5 ms·

I've observed that Trump and his supporters live in a childishly simple world where anything and anyone who says "good" or supportive things is hailed and anyon

I've observed that Trump and his supporters live in a childishly simple world where anything and anyone who says "good" or supportive things is hailed and anyone who criticizes or questions Trump is derided and held in contempt, irrespective of any actual factual basis.

astronautjones 9y ago
This is inarguably true.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
surrey-fringe 9y ago
Very interesting observation. Thanks for sharing.
mowenz 9y ago
Isn't this just politics? Here is an example: After the DNC scandal against Sanders with DWS resigning I posted an article by Greenwald on this in /r/politics. It was downvoted with such reasons as 'Greenwald is an un-patriotic [homophobic slur] who is afraid to enter the US because he doesn't want to face responsibility for his actions against the US.'
- honestoHeminway 9y ago
  Actually no - politics in democratic systems should transcend this immature behaviour. Meaning, at some point of heated debate, those with no feelings involved take a step back, and find a middleground solution, a compromise with which both sides can live. And usually that boring compromise is accepted by the majority of the people. The problem starts when the majority of the people are cut off from economic growth and participation. They can sense the world moving own, without needing them and rebell against that (for good reason- i presume that alot of HN readers would form similar rebelions, if the big Four would discard them all .
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    >Actually no - politics in democratic systems should transcend this immature behaviour. This isn't a democracy, it's a republic. Any compromise needs a supermajority of citizens in support of a majority of elected officials. With the two party system, often compromising can lead to an election loss even if the majority of voters were in favor of the end bill.
    - huxley 9y ago
      Sigh. It's a representative democracy and a republic. The terms aren't incompatible. Just because the dichotomy was James Madison's hobby horse and he scribbled it down in Federalist No. 10, doesn't mean that it is gospel. The US has been referred to as a representative democracy since its founding. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/?utm_term=.eae918b489d2 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
      - boomboomsubban 9y ago
        This doesn't change anything I said beyond the first sentence. They described what should happen under a "democracy" and since our democratic system is unarguably a republic, things don't work that way. Sorry I hit some strange political nerve. I remember the internet being full of the "ugh, were not a democracy" posts too, but I also swore some oath to the republic every day for a decade.
      - int_19h 9y ago
        I think what he's trying to say is that a representative democracy with single-member districts (rather than any sort of party lists) and first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all electoral system, is inherently biased against political compromises and towards partisan polarization.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > with single-member districts (rather than any sort of party lists) Single-member, FPTP districts are the issue (or, rather, the lack of proportionality and meaningful choice that comes with that is the issue); the absence of party lists, OTOH, is irrelevant. There are solutions to the issues posed by single-member, FPTP districts that retain candidate-centered elections and do not use party lists. (STV in multimember—but not necessarily at-large—districts is one of them.)
dboreham 9y ago
This is an emergent property of the human brain: pitch forks and flaming torches etc.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
vultour 9y ago
You realize that the other side is the same right?
- moomin 9y ago
  Er... no they're not. Watch Bill Maher whinge about protests against him from other progressives sometimes. He'd love to live in a world where progressives behaved like that, he'd be a hero.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

astronautjones 9y ago

This is inarguably true.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

surrey-fringe 9y ago

Very interesting observation. Thanks for sharing.

mowenz 9y ago

Isn't this just politics? Here is an example: After the DNC scandal against Sanders with DWS resigning I posted an article by Greenwald on this in /r/politics. It was downvoted with such reasons as 'Greenwald is an un-patriotic [homophobic slur] who is afraid to enter the US because he doesn't want to face responsibility for his actions against the US.'

honestoHeminway 9y ago
Actually no - politics in democratic systems should transcend this immature behaviour. Meaning, at some point of heated debate, those with no feelings involved take a step back, and find a middleground solution, a compromise with which both sides can live. And usually that boring compromise is accepted by the majority of the people. The problem starts when the majority of the people are cut off from economic growth and participation. They can sense the world moving own, without needing them and rebell against that (for good reason- i presume that alot of HN readers would form similar rebelions, if the big Four would discard them all .
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  >Actually no - politics in democratic systems should transcend this immature behaviour. This isn't a democracy, it's a republic. Any compromise needs a supermajority of citizens in support of a majority of elected officials. With the two party system, often compromising can lead to an election loss even if the majority of voters were in favor of the end bill.
  - huxley 9y ago
    Sigh. It's a representative democracy and a republic. The terms aren't incompatible. Just because the dichotomy was James Madison's hobby horse and he scribbled it down in Federalist No. 10, doesn't mean that it is gospel. The US has been referred to as a representative democracy since its founding. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/?utm_term=.eae918b489d2 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
    - boomboomsubban 9y ago
      This doesn't change anything I said beyond the first sentence. They described what should happen under a "democracy" and since our democratic system is unarguably a republic, things don't work that way. Sorry I hit some strange political nerve. I remember the internet being full of the "ugh, were not a democracy" posts too, but I also swore some oath to the republic every day for a decade.
    - int_19h 9y ago
      I think what he's trying to say is that a representative democracy with single-member districts (rather than any sort of party lists) and first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all electoral system, is inherently biased against political compromises and towards partisan polarization.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > with single-member districts (rather than any sort of party lists) Single-member, FPTP districts are the issue (or, rather, the lack of proportionality and meaningful choice that comes with that is the issue); the absence of party lists, OTOH, is irrelevant. There are solutions to the issues posed by single-member, FPTP districts that retain candidate-centered elections and do not use party lists. (STV in multimember—but not necessarily at-large—districts is one of them.)

dboreham 9y ago

This is an emergent property of the human brain: pitch forks and flaming torches etc.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

vultour 9y ago

You realize that the other side is the same right?

moomin 9y ago
Er... no they're not. Watch Bill Maher whinge about protests against him from other progressives sometimes. He'd love to live in a world where progressives behaved like that, he'd be a hero.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]