3 ms·

Not bizarre at all. It's BS, but it's not bizarre. Politics has become trench warfare. Everything is a battle to the death to keep the other side from gainin

Not bizarre at all. It's BS, but it's not bizarre. Politics has become trench warfare. Everything is a battle to the death to keep the other side from gaining an inch anywhere. And, as is often the case in warfare, truth is a casualty. Both sides will say absolutely anything to keep anyone from thinking that the other side has a valid point. It's advertising, but without any truth-in-advertising laws. Or, if you prefer, it's propaganda. Any relationship to the truth is purely accidental.

MichaelZuo 2y ago
The true casualty is America’s credibility abroad. In pretty much every capital, embassy, boardroom, etc… it noticeably declines year on year. Even the Brits don’t take anything at face value anymore.
- anon291 2y ago
  Our credibility has been suddenly made synonymous with how willing we are to go to war on behalf of other countries . We are not But I think any attack on an American force will get you a quick lesson on our credibility, which, as an American, is all I really care about. Similarly economically, good luck not participating in the American markets.
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    I really don’t want to burst your bubble… but do you not realize this is seen as a joke abroad? e.g. In Hanoi, American officials, diplomats, and executives are rushing to wine and dine people who literally celebrate the defeat of ‘American force’ in public, on the record, every year. They treat even a random third secretary for some party committee 100km from Hanoi much much better than the 90th percentile upper middle class American household in the Bay Area… Edit: And I’m not even going to talk about Eastern Europe or the Middle East, it’s really too harsh to put into writing.
    - rightbyte 2y ago
      Hanoi? Are you refering to pulling out of Vietnam made the US seem like a joke? Or that the locals are wrong to celebrate that?
      - MichaelZuo 2y ago
        What exactly are you confused about? It seems pretty clearly spelled out.
        rightbyte 2y ago
        It just seemed so absurd wanting American diplomats to be salty about the Vietnam War. Like, the Vietnam War. I don't even know where to begin.
        MichaelZuo 2y ago
        Uhhh… you might need to work on your reading comprehension skills, or are you projecting something on to me? Why would I be ‘salty’ about anything anyone does in Hanoi? It seems clear that many people in Hanoi are benefitting enormously, which is pretty much a total positive, except for some possibility of inducing corruption elsewhere.
        rightbyte 2y ago
        > In Hanoi, American officials, diplomats, and executives are rushing to wine and dine people who literally celebrate the defeat of ‘American force’ in public, on the record, every year. I read that as that your are implying that the American diplomats should take the Vietnamese celebrating their independence as an insult versus the American diplomats. This further implies that the American diplomats should be salty concerning the Vietnam War, to not lose face or something.
        MichaelZuo 2y ago
        I am not an American diplomat…???
arp242 2y ago
This is the kind of boring "both side-ism" that I just don't understand. I have no great love of either party, but one side is openly speculating about all sorts of things that cannot be described as anything other than outright authoritarian, and the other party ... is not. And no, some disagreements on free speech or the 2nd amendment or whatnot is not even close. And no, "oh, he's not really serious about it" doesn't fly either. And with one party transformed in the Monster Raving Loony Party, the other one can't do anything else but push its own agenda through when it can, so compromise becomes rarer and rarer. And it's not just Trump – remember the madness and obstructionism of the Obama years? And yes, there have been times the Democratic party could have done better. No doubt. But it's absolutely not a "both sides" issue.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  The issue in question was truth, not authoritarianism. Specifically, the issue was truth about election security. The point was that both sides will, and have, claim election fraud when they lose, and "most secure election in history" when they win. More generally: In the current election, Harris isn't the firehose of lies that Trump is. She isn't a shining beacon of truth, either.
  - arp242 2y ago
    "Most secure election in history" was a superlative I'm not happy with either, no. But the core of it is correct: there is no evidence of wide-spread fraud. The core of the other side is outright lies and fraud, rooted in nothing more than one person's narcissism. Equating these two is just bizarre. "Murder, arson, and jaywalking". Or something like that. And "both sides will, and have, claim election fraud when they lose" is just not true. There have been a few disagreements over the decades of course, some more reasonable than others, but nothing like 2016 has happened in recent history, from either party.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      > there is no evidence of wide-spread fraud. Agreed. There were 60+ court cases, but not evidence of fraud. > The core of the other side is outright lies and fraud, rooted in nothing more than one person's narcissism. Also agreed. > Equating these two is just bizarre. I wasn't. > And "both sides will, and have, claim election fraud when they lose" is just not true. There have been a few disagreements over the decades of course, some more reasonable than others, but nothing like 2016 has happened in recent history, from either party. I presume you mean 2020, not 2016. Yes, nothing like that has happened in recent history... until next week. But speaking of 2016, I remember a large number of people (including Hillary) saying that Hillary "really won" because she had more votes than Trump did, as if the Electoral College was not a thing. I recall seeing it, here on HN, over and over, for months, that Trump wasn't "really the legitimate president". No, nobody actually tried to do anything. Obama didn't tell states to send fake electors to the House for the vote. He didn't have a "demonstration of love and respect" or whatever Trump is currently trying to paint January 6th as. So that's better. Months of talk is better than 60 court cases, fake electors, and attempting to physically prevent the vote in the House. Since you seem to keep mis-reading me, I'm going to say that again, more clearly: The two are not comparable. And yet... the "it's not legitimate because our person lost" was still there as a definite idea. The idea wasn't election fraud - it was that the Electoral College had thwarted the will of the people, and therefore the election was somehow illegitimate. Never mind that we had rules in place, and we followed the rules, and under the rules that were in place, Hillary lost. But no, "it's not legitimate". Nobody ever took it as far as Trump did. But both sides de-ligitimatize the other side's victories, if only verbally. (Again, "only verbally" is better than attacking the Capitol. But it's not as close to "we'll see you in four years" as I would wish.)

MichaelZuo 2y ago

The true casualty is America’s credibility abroad. In pretty much every capital, embassy, boardroom, etc… it noticeably declines year on year. Even the Brits don’t take anything at face value anymore.

anon291 2y ago
Our credibility has been suddenly made synonymous with how willing we are to go to war on behalf of other countries . We are not But I think any attack on an American force will get you a quick lesson on our credibility, which, as an American, is all I really care about. Similarly economically, good luck not participating in the American markets.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  I really don’t want to burst your bubble… but do you not realize this is seen as a joke abroad? e.g. In Hanoi, American officials, diplomats, and executives are rushing to wine and dine people who literally celebrate the defeat of ‘American force’ in public, on the record, every year. They treat even a random third secretary for some party committee 100km from Hanoi much much better than the 90th percentile upper middle class American household in the Bay Area… Edit: And I’m not even going to talk about Eastern Europe or the Middle East, it’s really too harsh to put into writing.
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    Hanoi? Are you refering to pulling out of Vietnam made the US seem like a joke? Or that the locals are wrong to celebrate that?
    - MichaelZuo 2y ago
      What exactly are you confused about? It seems pretty clearly spelled out.
      - rightbyte 2y ago
        It just seemed so absurd wanting American diplomats to be salty about the Vietnam War. Like, the Vietnam War. I don't even know where to begin.
        MichaelZuo 2y ago
        Uhhh… you might need to work on your reading comprehension skills, or are you projecting something on to me? Why would I be ‘salty’ about anything anyone does in Hanoi? It seems clear that many people in Hanoi are benefitting enormously, which is pretty much a total positive, except for some possibility of inducing corruption elsewhere.
        rightbyte 2y ago
        > In Hanoi, American officials, diplomats, and executives are rushing to wine and dine people who literally celebrate the defeat of ‘American force’ in public, on the record, every year. I read that as that your are implying that the American diplomats should take the Vietnamese celebrating their independence as an insult versus the American diplomats. This further implies that the American diplomats should be salty concerning the Vietnam War, to not lose face or something.
        MichaelZuo 2y ago
        I am not an American diplomat…???

arp242 2y ago

This is the kind of boring "both side-ism" that I just don't understand. I have no great love of either party, but one side is openly speculating about all sorts of things that cannot be described as anything other than outright authoritarian, and the other party ... is not. And no, some disagreements on free speech or the 2nd amendment or whatnot is not even close. And no, "oh, he's not really serious about it" doesn't fly either. And with one party transformed in the Monster Raving Loony Party, the other one can't do anything else but push its own agenda through when it can, so compromise becomes rarer and rarer. And it's not just Trump – remember the madness and obstructionism of the Obama years? And yes, there have been times the Democratic party could have done better. No doubt. But it's absolutely not a "both sides" issue.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
The issue in question was truth, not authoritarianism. Specifically, the issue was truth about election security. The point was that both sides will, and have, claim election fraud when they lose, and "most secure election in history" when they win. More generally: In the current election, Harris isn't the firehose of lies that Trump is. She isn't a shining beacon of truth, either.
- arp242 2y ago
  "Most secure election in history" was a superlative I'm not happy with either, no. But the core of it is correct: there is no evidence of wide-spread fraud. The core of the other side is outright lies and fraud, rooted in nothing more than one person's narcissism. Equating these two is just bizarre. "Murder, arson, and jaywalking". Or something like that. And "both sides will, and have, claim election fraud when they lose" is just not true. There have been a few disagreements over the decades of course, some more reasonable than others, but nothing like 2016 has happened in recent history, from either party.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    > there is no evidence of wide-spread fraud. Agreed. There were 60+ court cases, but not evidence of fraud. > The core of the other side is outright lies and fraud, rooted in nothing more than one person's narcissism. Also agreed. > Equating these two is just bizarre. I wasn't. > And "both sides will, and have, claim election fraud when they lose" is just not true. There have been a few disagreements over the decades of course, some more reasonable than others, but nothing like 2016 has happened in recent history, from either party. I presume you mean 2020, not 2016. Yes, nothing like that has happened in recent history... until next week. But speaking of 2016, I remember a large number of people (including Hillary) saying that Hillary "really won" because she had more votes than Trump did, as if the Electoral College was not a thing. I recall seeing it, here on HN, over and over, for months, that Trump wasn't "really the legitimate president". No, nobody actually tried to do anything. Obama didn't tell states to send fake electors to the House for the vote. He didn't have a "demonstration of love and respect" or whatever Trump is currently trying to paint January 6th as. So that's better. Months of talk is better than 60 court cases, fake electors, and attempting to physically prevent the vote in the House. Since you seem to keep mis-reading me, I'm going to say that again, more clearly: The two are not comparable. And yet... the "it's not legitimate because our person lost" was still there as a definite idea. The idea wasn't election fraud - it was that the Electoral College had thwarted the will of the people, and therefore the election was somehow illegitimate. Never mind that we had rules in place, and we followed the rules, and under the rules that were in place, Hillary lost. But no, "it's not legitimate". Nobody ever took it as far as Trump did. But both sides de-ligitimatize the other side's victories, if only verbally. (Again, "only verbally" is better than attacking the Capitol. But it's not as close to "we'll see you in four years" as I would wish.)