Hacker News Reader

Comment by nimbius | Hacker News Reader

IMO this is only going to be a thing for as long as:

0. it takes the reigning POTUS to realize its causing problems that are impacting wealthy elites (24 hours in the case of tariffs)

1. 4 years.

If i were product owner/manager of any of these teams id recommend we fork the codebase for 4 years and call it done. keep the forked version on standby with backports of major content updated in case you wind up with this sort of situation again, but dont start ripping all this stuff out of prod.

Or if on a longer timeline, build culture war into the release as a feature flag (culture=1, culture=0, etc..)

View on HN

[flagged]

The histrionics don't help:

If this is the case, incepting everyone with the idea in advance subconsciously lowers resistance right now, when nothing can be done, because this is all hypothetical.

And if it isn't the case, you can't be taken seriously.

Simply respond to the moment, in the moment. That is already enough.

Plus remember: he doesn't need to be a dictator, because he won a democratic election. If anything, liberals should be focusing on how to avoid JD Vance simply winning in 2028.

It's not "histrionics"; they tried it last time and they'll try it again. This time they seem more organized, so I wouldn't be surprised if they succeed. If you care about the US remaining a functioning democracy, you should work in whatever way you can toward removing the current administration from power.

The FBI and 51 Intelligence officials signed a document saying Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation 2-3 weeks before the last election, when in fact it was actually Hunter Biden's laptop.

Is this a true statement or not?

The FBI never made such a statement, and the 51 *former* intelligence officers made a statement that, in their opinion, the laptop contained hallmarks of Russian disinformation, and all of this occurred 2 weeks before the 2020 election for maximum political effect.

"They" are not any more organized now than they were then, they're simply better staffed. This is precisely why Trump has to use executive orders (many of which are rescinded instantly) and send Elon on dummy missions instead of just doing the durable thing: whipping Congress into passing law.

As it stands, the only durable policy win of his term so far was achieved on a bipartisan basis and mostly passed before he even took office: the Laken Riley Act. Why isn't the opposition party acting as opposition?

> If you care about the US remaining a functioning democracy, you should work in whatever way you can toward removing the current administration from power.

The U.S. is already not a functioning democracy (see 2016 and 2020), and removing the current administration from power (illegally?) will not change that.

This constant cycle of ineffective freakouts that America's liberal bloc find themselves in every 4 years is a large part of the reason why Trump won to begin with.

not disagreeing with anything you wrote, well, except that very last line.

he won because many groups of people were promised exactly what they wanted to hear. majority of america is very dumb. to the point it seems intentional. they reject any attempt to be informed about this subject. people routinely having abortions voted trump. people on SSI voted for trump. unemployed people voted for trump. disabled veterans voted for trump. literal nazis trump -- and i'm not saying HE is one, i'm saying that his campaign made sure they see him as one, and it absolutely worked ... over and over again against many of these groups whom are just frothing for fellow haters

i get really upset trying to figure out how to resolve this. but i can't even talk to the couple of relatives i have who are in this cult. if they detect you aren't praising the leader, things get hostile fast.

I think the way out is to offer an alternative vision for the future that speaks to their wants and needs. The problem is that it can't happen overnight -- attacking the cult leader just raises their hackles. People have to come to that conclusion themselves. The Democrats don't have the ability to raise an effective counter to Trump at the moment that isn't an attack on the man himself. There's no substantive positive vision for the future -- because part of mainstream liberal politics is the idea that things are mostly ok as they are, minus some egalitarian tweaks in terms of rights for certain minority groups, etc.

But people have the sense -- in some cases rightfully and in some not -- that their lives aren't going great. So they look to someone to offer an opportunity for change. And they're willing -- really primed, by all of American society -- to throw under the bus whatever boogeyman is necessary as dictated by the Fox News monster of the week™

>majority of america is very dumb

This attitude is another reason he won.

Doesn't change the facts on the ground. He loves the uneducated, and is doing everything he can to make sure future generations are less educated than their parents were.

You know the guy who was elected was prepared to stay in power had his insurrectionists been a little better planned.

Histerioinics and history are not associated with the same word.

Grow up.

> Plus remember: he doesn't need to be a dictator, because he won a democratic election.

He was elected President, not king. The laws being broken applied to all previous election winners.

King Charles III is many Kings and quite a few other head of states/dominions/Mann! He does not have many of the powers that Trump is deploying.

It may turn out to be ironic that you describe Trump and our Monarch (or any other) within the same breath.

Please recall (or look up) what happened to Charles I of England.

Trump has already signaled he plans to run for a (as of right now) unconstitutional third term.

Time is not on his side.

With the best healthcare in the world available, I definitely won't be getting my hopes up on that. And furthermore the order of succession isn't much better.

Where did he signal this?

Once you find the quote, go onto politco (a not exactly pro-trump site) fact-checking service to get the full context.

What full context am I missing?

Here from his own mouth https://youtube.com/shorts/DpVsZZtEpS8?feature=shared

And a proposed amendment to go with it, excluding Obama of course https://ogles.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-ogles-propo...

Literally one guy proposed an amendment in an attempt to brown nose his boss.

It has practically zero support and has an actual zero chance of being ratified.

I actually agree with you, I don’t think a constitutional amendment will be ratified in my lifetime. But a lot of things I didn’t think I’d ever see have happened in the last two weeks

>he doesn't need to be a dictator, because he won a democratic election

So did Hitler.

I wish that in 100 years Hitler becomes truly synonymous to "Satan", and instead of "satanic" or "demonic" people would say "hitleric". Because it sounds cooler and it suits the way how people throw "hitlers" at each other online.

I mean, he's literally gone on live TV, in an official briefing, saying he's going to take over the Gaza Strip. With no authority except his own. This is exactly how dictators across the world operate after they're initially elected.

Culture war as a feature flag is so good. I’m definitely reusing that.

> it takes the reigning POTUS to realize its causing problems that are impacting wealthy elites (24 hours in the case of tariffs)

He didn't "realize" anything. All of the show we're seeing was planned posturing and "deal-making by leverage". We shouldn't be accepting even talking about the US annexing Greenland FFS - but here we are, with credible proposals for installing new US military presence on Greenland being discussed. That's alarming.

> 4 years.

Bold of you to assume there will be elections in four years, that these elections will be anywhere close to fair, or that the people who voted for the 47th won't just vote for him (or his successor, assuming the 47th goes six-feet-under) again.

There has been no revolutionary change in governance since FDR. The federal apparatus has been tightening the screws with ever vaster and more expensive compendium of regulations and laws. End result, about the largest incarcerated population of the world.

The parties in power failed to unwind any of this so instead they got an unhinged strongman who promised to do it with a sledgehammer. Trump is a symptom rather than a cause.

Last I heard El Salvador was offering to help expand the prison population.

> The parties in power failed to unwind any of this so instead they got an unhinged strongman who promised to do it with a sledgehammer.

... and will do just the opposite of what he promised and they were hoping for. Recent news about how scientific grants are being retroactively reviewed for any signs of "woke" language - if that isn't a vast expansion of governmental authoritarian powers, I seriously don't know what is.

> We shouldn't be accepting even talking about the US annexing Greenland FFS

Genuine question: why? Expansionism may be out of style, but I don't see how it's inherently evil.

> Expansionism may be out of style, but I don't see how it's inherently evil.

Any society IMHO has the right to self-determination and self-sovereignty, as long as they adhere to at least the minimum standards of civilized societies aka UDHR - and the governments of those that don't even pay lip service to it should be fair game for everyone else to depose, we've seen the horrors of Syria, the new Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the genocides of Russia (against Ukrainians), Myanmar and China (Uyghurs and Tibetans) or the kleptocracy that was Gaza under Hamas, enough is enough and someone has to at least enforce the basic laws of humanity.

In the end, the people of Greenland should be the ones that have the say about what happens to their country, not the Americans, and for all I care the question if Denmark should have authority over Greenland should be seriously reconsidered as well given the atrocities of the last decades - among others, kidnapping children and forcibly sterilizing women [1].

[1] https://www.dw.com/en/greenland-denmark-relations-scandals/a...

2. 12+ years.

> 1. 4 years.

That's optimistic.

We put a business executive in charge of the federal government. There's no such thing as term limits or checks-and-balances in the mind of a business executive, just taking a good horse out of the race and inefficiencies. On the first count, if Trump's still in relatively good health, I could absolutely see him making that case for scrapping the term limit on the Presidency.

> I could absolutely see him making that case for scrapping the term limit

They're already working on a constitutional amendment to allow a third term[0] and right wing lawyers have suggested that there are legal strategies Trump could try employing to stay in power. That along with Trump himself "jokingly" saying that we won't need to vote again if he's elected does not inspire confidence.

0: https://ogles.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-ogles-propo...

Luckily a constitutional amendment has 0% chance of being ratified by enough states, even if they're somehow able to get a supermajority in both houses of Congress. Any legislation in that direction is just a distraction. It's the other strategies we need to watch more carefully.

Yea, he doesn't need a constitutional amendment. He controls all three branches of government, so who is going to stop him?

That's why the second amendment exists.

> On the first count, if Trump's still in relatively good health, I could absolutely see him making that case for scrapping the term limit on the Presidency.

He isn't. Even absent any impact that catching covid may have had on his body, he's visibly obese. More detailed reports on his health are hard to come by thanks to (a) that being private, and (b) the extremely noisy people who either want to demonise or deify him, but it's not unreasonable to think he's got a 25% chance of old age catching up with him fatally by the end of this term.

But if the term limits get scrapped, I wouldn't be surprised to see a return of Bush or Obama as alternatives. Or Bill Clinton. Bill, George, and Donald were all born in 1946.

(1946 was also the same year the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council started meeting. Coincidence, or the secret world government? Coincidence, obviously).

They're aiming for "scrap term limits, but only for Presidents who have served non-consecutive terms". (Or it's all just "notice me senpai" from the soulless minions in Congress. Maybe both.)

Four years? Oh, honey...

Where do I put money on the MAGA-Nazis pulling a Putin on future elections? I suppose Putin isn't the first one to do rigged elections, somehow he's the only one currently in my mind.

Sadly Wikipedia doesn't have an article entitled "List of Rigged Elections"...

I really do expect them to try. I am slightly hopeful that this clown show of an administration is too incompetent to pull it off. The judicial branch appears to be bought and paid for, so maybe my optimism is unfounded.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com