Hacker News Reader

Comment by tdhz77 | Hacker News Reader

We know why. They are ignorant, don't care, or duped. There is no reason to vote for a person morally bankrupt and doesn't have any reasonable solutions to problems. A person with felonies can't even be on a Jury in this country, and people elected him President after his attempt to overthrow the government? I would struggle to hire him to mow my grass let alone run the country. This whole "You need to talk to us" is ridiculous as the positions.

View on HN

I'll give it a shot, just maybe to help one person understand.

They voted for him because 15+ years of government + federal reserve policy has led to massive bubbles in all US capital assets while impoverishing a wide swath of the population. The people who voted for Trump are those who've "lost" in the giant crypto+stock Ponzi scheme.

The reason people on the winning side of this have such a hard time seeing it is that, en masse, they've turned away from any semblance of traditional valuation measures for capital assets. I assume they've done this because it's too emotionally uncomfortable to consider the notion that their entire wealth isn't because they're geniuses but because of deranged government policy.

Isn't Trump the pro-"crypto Ponzi scheme" (as you called it) candidate? Asset prices of both crypto and stocks seem to think so.

Yep. It's ironic and shitty, but people just did a protest vote. They aren't looking at the specific proposals. They don't care anymore. You're absolutely right, but honestly both parties are completely in on the Ponzi scheme. So it probably doesn't matter.

Not only pro but going to put your tax dollars in:

>US Senator Lummis reaffirms Bitcoin will be become a national reserve asset following Trump's victory

Read my other comments. It's a protest vote. They don't care what his actual policies are. No one is willing to pop the economic bubble, so voters are just going to burn the whole thing down.

I'd bet a dollar this is 100% incorrect, and that cryptobros voted overwhelming for Trump/Vance/Thiel/Musk.

It's probably split. But it doesn't matter. The important question is who the people who have lost in the lottery voted for, not who the winners voted for.

And somehow Trump is going to reign this in? Him? How? Did you see both crypto markets and stock "ponzi" scheme reaction to his election? If this is their reasoning, it is flawed, to avoid using terms that are much less charitable. It feels that this kind of justification is trying to fit a narrative to the deed that makes no sense, somehow justify it.

I personally think it's a culture war thing that caused this. And it is probably going to get worse.

Of course he won't. But, see, no one will. Both parties are equally culpable here. People are just doing protest votes at this point. What are they even supposed to do? No one can even buy a house. The only actual solution is to put interest rates up to 8% and trigger a revaluation and a recession, but the odds of that are zero, no matter who is president.

> They are ignorant, don't care, or duped.

That's what a lot of Trump voters believe about people who don't like him. He used to generally have good public opinion (prior to his ascendance in 2015). A lot of people believe that his bad press is primarily due to intentional smear campaigns and lawfare by the powers that be.

In that sense, for many people, a vote for Trump is like apes in /r/stonks buying and holding GME. It's less about what they want in a positive sense, and more about what they don't want: namely extreme leftism and the current ruling class in Washington, the media, billionaires, and everyone else who attended the WEF in Davos -- all the folks who care nothing for the average Joe.

He may not fix it, they may not even expect him to be able to, but voting for him is a way to have a voice. At least he really upsets all those powerful people! And he did get some stuff conservatives liked done in his first term.

They didn't want the rich guy, so they voted the rich guy in? I think you need to work on your argument.

It's not the riches per se that they take issue with. In fact, they admire and celebrate rich people who got there by hard work, luck, and good business (just like apes in /r/stonks celebrate how rich DFV got on GME options). What they take issue with is how certain powerful people use their riches and power in ways that benefit only themselves and hurt everyone else (who isn't rich) -- particularly the power establishment in Washington, New York, and Silicon Valley.

To give one specific example, private equity firms have been buying out small local businesses on a massive scale (like veterinary clinics), jacking up the prices, paying the workers less, and giving customers a worse experience.

That's not the sort of thing they perceive Trump to be doing with his riches and power. In fact, I don't see any way Trump is messing with the macroeconomy in his own business practices (do you know of any?).

Trump has a reputation for not paying his debts [1], and for stiffing the little people that have worked for him [2]

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/aa383026-ac12-4d39-b6ee-075c2a248...

[2] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dozens-of-lawsuits-accuse-t...

That's not the macroeconomy.

That's not like Bill Gates buying up 275000 acres of farmland. That's not like World Economic Forum people in Davos scheming to eliminate ownership from common people across the world.

There's such a wide gulf between Trump and these sorts of people.

Besides, the examples you gave would come across as something a legacy media smear campaign dug up and misrepresented.

And what about the various court cases that require evidence? Are those made up too?

I didn't say the charges weren't true, or that they were made up.

Just that whatever he did as a businessman, it didn't threaten or negatively affect the entire US economy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com