Hacker News Reader

Comment by chinathrow | Hacker News Reader

Not a US citizen but affected by the current trajectory of the policies by the current administration.

I wonder at what point in time people will have enough with what they are changing. How does the HN crew based in the US think about the current administration?

View on HN

> How does the HN crew based in the US think about the current administration?

HN and the broader tech community have had their mask off moments.

I do think the HN and tech community is a more diverse group, than just the ultra libertarians, opportunists, and outright fascists. Maybe that's just my naive hope. In any case I would also like to know how US based techies think about this administration and the direction the country is heading in.

if you look at any recent article here on the current US trajectory there is a pretty large contingent of people who are very much not happy with the way things are going. Of course the articles then get flagged and removed from the front page but from my reading more and more people are speaking up over here. And as US techie I certainly don’t support this BS.

>people who are very much not happy with the way things are going. Of course the articles then get flagged and removed from the front page ...

Can you explain, we're in one now on the front page. In fact, I see the opposite, anything positive of the current administration is drowned out by comments about all the other things not going well.

Worth noting that I did not realize how many articles are getting flagged regularly here until I switched to active view eg https://news.ycombinator.com/active

I could have been clearer but that is what i mean, there is a large contingent with very negative feelings for the actions of the current admin.

Ahh got it, agreed. I do experiments every once in awhile where I try to find one thing the current administration has done objectively well, there are some. Some people can't admit to one thing being good, and I'm not even saying the ends justify the means.

I mean no snark, but can you link to some things that are objectively well done?

> than just the ultra libertarians, opportunists, and outright fascists.

I mean, I would think that actual libertarians, even right-libertarians, would be extremely alarmed by ol' minihands, tbh.

> people will have enough

Likely at least a third of Americans do actively support the current administration and their decisions, so "having enough" is out of the question.

People keep saying this, but have you actually asked 100 people yourself and found at least 33 agreeing?

I don't get why California doesn't just join the European Union and exit the US; it's not like the red neck states like California.

The election was less than a year ago. As an outsider, my genuine belief is this is what an average American wants. And honestly, it is what it is.

I mentioned this before as well, but this all can be viewed as a side effect of the general population not feeling improvements in their lives and not having optimism. Hard issue to solve, if I’ll be honest.

They had an election, and in California there was 1 vote for Trump for 1.52 votes for Harris [1] so even within one of the bluest of blue states, 40% of voters support the current administration.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidentia...

California, like a lot of other "blue" states, turns deeply red once you get away from the cities and into more rural areas. It's just the cities have so many more people that they dominate statewide elections.

What's wrong with that? Do you think the popular vote should pick the president and half the country is ruled by people that prioritize living in a city and all that entails.

Ah yes, the problem of "more people" determining elections. It should be the minority that determines elections!

> affected by the current trajectory of the policies

Curious how you're are directly affected? And as a non us-citizen, why does it matter?

Trump is affecting the economy of other countries. The tariffs and the massive uncertainty is causing layoffs and makes companies more hesitant to invest.

The destruction of US scientific institutions has effects on other countries as well, science is very interconnected. It also affects all companies that supply scientific equipment and supply.

The foreign policy has effects on other countries, the US is still the most powerful nation at the moment. And let's assume that there is a chance his threats to invade Greenland or Canada are actually acted upon, that would change world politics in a fundamental way.

Not who you're asking, but the extreme changes in US foreign policy (well, maybe not necessarily policy because I doubt there's much paperwork going on to make the rapidly swinging changes official) are affecting, basically, the stability of global security and making US allies very nervous.

Whilst this is at an international political level, it has effects on individuals world views and therefore psychologies, which can be experienced viscerally.

As an obvious example, I'm sure Ukrainians have gone through some personal ups and downs as a result of the current administrations interpretation of diplomacy.

Every country in the world is severely affected by Trump's reversal of climate change policy.

”Let’s not talk politics, it’s just inflammatory. Hey, cool LLM model. Shiny!”

That would be very funny if it weren't disturbingly close to the truth.

I believe 90% of mean people on the web talking about politics are actually bots.

Are you a bot? Prove it, one way or another.

Also, is there something like Poe's law but for bots? Bot Attribution Fallacy?

And when people do talk about politics it's exactly the kind of hot takes you'd expect from people who think they're very smart (and probably are when it comes to choosing a database) but are completely uninformed about the current topic and only capable of parroting referred opinions, or making statements they expect the group to agree with. Nobody comes out of the conversation smarter than they went in.

Honestly, I think it's better that we do keep conversation here to shiny technology. If you want to talk politics, go and find a group of people who know what they're talking about. That way you might learn something.

Problem: Everything is political. Pretending not to talk about politics, is mostly just supporting a certain kind of politics (the one that you get by default if you avoid talking about politics).

Disagree, not everything is political unless you make it so. Otherwise we should fork this to political discussions only.

I don’t think it’s that I’m avoiding politics…

It’s that I know the day-to-day headlines from DC are mostly noise, and do not inform in the same way that ESPN talking head analysts do not inform about football.

To understand the state of American politics and of the world, I have news sources I trust. Hacker News will never be one of them. Neither will Reddit. Nor will Facebook.

I don’t want HN to turn into another outrage-bait pseudo-news commentary site. Look at the front page of Reddit (it’s atrociously bad) to see how far this forum could fall.

I flagged this article. If you want to talk about daily political news with other internet people, there are myriad options: WSJ, NYT, and Washington Post all have comment sections. Reddit and Facebook and Twitter and BlueSky and Instagram and Threads all have comment sections. YouTube has comments. Blogs have comments.

Why do people insist that keeping HN free of politics is tantamount to being blissfully ignorant of world affairs? And why do people insist on turning HN into Reddit v2?

Most people do the same thing with shiny technology topics too.

But you’re right. It seems to be a better place than the alternatives, but heck, I learn rarely from comments compared how often I did 10 years ago on a - back then - small subreddit. Most comments can be inferred just from headlines, not even from the articles.

When it comes to tech topics this is an insiders discussion. When it comes to political topics, 99% of people in HN threads have close to zero insights, and circle around publicly known information. Big difference.

It is very dangerous to expect deep insights on every aspect of human life from a HN thread, regardless of how well educated and well meaning average HN commenters are.

1000%. Don't talk about Religion, Politics or Sex. It's a great way to fight and divide and we will NEVER agree.

That's not even close to what I said. You should absolutely talk about these things, but you should find knowledgeable people who will challenge you and help you to grow. HN isn't the place for that, when it comes to topics outside of tech.

How do you determine that people are knowledgeable and are going to help you grow? How do you verify they’re “knowledgeable”?

Hacker news should not become strictly or dominated by political discussion, but given AI and its impact on society amongst many other technologies like social media, which are intertwined within political discussion these days, some of the “knowledgeable“ people and particularly those whose careers have been impacted by AI are right here on hacker news.

> How do you determine that people are knowledgeable and are going to help you grow? How do you verify they’re “knowledgeable”?

How do we do this with tech topics? We rely on our expert knowledge to evaluate the claims of others. If someone is seriously asking this question about political discussion on HN that means they're not at the point where they're ready to have political discussions that are anything more than just saying "hey did you read that mainstream news article?" "yeah".

If you know even a modicum of politics or political theory it's almost trivial to prove, disprove, or add color to what's being said in these threads. If you want a really simple way to do this hop onto one of the big prediction markets like Polymarket or Kalshi. You can probably disprove a solid 15% of top-ranked commenters just by doing that.

If you want to use more brainpower, hop over to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and read one of their long articles. In particular they have a great set of articles on US policy thinking around China right now. It's pretty saddening to read HN commentary on China and compare it to CEIP's readings.

The conclusion I've come to on this site is that the incentives around participating on a public internet site, like HN, Reddit, Facebook, etc are such that they attract a crowd of people who are more interested in talking than listening or understanding. There's a subset of them who really enjoy debating but without being grounded in fact or consequence from misprediction it turns largely into verbal sparring games. There's also little difference between these sites because from what I can tell it's the same set of people attracted to all of the same sites.

you want to use more brainpower, hop over to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and read one of their long articles. In particular they have a great set of articles on US policy thinking around China right now. It's pretty saddening to read HN commentary on China and compare it to CEIP's readings.

Why do you think, an US centric, vaguely leftist think tank focused on US politics with seat in Washington, financed by American donors, initiates the use of brainpower and understanding? More than any other media, that is. There is such a thing as the rest of the world (95% of the world population) who may be more incentivised to ask honest questions on HN than reading yet another U. S. publication that regards them as a remark in the margins, as demonstrated by the CEIP front page https://carnegieendowment.org/?lang=en

CEIP is just one think tank. There are plenty of others there. I frequently read CEPR [1] for a more EU perspective or JIIA [2] for a more Japanese perspective. I just referenced CEIP because it probably most neatly represents the dominant HN perspective.

> Why do you think, an US centric, vaguely leftist think tank focused on US politics with seat in Washington, financed by American donors, initiates the use of brainpower and understanding?

Incentives. Do you really think that internet commenters are going to produce better research than folks paid to research things and provide insights to decision makers? Everyone has a bias. Having a bias doesn't stop you from doing deep analysis. The CCP traces its ideological origins from Marx-Leninism and still uses that to develop their policy positions. It's a very different perspective than US policy which traces its philosophy back to the European Enlightenment, but that doesn't mean their analysis is any less rigorous.

[1]: https://cepr.org/ [2]: https://www.jiia.or.jp/en/

CEPR is yet another leftist (less vaguely than CEIP) U. S. American think tank with the same attributes as CEIP (donors, location etc.) So, more U. S. centrism with a heavy focus on Vox News. Might just as well read Vox.

JIIA is the only one of your examples, covering worldwide topics right there on the front page, even Africa. Promoting research.

So far, your selection confirms only one of your statements: bias. Everyone has them. Do you really think, the first two of your choices would engage in"deep analysis" on topics contrary to the political agenda of their donors and hence their incentives?

I'll hold that I get more varied opinions and links to sources on HN than from strictly conforming U. S. publications, but thanks for introducing me to JIIA - which, you know, verifies the first part of this sentence.

The philosophical roots of states is not on topic here, so I'll skip that.

If you think bias disqualifies analysis then you'll probably only be happy reading news that politically agrees with you. If that's your bar, well, social media is for you.

I almost responded this but the condescending nature of it doesn’t deserve one. Later.

> I almost responded this but

Glad that it was almost :)

> And when people do talk about politics it's exactly the kind of hot takes you'd expect from people who think they're very smart (and probably are when it comes to choosing a database) but are completely uninformed about the current topic and only capable of parroting referred opinions,

A-MEN.

Ton of takes by armchair enthusiasts who think they have the ability call a spade a spade because they're grandmother told them they were a genius after restarting her computer.

I swear to god, DHH has to got to be the best example of this. His blog piece about free speech is so funny in retrospect it's hard for me to read and believe he takes himself seriously.

In fairness, the LLMs are also inflammatory.

To my GPU.

For the record, I’m also dog tired of hearing about LLMs as well…

But LLMs are great piece of technology and closest analogue to the AGI in past 30 years! It's truly a gamechanging future technology.

... And, incidentally, knowing that my value judgements are as broken and human tangential as Borg transwarp control computers, I know that it's a massive bubble that is going to financially ruin absolutely everybody.

The people who say that mostly support Trump, but are just embarrassed to say so in public.

I voted for Trump. I don't support everything he does as he's not my sports team, but I agree with a lot of what he's doing.

I've started this line of discussion on reddit many times being open and honest. Nobody wants to engage in honest discussion.

> but I agree with a lot of what he's doing.

As an outsider: what do you agree with he's doing specifically?

It's always some combination of "screwing over foreigners / immigrants," "lowering my taxes" or "owning the woke libs."

"It's always". Please keep your generalities on bluesky or reddit with the other kids.

You have been asked this exact question multiple times on this post and you have not answered a single time.

It's the truth.

I don't hate people who voted for Trump. I sympathize with or outright agree with most conservative grievances (but not their expressions of those grievances).

Supporting Trump, in the general sense, is not the same thing. E.g. "a lot", as you say, implies "majority" or at least more than one or two things, which, of the dozens of (meaningful) things Trump has done, is about how many I'd peg as "theoretically defensible" (for example: Immigration control and getting jobs back to America, both of which I agree with; but obviously not in practice due to his counter-productive/performative/un-American implementations). The rest fall pretty clearly into the category of "materially hurting my home country and my community".

For example: Obliterating discourse, disrespecting rule of law, disrespecting the constitution, disrespecting rights and American principles, encouraging petty hatred and childish mockery, threatening to deport American citizens, calling every crime that might have been committed by a liberal "domestic terrorism", threatening via policy announced on Twitter to imprison my wife (who is a government worker) for the apparent crime of merely attempting to find a legal way to support our local legal immigrant(s) jailed by ICE for months for past non-violent non-drug-related crimes they have already finished serving for, which didn't even include jail time. The hysterical debasement of the amazing country my family has loved and served for hundreds of years.

Just off the top of my head.

There is no "I agree with some of it", or, "on average". It's moot, is what I mean. Yes, "honest discussion" is depressingly rare, but even truer: Focusing on the common person who isn't good at dispassionate political discourse is itself dishonest, when what's happening is hell.

Fwiw I never said here or anywhere else that I "support Trump"... taken out of context I don't know what that is supposed to mean.

Just like every president I've voted for, I support some of their ideas and some not. This isn't a sports team where there is a winner and loser.

Please, just list one or two things you actually support. You are being so evasive on actually backing up what you support of Trump.

Maybe he’s on a list of some disrepute!?

Do you agree with things like the following?

1. Blatantly violating the 14th Amendment by signing an executive order that ends birthright citizenship, potentially stripping tens of millions of Americans of their citizenship.

2. Sending the military onto the streets of major cities, in a fundamental break from the centuries-old principle that the military does not police American citizens.

3. Tolerating open corruption by senior officials, such as the border czar Tom Homan accepting a $50,000 bribe.

4. Openly calling for the Justice Department to go after his political enemies, and firing people who refuse to do so.

5. Appointing dangerous and unqualified people like RFK Jr. and Kash Patel to head agencies whose missions they oppose. RFK Jr. is out there making wild claims about autism and vaccines.

6. Trump trying to overturn the 2020 Presidential election results, including calling up the Georgia Secretary of State and demanding that he add 11,000 votes to Trump's total, in order to flip the state in Trump's favor, while threatening to criminally prosecute the Secretary of State if he refuses to change the election result.

7. Trump repeatedly threatening that he will annex Canada, and refusing to rule out the use of military force.

I could go on and on, but I think the above is enough to make the point. This is not just another administration that you can have this or that view about. This is the downfall of the American political system. RIP, 1787 - 2025.

With all of this, you should be sheepish about saying you support Trump.

It's all about trade-offs. Sadly the package deals keep getting worse and even if you refuse to buy, one shows up at your doorstep and they charge you anyways. The parties exist more to oppose each other than to identify and address issues. They serve their donors more than their electorate and sew discontent amongst the populace to distract from the role of capital in the current system. I think it's unrealistic to say you "support everything Trump does" just as it is to say you "do not support anything Trump does". The trend of extreme polarization has allowed them to continually worsen the package deals offered because they know that for a lot of people, it's all or nothing.

If you say you support someone who is fundamentally ripping out the American democratic political system, root and branch, then that's what you support. That's central to the "package deal."

There's no, "Well, I don't like that he's ending the entire system of rule of law and respect for the results of elections, but I like policy X."

There definitely is: "I disagree with X (and maybe A, B, and C too), but I agree with Y." You may not feel that's reasonable or that the negative impacts of X far outweigh the positive effects of Y, but it's possible for people to arrive at this conclusion due to having limited choices and specific interests.

Maybe you want to buy a sports car, but the dealer only has one coupe and it has a sunroof (that you don't want). You can go look at other dealerships for one with the package you like, but in a world where there is only one dealership you have to take what they give you. Lots of people will end up buying that coupe with a sunroof to take to the track. Especially if they approach their decision from a "I want a sports car" perspective and the other option is a minivan.

We're not talking about buying a sports car. We're talking about the end of democracy and rule of law in the United States of America.

It's just a decision making analogy. If you want better decisions that produce solutions that are a better fit for the problem then it makes sense to offer more choices of increased variety.

If the situation is as dire as you feel, then I certainly hope that someone mounts an opposition to Trump because that's how we all win... a better alternative that most people recognize as such. Where and why are they hiding the alternatives?

I know what an analogy is. It's just that your analogy is absurd.

We're talking about someone who is obliterating the American democratic political system, and you're basically saying, "Well, there are pros and cons with any package deal, just like when you buy a sports car." These aren't little pros and cons with some trifling issue. This is the continued existence of the United States as a democracy.

>obliterating the American democratic political system

What I think is absurd is people keep writing these things as if they are facts, when a majority of this country doesn't agree. And any amount of anecdotal or skewed headlines won't change minds.

You need a better approach.

The fact that a majority (a slim plurality, actually) of the country voted for someone who is ripping up the Constitution is a real problem. It doesn't mean that he's not ripping up the Constitution.

> anecdotal or skewed headlines

How are any of my examples above anecdotal or skewed? Did Trump issue an executive order ending birthright citizenship as enshrined in the 14th Amendment or not? Just one action like that would be an incredible break with the American political tradition, but he's done dozens of things that are just as bad or worse.

I don't know what "my approach" is. I'm describing reality as it is. I don't know how or if the American political system will overcome Trump and survive, but that system is facing extinction right now.

People are absurd... a majority of them got together and elected Trump in the first place. Lots of those people never considered any other option. A lot of times the reasoning goes: "Abortion is bad. I vote Republican." or even "I don't like that guy's face. I vote Democrat." People 100% make decisions and affect outcomes based on things that others consider trifling. Most people are not up late racking their brains over some Machiavellian scheme; they're like, "Nah, I want the sports car tho, minivans suck".

I agree that there's still no good option, and that's stupendously frustrating, but even the frustrating status quo is obviously better than outright attacks on America's principles, culture, laws, most citizens, etc. Trump isn't "shaking things up". He's destroying them.

I agree w/ you, but the people elected Trump; It's not Trump that worries me, it's the weakness of his opposition. So long as he continues to stand largely unopposed he will continue to break things.

That is a radical way of thinking, nobody I know IRL talks or thinks this way. The idea that you have to support everything that some group says or you are out is complete BS.

I've seen this over and over again, it's similar to "If you're not with us, you're against us" but on every topic.

Do you think it's reasonable to support someone who tried to strip tens of millions of Americans of their citizenship by executive order, in blatant violation of the 14th Amendment?

How about supporting someone who tried to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential election by every means at his disposal?

This is actually a clear case where you have to take a stand. "Well, I like some other things he's done" is not a valid answer here.

49.8% of the population voted for Trump, myself among them. First time voting Republican.

Everything I've seen so far from Trump is what I voted for. And almost everything Democrats have said and done has reaffirmed my choice.

Every one I've spoken to that has been surprised Trump was elected lives in a bubble. Hacker News is one such bubble.

You're not going to get any reliable "when are the masses going to revolt" info here.

People being grabbed off the streets and transported to prison in unrelated country is what you voted for?

The people who are in the US illegally, 1000% yes.

What about the US citizens that also got hauled off by unmarked white vans?

You’re okay taking a massive economic hit, removing large amounts of population from the country? Who cares if they’re “illegal” or not? Why does it matter if they’re less criminal than US born, and harder working? And don’t give me, they use services, I work for Medicaid and they don’t get it. So why? You just dislike brown people?

What economic hit? Yes, they're illegal and we don't care how hard working they are, they can go be hard working in their own countries. The US is not a soup kitchen. If you want to come here, go through the official process. If they bring as much to the table as you claim, they'll have no problem getting a visa.

> If they bring as much to the table as you claim, they'll have no problem getting a visa.

Nah, you see the fundamental problem here is that (based on Biden's estimate), there's about 10 million or so, and that 60–70% of all U.S. agricultural workers and 15–20% of construction workers are such people.

They do this at a pay rate that is both higher than they'd get in their home country, and lower than any American would work for. This itself, being too cheap, precludes them getting a work visa: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/foreign-labor/programs/h-2a

What they bring to America is: your food.

Where is this massive economic hit? GDP and stock market are up.

> stock market are up.

Multitude of sins being hidden by the devaluation of the dollar there.

So same as it ever was? Or just still happening but hopefully at a lower rate of change.

The dollar has fallen pretty drastically against other major currencies since the start of the year. That is, this isn't loss of value in the rather abstract monetary inflation sense but "dollar is down 15% relative to euro in under a year" (that's a pretty rapid shift in such a short timeline).

Ok, so? That doesn't affect most of wage earning Americans. You are cherry picking something to generalize everything being bad.

A decline in the dollar absolutely does impact most wage earning Americans. Those wages are being paid in dollars! A decline in the dollar on that scale will tend to lead to higher price inflation.

> Where is this massive economic hit? GDP and stock market are up.

Stock market recovered when Trump TACOed, it crashed hard when he tried to implement his actual policies.

Not the question that was asked.

And you support this being done with no due process, meaning we just have to trust Trump and his cronies when they claim someone is in the US illegally?

If there is anything Trump is doing popularly, it’s aggressively removing illegal immigrants from our streets. To the extent there is tolerance for Fourth Amendment violations, it may be from historic indifference to enforcing our immigration laws.

https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker

The aggressiveness is losing people who may have supported his immigration policies initially.

They gave him his second term, he doesn't need them anymore.

> aggressiveness is losing people

Losing, but hasn’t lost. Point is if someone is proudly pro-Trump right now, immigration probably isn’t going to prompt introspection.

This is it, exactly.

I used to be a very "live and let live" type of person.

Then the relaxed "let live" part got abused. I've seen what happens first hand having lived in NYC for 6 years, and now living in London.

100% And most don't realize that many EU nations have tighter restrictions on immigration now than the US after seeing what effect lax policies have on their nation.

.. and people who are legal immigrants, and people who've just left immigration court, and of course some actual US nationals.

It's amazing the power of fear of crime to get people to demand the Federal government jackboot.

Thank you for being brave enough to speak up and say that this is what you voted for.

How do you feel it squares with the Constitution?

Are immigrants bankrupting / destroying the country?

Should the Democrats give up their attempts to prevent health premiums from doubling next year?

Do you believe the Democrats want to fund healthcare for illegal immigrants?

Are you 100% supportive of the way ICE has been going about their business?

Do you believe Portland is a war zone?

Do you believe the US can compete with China in manufacturing?

Did Russia start the war with Ukraine?

If it came to choosing sides would you choose Russia or Ukraine, or should the US extract themselves from it entirely? (passively choosing Russia)

Is inflation over?

Should the Fed be cutting rates?

Is the economy booming?

Would it be possible to briefly list what you voted him for?

Immigration is #1.

Do you mean illegal immigration in this case or immigration in general?

Thank you for your vote. Its great to see Pax Americana dissolve in real time.

We are certainly witness to history at the moment. I just hope all those that deserve to, survive to see how this snippet of history gets recorded.

lol

You're admitting that you wanted to vote for a guy who is committing an unprecedented amount of corruption? Taking bribes via his own personal bitcoin?

You wanted a President that pardons people who give him money? lol. Really?

Or have the guy who had a literal brainworm and doesn't believe in germs determining American's health? lol

Did you vote to have a WWF person run the dept of education? Are you an adult with a functioning brain?

You voted for a recession lol.

You voted for tanking an economy and prices getting higher lol

You voted to have college students writing op-eds critical of Israel deported (No offense, get out of this country if you don't think people should have the right to criticize any government they want)

You voted for the guy who wants to jail people for burning the flag

You voted for the guy who wants to take away news licenses because they;re mean to him

You voted to have more expensive healthcare

You voted to have all our allies abandon us and laugh at his speeches

You voted for a pedophile. Like an actual pedophile. Congrats on bragging about that one.

You voted to have coal mines reopened lololloooollollo and for the people who don't think solar energy is renewable because it can be nighttime too hahahahahahahahahahah

What is it lke having the worldview of a toddler?

You must be bummed out that your party didn't get a candidate that follows your morals and values and on top of all that is a convicted felon.

Wouldn't you have wanted a better candidate?

Good luck finding a candidate that follows your morals and values that’s willing to run for president.

So you want a dictator? You want random tariffs based on Trump's gut feeling? You want foreign-looking US citizens to be detained at will by ICE? You want every part of the government to be corrupt, rampant insider trading based on political decisions? You want a government that retaliates against companies and people it doesn't like, and uses the force of the government to harrass them?

None of what you said is true.

You're the bubble I'm talking about.

Until people like you start dealing in facts the pendulum will continue to swing right as it pushes people like me further in that direction.

You deny that ICE has arrested US citizens and only released them after hours or days?

You deny that Trump and his family are using their political status to earn money?

You that Trump's tarrif policy is erratic, with vague announcements on social media that are often reverted or not followed through later?

You're not arguing with someone who is willing to change their mind. Vague responses about "this is what I voted for" and "you're forcing me and others to vote for Trump" are typical signs of someone who's in the cult. It's common for them to feign interest in multiple parties, but they were always going to vote for the Republican candidate and proclaim Dems are the evil elites.

This is common with "centrists", "moderates", "undecided", etc... they'll always be shy Republicans who are too scared to say that they're drinking the kool-aid.

When I argue about stuff like this on the internet, I'm never talking to just the person I'm replying to. It's always mostly for the other readers.

Is it not true that non-illegal immigrants are experiencing more harassment from ICE? And that foreigners entering the US are more likely to be detained, especially if they have anything that might be perceived as anti-Trump on their social media?

I don't live in the US, so I have no direct experience (though I travel there for work once or twice a year)

Come now, be reasonable. You have one side denying climate change, wiping government websites of climate data. You have Trump, the most lying politician in history, who rampantly cheats at golf, and is a pedophile and liar about Epstein. Talking about facts, the GOP has thrown reality to the wind. At least have the wit to see your side doesn’t care about base reality, and admit it. It’s a party of the religious right and corporations, which has been taken over by Trump and a cult of personality has set in. None of these people are served by truth.

We can only conclude yes. Or rather, these people want Federal government violence and troops on the street because they just hate "immigrants" that much. I'm surprised they haven't chiseled the poem off the Statue of Liberty yet.

> Everything I've seen so far from Trump is what I voted for.

Did you always have fascist tendencies or did Trump bring them out?

ap99 The replies here are why politics should not be discussed here. You said nothing wrong, but the replies are ridiculous. They summarize down to something like "When did you start becoming a Nazi" or "When did you start liking pedophiles, are you also a pedophile?"

I dont believe in this fucking kid gloves bullshit. If you made a decision then man up and fucking own its consequences good or bad otherwise admit you are a coward and liar.

I voted for Trump and generally think he's doing a good job. I don't agree with a lot of things he is doing. Am I a Nazi/Fascist or whatever the term of the week is today?

> I don't agree with a lot of things he is doing

You simply "don't agree" with him banning flag burning, ending birthright citizenship, going after his political opponents and their law firms, threatening broadcasting licenses over speech, his lawsuits against media for saying things he doesn't like, him running a cryptocurrency meme coin and making billions, dropping a case against Eric Adams in a quid-pro-quo, and pardoning the January 6th insurrectionists?

If you're just a single issue voter and not a die-hard MAGA person, surely you can list some of the things you "disagree with" and clearly disavow those actions?

You are a fucking coward if you can't own up to everything he does both bad and good. If you can't own up to the fact that he is doing several grossly illegal activities including and not limited to turning a legitimate law enforcement agency into a illegal criminal organization then you are a fucking coward, plain and square. If you voted for him you have to openly fucking admit these are wrong or just man up and say you agree with it all. Anything else and you should give up your manhood card.

No but you are someone with utter lack of manhood who enjoys inventing imaginary things to get offended over such as imagining you were called nazi.

I see you replied twice attempting to manipulate me by questioning my 'manhood'... twice!

These transparent forms of manipulation don't work the way you think they should. I'm not sure what you think will happen. The only thing it could possibly do is push someone else farther away. You should work on that because it's one of the major reasons we (us voters) got to this place. Good luck!

Where's the manipulation? I am just giving basic objective facts. You can either declare your distance from some acts or say you agree with it. How is calling that unmanly an "emotional manipulation"? Are you stupid or something?

And as for voters, as I said, I don't believe in coddling or kid gloves. I don't give a shit about "feelings" getting hurt, if people are such babies they should shut themselves in.

Voting has consequences, and burying your head in the sand is no way to deal with that. If the accusations of fascism make you uncomfortable: good. Maybe you should encourage your side to take less steps in that direction and vote for better people.

As for the pedophilia accusations: one of Trump's main talking points was releasing the Epstein files, his AG "had the files on her desk", right wing media pundits were proclaiming everything was going to get exposed and... we get nothing. He now calls it a "Democrat hoax" and tells everyone to forget about it.

Yes, voting does have consequences. My head isn't buried, I'm not easily manipulated by loud internet activists that resort to name calling.

Idk about Epstein or the files, doesn't affect me or 99% of the daily lives of the average wage earner in America. If you think that makes him a pedophile or anyone who supports him a pedophile, well good luck with that.

I am glad you agree you have no problem with pedophiles in office.

> My head isn't buried

> Idk about Epstein or the files

Okay.

About 77 million people voted for Trump in 2024, that is 22% of the US population. He is actually far more unpopular than people think.

That would be approximately the same percentage of the population that voted for Obama in 2008. (69 million votes, 304 million people, 22%.) I don't think this is a crazy argument to make, but only if you make clear by this standard almost no President has ever been "popular", and almost no PM in other countries.

This is how you lie with statistics.

What percent of the US population is eligible to vote, what percent actually voted, and which percent did Kamala receive?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com