4 ms·

This European travels to the US all the time, having probably spent an average of 1-2 months or so there yearly over the past couple years. With very few excep

by svara 2y ago

This European travels to the US all the time, having probably spent an average of 1-2 months or so there yearly over the past couple years. With very few exceptions I've never met people there who outwardly seemed like they'd like someone as a leader who habitually lies and tries to usurp democratic institutions for personal gain. What the hell is going on there guys? Are you just voting for the person who promises the most "interesting" times, for better or for worse?

Shawnj2 2y ago
The people in cities vote blue, and people in rural areas vote red. I doubt you’re meeting the latter on trips
- a_victorp 2y ago
  Around 1 in 5 Americans live in rural areas. It's not enough to win the election
disgruntledphd2 2y ago
He's promising reindustrialisation to a bunch of the Midwest and less competition for jobs to a bunch of poorer people. It's sort of rational, even though I disagree.
- kzrdude 2y ago
  He is not trustworthy with either facts or consistent opinions, so voting for him for something he's /said/ he would do is the stupidest thing anyone could do.
  - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
    I didn't say I thought it was a good idea, but clearly a lot of American voters think this is worth trying.
- selimthegrim 2y ago
  Biden delivered and he’ll take the credit
hoten 2y ago
do you have reason to believe you are socializing with a representative slice of Americans?
- svara 2y ago
  No, of course not. But my sample seems to be so starkly different from the election results that that in itself is puzzling. He's picking up a sizable fraction of the votes even in blue states, after all.
- stavros 2y ago
  Representative enough to elect Trump for president, looks like.
innocentdang 2y ago
No, just a massive failure by the Democrats who decided too late to run Harris. Any candidate who won a party primary would have beaten Trump today. Harris lost because she wasn't popular enough with her own party's voters to win.
- bagels 2y ago
  Definitely some merit to this. Biden was obviously too old in 2020 and didn't have the good sense to pass the torch last year.
  - dragontamer 2y ago
    Trump is older than 2020 Biden.
    - bagels 2y ago
      Yes. Trump was too old in 2016 too.
    - selfmodruntime 2y ago
      Yet Trump went on multi-hour podcasts while the current sitting president of the US hasn't been seen in weeks.
      - dragontamer 2y ago
        Trump will be older and weaker than Biden today in 2028. JD Vance hopefully can 25th Amendment the Trump before senile behavior wrecks the office. But I'm worried that Trump stays in all 4 years and does irreparable harm. 25th Amendment powers have never been used before. So it's not clear how far Trump will degrade while still holding onto power.
        zimpenfish 2y ago
        > Trump stays in all 4 years and does irreparable harm. That's the preferable option to letting Vance near the presidency, sadly.
TomK32 2y ago
"who habitually lies" More like a Fortunate Son who's an adulterer, felon and burried his ex wife somewhere in the backyard.
bantunes 2y ago
You're not meeting the people hurt really bad by the system who stopped giving a shit, and a lot of people that vote for Trump had Harris/Waltz signs on their lawns but really want to pay less in taxes and don't like transgender people.
- lelanthran 2y ago
  > but really want to pay less in taxes and don't like transgender people. I think that this election almost definitively demonstrates that trans issues are not important to the voters. Or abortion, or misogyny, or social justice, etc. There was a big turnout, after all.
  - justin66 2y ago
    This is really counterfactual. > I think that this election almost definitively demonstrates that trans issues are not important to the voters. I don't know about the politics of your state, but in mine over half the ad campaign of the Republican senator who just won was focused on transgender issues. His losing Democratic opponent did not touch that issue. > Or abortion Statewide ballot measures aimed at abortion rights succeeded even in many states where Democrats lost.
    - lelanthran 2y ago
      > Statewide ballot measures aimed at abortion rights succeeded even in many states where Democrats lost. Then maybe the Dems shouldn't have run on that as their major platform? I mean, the message "Elect Me Because $ABORTION_RIGHTS" is pointless if the states are going to get their abortion rights anyway.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - justin66 2y ago
        Running on the portions of one's platform which are not popular is a thing a politician could do, yes.
lelanthran 2y ago
> What the hell is going on there guys? Are you just voting for the person who promises the most "interesting" times, for better or for worse? I think the name-calling really hurt them. Calling half the voting population bigots of some type just makes that half dig their heels in to give you a bloody nose. If your main priorities, when running in a political race, does not match the main priorities of the voting masses, it's easier to change your main priorities than to change the main priorities of the voting masses. For a long time now, the Dems have been trying to change the priorities of the voting masses instead of aligning with them. They are so used to preaching at their voter base ("This is what a real man is, not what you think it is") that they forgot what the aim of running is - to win.
- atoav 2y ago
  Dictator on day one in the land of the free with the biggest military of the world — but on the other hand the libs were really mad, so that was worth it, right?
- alt227 2y ago
  Good on the Dems for trying to change the world instead of accepting the hateful and unfair place it is. Hopefully they will get somewhere eventually.
  - lelanthran 2y ago
    > Good on the Dems for trying to change the world instead of accepting the hateful and unfair place it is. You can't change the world by losing. Their primary goal should have been to win. The primary way to do that is to (ugh) pander to the voters' will. It's because they are so out of touch that we are seeing the result that we see. Politicians that are disconnected and disengaged from the voting masses deserve to lose.
- richrichardsson 2y ago
  > I think the name-calling really hurt them. This was also the biggest problem of the Remain camp pre-Brexit. It was too easy to label Leavers as stupid/racist/xenophobic, and that was a huge mistake.
fzeroracer 2y ago
I think the ultimate answer as an American is that policy simply does not matter. For reference, here's a couple conflicting data points: * Voters approved measures that would protect abortion in their state (with the exception of Florida, which only got 58% out of the 60%) needed. Said voters did not consistently vote for Kamala Harris. * Another set of voters thought Kamala Harris was too progressive, and had no opinion on Donald Trump * But at the same time, in local elections democratic candidates generally sweeped the ballots I think ultimately the presidency is just an election purely on the basis of 'vibes' and whatever is directly in front of you. It doesn't matter if you can achieve your promises nor do said promises even really matter. And people vibe more with the reality TV president because they've already forgotten 2016-2020. Maybe Trump directly crashing the economy will be the thing to snap people out of it, maybe not.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
plasticeagle 2y ago
I've also spent plenty of time there over the years, and while most people I interacted with did seem perfectly fine, there were glimpses of something quite wrong. A woman who worked at the hotel I was staying at had never visited the centre of the city the lived in, because she was afraid of being "knifed". This was Dayton, Ohio. Downtown Dayton is lovely. A colleague who appeared reasonably intelligent and competent absolutely did not believe that Evolution occurred. I explained that this while this view might be common in the US - and it is - the rest of the world mostly considers this settled science. Religion is absolutely far too influential a force in people's lives. This is decreasing, but it's still problematic I believe. The Armed Forces are idolised. Airports have special lines for service personnel. You get to board early if you're in uniform. This is almost unique in the world, to the best of my knowledge.
sixothree 2y ago
It can be explained by Fox News. Whatever issue is spouted there is the issue of the day for republicans.
verisimi 2y ago
[flagged]
notadoomer236 2y ago
Trump says things people directionally agree with, and they forgive the details. When your border is wide open allowing millions of people in each year, you don’t care as much about the political circus. When your grocery bills 3x, you don’t care as much about the loose speech.

by svara 2y ago

Shawnj2 2y ago

The people in cities vote blue, and people in rural areas vote red. I doubt you’re meeting the latter on trips

a_victorp 2y ago
Around 1 in 5 Americans live in rural areas. It's not enough to win the election

disgruntledphd2 2y ago

He's promising reindustrialisation to a bunch of the Midwest and less competition for jobs to a bunch of poorer people. It's sort of rational, even though I disagree.

kzrdude 2y ago
He is not trustworthy with either facts or consistent opinions, so voting for him for something he's /said/ he would do is the stupidest thing anyone could do.
- disgruntledphd2 2y ago
  I didn't say I thought it was a good idea, but clearly a lot of American voters think this is worth trying.
selimthegrim 2y ago
Biden delivered and he’ll take the credit

hoten 2y ago

do you have reason to believe you are socializing with a representative slice of Americans?

svara 2y ago
No, of course not. But my sample seems to be so starkly different from the election results that that in itself is puzzling. He's picking up a sizable fraction of the votes even in blue states, after all.
stavros 2y ago
Representative enough to elect Trump for president, looks like.

innocentdang 2y ago

No, just a massive failure by the Democrats who decided too late to run Harris. Any candidate who won a party primary would have beaten Trump today. Harris lost because she wasn't popular enough with her own party's voters to win.

bagels 2y ago
Definitely some merit to this. Biden was obviously too old in 2020 and didn't have the good sense to pass the torch last year.
- dragontamer 2y ago
  Trump is older than 2020 Biden.
  - bagels 2y ago
    Yes. Trump was too old in 2016 too.
  - selfmodruntime 2y ago
    Yet Trump went on multi-hour podcasts while the current sitting president of the US hasn't been seen in weeks.
    - dragontamer 2y ago
      Trump will be older and weaker than Biden today in 2028. JD Vance hopefully can 25th Amendment the Trump before senile behavior wrecks the office. But I'm worried that Trump stays in all 4 years and does irreparable harm. 25th Amendment powers have never been used before. So it's not clear how far Trump will degrade while still holding onto power.
      - zimpenfish 2y ago
        > Trump stays in all 4 years and does irreparable harm. That's the preferable option to letting Vance near the presidency, sadly.

TomK32 2y ago

"who habitually lies" More like a Fortunate Son who's an adulterer, felon and burried his ex wife somewhere in the backyard.

bantunes 2y ago

You're not meeting the people hurt really bad by the system who stopped giving a shit, and a lot of people that vote for Trump had Harris/Waltz signs on their lawns but really want to pay less in taxes and don't like transgender people.

lelanthran 2y ago
> but really want to pay less in taxes and don't like transgender people. I think that this election almost definitively demonstrates that trans issues are not important to the voters. Or abortion, or misogyny, or social justice, etc. There was a big turnout, after all.
- justin66 2y ago
  This is really counterfactual. > I think that this election almost definitively demonstrates that trans issues are not important to the voters. I don't know about the politics of your state, but in mine over half the ad campaign of the Republican senator who just won was focused on transgender issues. His losing Democratic opponent did not touch that issue. > Or abortion Statewide ballot measures aimed at abortion rights succeeded even in many states where Democrats lost.
  - lelanthran 2y ago
    > Statewide ballot measures aimed at abortion rights succeeded even in many states where Democrats lost. Then maybe the Dems shouldn't have run on that as their major platform? I mean, the message "Elect Me Because $ABORTION_RIGHTS" is pointless if the states are going to get their abortion rights anyway.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - justin66 2y ago
      Running on the portions of one's platform which are not popular is a thing a politician could do, yes.

lelanthran 2y ago

> What the hell is going on there guys? Are you just voting for the person who promises the most "interesting" times, for better or for worse? I think the name-calling really hurt them. Calling half the voting population bigots of some type just makes that half dig their heels in to give you a bloody nose. If your main priorities, when running in a political race, does not match the main priorities of the voting masses, it's easier to change your main priorities than to change the main priorities of the voting masses. For a long time now, the Dems have been trying to change the priorities of the voting masses instead of aligning with them. They are so used to preaching at their voter base ("This is what a real man is, not what you think it is") that they forgot what the aim of running is - to win.

atoav 2y ago
Dictator on day one in the land of the free with the biggest military of the world — but on the other hand the libs were really mad, so that was worth it, right?
alt227 2y ago
Good on the Dems for trying to change the world instead of accepting the hateful and unfair place it is. Hopefully they will get somewhere eventually.
- lelanthran 2y ago
  > Good on the Dems for trying to change the world instead of accepting the hateful and unfair place it is. You can't change the world by losing. Their primary goal should have been to win. The primary way to do that is to (ugh) pander to the voters' will. It's because they are so out of touch that we are seeing the result that we see. Politicians that are disconnected and disengaged from the voting masses deserve to lose.
richrichardsson 2y ago
> I think the name-calling really hurt them. This was also the biggest problem of the Remain camp pre-Brexit. It was too easy to label Leavers as stupid/racist/xenophobic, and that was a huge mistake.

fzeroracer 2y ago

I think the ultimate answer as an American is that policy simply does not matter. For reference, here's a couple conflicting data points: * Voters approved measures that would protect abortion in their state (with the exception of Florida, which only got 58% out of the 60%) needed. Said voters did not consistently vote for Kamala Harris. * Another set of voters thought Kamala Harris was too progressive, and had no opinion on Donald Trump * But at the same time, in local elections democratic candidates generally sweeped the ballots I think ultimately the presidency is just an election purely on the basis of 'vibes' and whatever is directly in front of you. It doesn't matter if you can achieve your promises nor do said promises even really matter. And people vibe more with the reality TV president because they've already forgotten 2016-2020. Maybe Trump directly crashing the economy will be the thing to snap people out of it, maybe not.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

plasticeagle 2y ago

I've also spent plenty of time there over the years, and while most people I interacted with did seem perfectly fine, there were glimpses of something quite wrong. A woman who worked at the hotel I was staying at had never visited the centre of the city the lived in, because she was afraid of being "knifed". This was Dayton, Ohio. Downtown Dayton is lovely. A colleague who appeared reasonably intelligent and competent absolutely did not believe that Evolution occurred. I explained that this while this view might be common in the US - and it is - the rest of the world mostly considers this settled science. Religion is absolutely far too influential a force in people's lives. This is decreasing, but it's still problematic I believe. The Armed Forces are idolised. Airports have special lines for service personnel. You get to board early if you're in uniform. This is almost unique in the world, to the best of my knowledge.

sixothree 2y ago

It can be explained by Fox News. Whatever issue is spouted there is the issue of the day for republicans.

verisimi 2y ago

[flagged]

notadoomer236 2y ago

Trump says things people directionally agree with, and they forgive the details. When your border is wide open allowing millions of people in each year, you don’t care as much about the political circus. When your grocery bills 3x, you don’t care as much about the loose speech.