.

I don't know and don't really care. When I vote I don't rely only on evidence admissible in court. Most of the country does not follow politics as closely as some of the people here. We see what we see and vote on how that seems it will affect us.

I also like to keep my anti-tiger rock on me at all times. I don't really care that there's no evidence that it works. All I know is what I see, and I haven't seen any tigers.

"I don't know and don't really care"

There. All is said. No need for further debate.

Roseanne Boyland was arguably killed by the police that day as well. Her death was ruled an amphetamines overdose to cover this up, she had a prescription for ADHD.

I don't think it would hurt their credibility if they're wrong. It's not like they created that idea, they were just pointing out Trump's words and actions.

It wasnt just Harris but the entire media and entire democratic establishment fabricating claims of Trump doom.

The best thing Kamala could have done is to downplay that rhetoric and focus on issues. If she did that, I believe she wouldve won. But you can hardly blame her to go with the grain.

Nah, she was an utterly normal Obama era democrat, which is basically it same as an Obama era republican. She offered normal and reasonable level-headed leadership. Welcome to the FAFO era.

This is fiction, and we should not persist in describing politics in this term, since it doesnt help us see whats going on.

It does sound harsh, and it is. We (people on HN), tend to talk about both candidates as if it was some equal comparison.

However, this is adamantly not the case. Trump is not like any candidate America has voted for in living memmory. He is SO outside of bounds, that frankly we collectively fail to understand him, and have to substitute some "default republican" candidate in our minds to deal with it.

Even in your comment - "it was a critical mistake to turn up the rhetoric so hot", even you will agree that Trump is incredibly toxic and out there in his comments.

Yet, you will genuinely feel that Harris/dems turned up the rhetoric. Not just this, there are a million places where blame is placed at the feet of Dems, for things that Trump or the GOP has done.

Nothing the dems can do will make a difference, because the Republicans have the superior model. Republicans can focus entirely on psychology, without having to worry about being called out on it, because Trump is simply causing an overflow whenever anyone has to deal with him.

We all just end up "ignoring" whatever new incendiary thing he has done, and instead deal with the office/position of either "candidate" or "president", because those make sense.

The dire warnings are literally founded in documents that are going to be enacted, based on what people are actively building teams for and recruiting.

However, there is no measure of evidence, including action that has happened, that will move the needle. It simply wont, because its not what people care about.

Some group will go to Reddit, to console themselves, the other group will go to Fox and the Consvervative bubble to reassure themselves. They will be given the same info that sells, and then they will learn to ignore everything that causes cognitive dissonance.

the reason Harris lost is because the Democrats are soft on everything. Soft on immigration, soft on crime. Even though I dislike Trump, I wouldn't vote for Democrats ever.

"The cruelty is the point"

It is not a conspiracy theory when Trump actually already tried to do a coup.

Their “Trump is a dictator, literally Hitler, who will take away womens right to vote” didn’t work the first time in 2015/2016 and it didn’t work this time either. The U.S.A knows what a Trump presidency is like and they voted to have it again: it was that good.

Democrats got their chance the last 4 years and instead of making the lives of U.S. Citizens better, they made it much worse, and shoved social justice issues down their throats that they didn’t want.

Cop on.

> Cop on.

This sounds British. Are you American or British?

I think your view is also largely hyperbole. It is a nice vote winning narrative to suggest that democrats did nothing but shove social justice issues down people's throats, but like you, I'm not American and I suspect that is just as much hyperbole as "Trump is literally Hitler".

You're part of the division of hate that you seem like you're raging against, using messaging like that.

I’m British and that phrasing jumped out at me too. Few year old account, no surprises… Probs a bot.

It's not a conspiracy theory. Trump literally tried overturning the last election via fraud and violence. It's incredibly well documented.

In any case we're entering the find out phase.

It's literally a conspiracy theory, the question at hand is whether there really is a conspiracy.

My point is not that they're wrong and Trump won't successfully end democracy (I think the odds are low but non-zero), my point is that the strategy blew up in the DNC's faces and should have been identified as a terrible plan from the start.

Being a Cassandra is not a winning playbook. Being able to say "I told you so" is small comfort, and that's the package they chose when they decided to make themselves look crazy to the electorate. If they believed democracy to be in danger the correct move was to nominate an electable candidate last year, not wait until Biden turned out to be unelectable and then start screaming about the end of democracy.

Now Trump in 2024 is even older than Biden when he assumed office in 2020. I doubt Trump will be calling the shots for all four years.

Casual age discrimination.

Have you read an actual transcript of Trump's words? Not the "sanitized" summary you find in media: the actual transcript?

https://www.instagram.com/billpascrell/p/C8DljJURzmv/

Seems he took "jumping the shark" literally.

Have you listened to Trump's recent speeches? In 2016 he was very articulate and persuasive in his own way, but in 2024 his brain is clearly on the way out.

It's not, but, you have to ask a question - if democrats believe this, and this is the correct messaging, why did they do practically nothing to prevent things like this from becoming a reality? Or even propose a plan going forward as to how to prevent this again? Nothing came of Jan 6, nothing came of any of this, no matter who won, and it was very obvious that the plan was just "well as long as we're in power we won't slide into authoritarianism," but even if it wasn't Trump, eventually someone else is going to come along and beat them and begin wherever Trump left off.

It's not very good messaging at its core. You can't say something is an existential crisis, and then spend 4 years doing absolutely nothing about that crisis other than to say "vote for me again so that won't happen this time."

They impeached him. Counter to Republican's rhetoric, the Democrats can't force the DOJ to press charges in a timely manner, but the DOJ eventually also pursued charges. So they attempted to fix this with:

1. Impeachment 2. Congressional Acts 3. Independent action from the Department of Justice 4. Individual states attempted to get him off their ballots for treason

How about you describe what they should have done?

> why did they do practically nothing to prevent things like this from becoming a reality

https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/1139951463/electoral-count-ac...

This is like using a squirt gun in a forest fire. A meaningless change to a meaningless procedural "loophole" that had no chance of working whatsoever.

They have tried to do things, but they are not omnipotent and the House was under GOP majority.

> why did they do practically nothing to prevent things like this from becoming a reality?

You mean like passing "The Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022"? That was literally written to support democracy and prevent another Jan 6.

Obviously you can't write legislation to stop Trump winning democratically while still supporting democracy.

Dems have at least shown they're the party of supporting real democracy.

> this line about democracy ending if Trump wins is about all she could offer as a reason to vote for her,

This is a lie.

> I guess now we'll all get to see if the dire warnings were at all founded in reality

So, if he was lying or telling the truth?

> If they were wrong, then they burned a whole bunch of credibility pushing what turned out to be a conspiracy theory.

No they didn't. Republicans run the same claims every election and they win off it.

> the moderate voter can't use that as a razor.

Any informed voter would now Kamala offered more then "this line about democracy ending." Anyone who thinks this was "all she could offer as a reason to vote for her," you are really just saying "I was not informed."

The fact that someone like Trump was given as choice is a result of a failure of "the man" from the start.

It's just too easy to pretend it is not your fault if your society, the one that you are building with your neighbours, ended up giving you bad choices.

Now that the man made a choice, what do you think will happen next time? This election just demonstrated that lying and using fear and hatred is working very well. Do you think that someone "normal" will invest in this knowing they will lose for sure?

> lying and using fear and hatred is working very well

Counterpoint: R's perceive (sometimes not incorrectly) that lying is a "both sides" thing, and it's indisputable that the D's ran largely on fear/hatred this time (which clearly did not get the D voterbase out where it counted).

> which clearly

There are plenty of theories of what happened. For example, Harris did target the center and the not-convinced-by-Trump republicans a lot, which is probably what alienated her voter base more than saying something that was already said during Biden election and did not alienate them.

I really doubt you can seriously pretend that the Democrats would have done better without their share of lying. Maybe yes, but maybe no, and concluding one of the two is just as valid as the any other conclusion. One may can even argue that they did not lie enough, as the lies on the Republican side did helped them a lot (unless we consider that republican voters are intrinsically more morally bankrupted than the democrat ones, and that republican voters like lies while democrat voters don't).

As for the fear/hatred, it's a funny thing. If you put one liar and one honest person in the same room, one will say "the other one is the liar" and the other one will say ... "the other one is the liar". It's funny that if you put someone who want to use fear and hatred for their own profit and someone who don't, the first one will say "if you vote for my opponent, it will be very dangerous because their are pushing for fear and hatred" and the second one will say the same.

> R's perceive (sometimes not incorrectly) that lying is a "both sides" thing

Lying is a politician thing. Anyone who thinks that any one politician or political party has a monopoly on lying is deluding themselves. Trump lies through his teeth, Biden lies through his teeth, Obama did, Bush did, Clinton did, etc. Honest politicians simply do not exist.

And to be clear I think we should absolutely criticize our politicians for it. What I object to is this framing like only one particular politician is a liar. Bullshit, they all are liars to the same degree.

I would not say they lie to the same degree. Trump can not own up to the truth. The man took a Sharpie to a hurricane map to "prove" that he was not wrong. He has never and will never admit that he is wrong.

To some extent Trump is a singular figure. No-one else has quite the same charisma he has and his experience of getting shot makes him into even more of a legend.

Daniel Boorstin observed the Kennedy administration and predicted in 1963 that it was just a matter of time before TV stars would dominate conventional politics.

The charisma of an old, demented moron? He failed as a public speaker even before he got this old, I have heard non-native 5 years old speak better than him.

Plus he is spineless, lying, rapist.. well, sure it is a kind of a charisma. One fitting for some video game villain.

What he says comes across as emotionally true to many people.

I do remember that debate with Kamala were Trump came across as unhinged with that "eating cats and dogs" thing but I think one reason why he might have won was revealed in Harris's waffling around the issue of climate change where her answer was "drill baby drill", pandering to the Pennsylvania market.

People who want to see climate action are discouraged by this but people who want "drill baby drill" don't believe she in sincere and think that she is pandering. So talking that way she just loses people she doesn't win them.

Except the Haitians really are eating dogs and cats. I have seen the video and photographic evidence. They see it as free food. You think cats and dogs wander Haiti in massive numbers? No, they eat them. They’re starving.

> This election just demonstrated that lying and using fear and hatred is working very well.

All I heard from anyone left leaning (on this site or otherwise) in the last year is that we have to stop Trump because he's going to literally destroy democracy. That, too, is using fear and hatred. Don't act like only one political faction does it. We are trapped in a vortex of shit where both sides are using fear and hatred, and we need to criticize everyone for it.

yeah, that's my point.

You are making it even clearer to demonstrate that all is reduced to framing "you are either democrat or republican".

> It's just too easy to pretend it is not your fault if your society, the one that you are building with your neighbours, ended up giving you bad choices.

It’s the man’s fault because We Live in a Society? Maybe you ought to evoke the Butterfly Effect as well, it’s all connected. The butterfly in Africa is probably also complicit in this Trump win.

The Donor Class decided that this was the two options you had. I hope that I don’t have to explain that the Democrats and Republicans are not grassroots, democratic institutions.

Trump crushed his primaries, he is absolutely the democratic choice of Republican voters.

Trump seems to be a refutation that the candidate is only chosen by "The Donor Class". He was nominated twice despite efforts of monied interests, not because of them (it's my understanding the money didn't go to him until it was inevitable that he'd be the candidate).

It’s a refutation of the literal phrase “chosen by the donor class” because there are more players that have an effect.

Trump is the candidate of the reactionary petite bourgeoisie.[1] These are not part of the Donor Class but they have enough power to, when times are “bad” for the lamestream candidates, elbow in their candidate.

[1] The mainstream media likes to say that he is the “working class candidate” without any seeming basis in reality

How are you defining the "petite bourgeoisie"? I'm not sure your thought fits with my (perhaps incorrect) understanding of the term as sole proprietors and artisan workers. Is that term being used liberally to refer to the property-owning middle/lower classes?

After a quick lookup, it seems like roughly 10% of Americans own a small business. (I'm assuming a relatively large portion is a side-hustle.) I don't know that I would say they have enough power (by themselves) to select a candidate.

I define it however all socialist writings define it.

IMO it seems like you’re trying to make the situation fit your thesis and not the other way around.

IMO same for you.

Where’s your refutation? “I don’t know that I would say”… okay.

You think 10% is too small? What percentage of the country is the Donor Class?

It’s hard to get clarity when you aren’t even willing to define the words you’re throwing around.

My refutation about the “donor class” stems from the fact that Trump raised relatively little money compared to his rivals in 2016 yet still won. If the donor class wielded all the power, that couldn’t happen. “Big money” actively supported his opponents in the primaries. I don’t know the stats for this year, but I wouldn’t be surprised at all if a similar dynamic happened.

> It’s hard to get clarity when you aren’t even willing to define the words you’re throwing around.

I already told you to google it.

> My refutation about the “donor class” stems from the fact that Trump raised relatively little money compared to his rivals in 2016 yet still won. If the donor class wielded all the power, that couldn’t happen.

We’ve been over this. They don’t wield all the power.

>I already told you to google it

You didn't, but you did take the weak position of saying your definition is "whatever" is defined elsewhere. I tried to be generous and expand it to a larger group than you suggested because I don't think the size of the "petite bourgeoisie" is large enough to define an election. You seemed to balk at that definition, so we're left back with an unsubstantiated argument that sole proprietors and artisans select the candidates but you didn't explain why such a small group would be able to wield that amount of power.

>They don’t wield all the power.

Nobody is claiming they wield all the power. I do think they have more influence than the "petite bourgeoisie", but also that it's more complicated than whomever gets the most money wins. You also seem to think influence only means votes.

My refutation statement was related to the OP that said the donor class determines the candidates, which is the original point. You seemed determined to shoehorn Marxism into the discussion. Unfortunately, your claim doesn't seem to hold water, unless you redefine the terminology you’re using.

It demonstrated nothing of the sort. The better candidate won and that’s about it. Even in the republican primaries, the best candidate won. What makes you think your opinion is above the system?

At least he was the choice by people. Someone else could have been choice, if they had more pull. Unlike the other side where no one voted for her to be the canditate.

What makes you think the system always chooses the best candidate? Most voters operate on very little or false information, they just vote on vibes or for whatever party they've always voted for

Why do you think you don't. It could be you who is deceived. Everyone thinks they are the person that sees things for what they are but it can't be true for all of us.

Better doesn’t mean good. A lot of people say that the choice was between bad and worse. Both the Economist’s and the NYT election advice wasn’t vote for Harris because she is great but because Trump is bad.

When you observe a system like that it’s reasonable to ask if you can improve the system. Imagine this was a football game and not politics. It would be reasonable to talk about how we can make the football league more interesting.

Oh no... Insult the voters yet again. That'll work this time!

It seems to have worked for Puerto Rico....

I mean if Biden called everyone garbage as humor, I would actually think it's funny. But he actually meant it lol.

EDIT: MY guess is Biden is smarter than he lets on, and secretly supports Trump / hates the dems for what they did to him. I wouldn't be surprised if that comment was purposeful. It seemed a bit contrived.

Biden is sunsetting a bit, but is he "put on a MAGA hat, bust out a big smile, and give a thumbs up for the camera" sunsetting?

Did Jill Biden wear a red dress to the polls on accident? Do we credit the idea that she, the First Lady, didn't look in the mirror and think about the political implications of primary colors in the USA?

Exactly

One candidate was a normal functioning human being with policy positions other normal functioning humans can agree or disagree with. A better analogy would be a choice between blue cheese and poison.

As a moderate who voted for KH, the biggest problem with the DNC candidates in recent decades is that they do not, in fact, appear to be real human beings, but instead curated facades composed of politically desirable traits.

I can see your point in the presidential race. For down ballot candidates though, I'd say exactly the opposite. So many GOP politicians who sing praise of Trump publicly have been caught calling him a moron privately. Or in the case of his VP, calling him Hitler publicly. The scent of insincerity is just rampant through the GOP.

> I can see your point in the presidential race. For down ballot candidates though, I'd say exactly the opposite.

I agree, however, most people separate one from the other sparingly.

Totally agree. Thankfully, democracy ensured that Poison lost.

Tell me then, what are Trump's policy positions aside from keeping himself out of jail? Do you think he is actually going to impose across-the-board 20% tariffs? His big donors and the market don't because that would result in other countries imposing 20% tariffs on all US exports and trading with each other instead. That was just a story to tell his poor uneducated voters so they wouldn't think he would raise their taxes, reduce their benefits, or explode the deficit. There's no more build a wall rhetoric after he failed to do so in his first term and then blocked a border control bill. What he will support is cryptocurrency speculation, which he has personally profited from and his Silicon Valley donors hope to continue to profit from.

If we want to be optimistic, he will cut regulations and probably also funding to our military-industrial complex. For the wealthy, he will transfer an immense amount of resources to us.

> For the wealthy, he will transfer an immense amount of resources to us.

People complain about people not hating Trump on this board. Ostensibly forgetting that some people here are very rich.

For one’s 24h capital gains to exceed the median American wage only requires a few million at play in almost any asset. That is a fifth of households [1] and I’d guess around double that fraction of likely voters. (If you’re in crypto, you could have done it with less than a million.) That will influence how folks think about Trump, at least in the short term.

[1] https://www.fool.com/retirement/2024/05/27/heres-how-many-mi...

The policies were laid out in Project 2025. Of course, Trump didn't endorse it. But they have the power now and that's the blueprint they're going to follow. They have said they will destroy democracy in the US and they will do it.

That's just my personal opinion and prediction. I hope I'm wrong but in any case it makes no sense to discuss it now. We'll have to wait 2 years or so and see.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com