9 ms·

It implies that either they themselves are even more reprehensible and irredeemable, or the majority of US voters are so morally bankrupt that they prefer repr

It implies that either they themselves are even more reprehensible and irredeemable, or the majority of US voters are so morally bankrupt that they prefer reprehensible and irredeemable candidates. The latter is probably true, but why would they say that and then continue to run for elections? Why do they want the approval of morally bankrupt people who prefer reprehensible candidates? Another option is that voters are just very stupid and fail to see that which is "obvious", repeatedly, despite billions spent on trying to make them "see". Or perhaps their claims are not actually "obvious", and they ought to be... kinder to the other side.

bjourne 2y ago
You are asking why they would say true things.
- archon1410 2y ago
  No, I am asking why they would knowingly desire the approval of those who prefer "irredeemable" candidates. They would either have to lie a lot to get it, or pull themselves down to be more reprehensible. So, what's their strategy? Lieing a lot after telling the "one truth", or becoming more reprehensible themselves? Probably both.
  - bjourne 2y ago
    You did: "The latter is probably true, but why would they say that" The implication of your comment is that politicians shouldn't tell the truth because that offends voters.
  - Zak 2y ago
    Seeking votes is not like seeking approval in a social context. Someone trying to win a contested election desires votes for the purpose of winning.
  - bigfudge 2y ago
    Or educate and persuade?
    - inetknght 2y ago
      > Or educate and persuade? There's a lot of people around me who are actively against education, or attack facts because they don't believe them, or vomit opinions as "facts". It's practically impossible to persuade people like that.
data_maan 2y ago
Voters everywhere are stupid but in the country of exceptionalism, they lately seem to have become exceptionally stu... tolerant!
throw0101d 2y ago
> Another option is that voters are just very stupid and fail to see that which is "obvious", repeatedly, despite billions spent on trying to make them "see". I think this is the correct options. I mean, look at the people who worked for him in the last administration: > So how do we explain this near-universal rejection of Trump by the people who worked with him most closely? I guess one explanation is that they’ve all been infected with the dreaded Woke Mind Virus. But it’s unclear why working for Donald Trump would cause almost everyone to be exposed to the Woke Mind Virus, when working for, say, JD Vance, or Ron DeSantis, or any other prominent right-wing figure does not seem to produce such an infection. > Of course, not everyone who worked for Trump has abandoned and denounced him. Rudy Giuliani, who is now under indictment in several different states, is still among the faithful. Michael Flynn, who was fired by Obama for insubordination and then removed by Trump for improper personal dealings with the Russian government, is still on board, and is now threatening to unleash the “gates of Hell” on Trump’s political enemies. Peter Navarro, the economist1 who served four months in prison for defying a Congressional subpoena, is still a Trump fan. And so on. > You may perhaps notice a pattern among the relatively few people who are still on board the Trump Train from his first term. They are all very shady people. I don’t think this is a coincidence; I think it’s something systematic about Donald Trump’s personality and his method of rule. * https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/trumpism-is-kakistocracy https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/trumpism-is-kakistocracy The GOP party has changed: > As many people have noted, Trump’s movement is a cult of personality. Since Trump took over the Republican party in 2016, essentially every tenet of modern conservatism has been replaced with belief in a single leader. Trump appointed the judges that killed Roe v. Wade, but he constantly goes back and forth on the topic of abortion rights. Trump didn’t cut entitlement spending, but whether he wants to do that in his second term or not depends on which day you ask him. Trump has flip-flopped on the TikTok bill, on marijuana legalization, on the filibuster, on SALT caps, and so on. > But these flip-flops do not matter to his support at all. His supporters are sure that whichever decision Trump makes, it will be the right one, and if he changes it the following week, that will be the right decision as well. If tomorrow Trump declared that tariffs are terrible and illegal immigration is great, this would immediately become the essence of Trumpism. Trump’s followers put their trust not in principled ideas, but in a man — or, to be more accurate, in the idea of a man. That is what Trumpism requires of its adherents. * Idid.
hhjinks 2y ago
So your opinion is that elections are a referendum on the moral virtue of the candidate, or that you shouldn't run for office if you think the electorate is morally bankrupt? I'm sorry, but I have to be blunt. That is an extremely narrow view, and a single second of critical thinking should present a million other possibilities. The former is obviously untrue, considering Trump's long list of vices. The latter is a complete non sequitur. Power is power; the electorate's morals only matter insofar as they're willing to check the box next to my name. Trump can be reprehensible and irredemable, and still win if he's more believable on the issues Americans care the most about. He could be a fraud, a cheat, even a traitor, so long as he's persuasive. That's how democracy works, how it should work.
GTP 2y ago
> why would they say that and then continue to run for elections? Are you suggesting that the USA should have a single political party? Anyone that cares for democracy would be against that, regardless of their other political views.
- cdrini 2y ago
  My guess would be what they meant was that they should quit. Ie either you respect the intelligence/morallity of the people who you want to vote for you, or maybe you shouldn't be trying to represent them. And not quit as in leave only a single party, but quit as in leave a vacuum for another party/candidate/etc to step in. Note these aren't necessarily my personal views, just trying to help clarify what I believe the commentator meant.
ninkendo 2y ago
> or the majority of US voters are so morally bankrupt that they prefer reprehensible and irredeemable candidates Correct, yes.
- tightbookkeeper 2y ago
  Maybe 4th time is the charm with this kind of divisive messaging?
  - Pxtl 2y ago
    So you expect progressive voters to simply politely ignore the awful things Trump has done, and the fact that his supporters don't seem to care? Short list: Trump has been adjudicated in court as having sexually assaulted a woman, and has admitted to doing more. Nearly every person who has worked with him has described him in the worst possible terms. Stories of him celebrating Nazis [1], sexually fixating on his own daughter[2], horrifying things like that. The man is a convicted felon, and has only escaped punishment for various other crime by virtue of his own appointees in the court system. If a reader accepts these well-supported items as facts, what should they think about somebody who votes for that? Should they lie and say "a reasonable person would support this"? Or should they tell the truth even when it is "divisive"? [1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-said-hitler-did-some-good-things-and-wanted-generals-like-the-nazis-former-chief-of-staff-kelly-claims https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-said-hitler-did-... [2] https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/trumps-lewd-talk-about-daughter-ivanka-in-front-of-white-house-staff-recalled-in-new-book/ https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/trumps-lewd-talk-a...
    - tightbookkeeper 2y ago
      Yes. I think having a healthy community and successful future political campaign will require reframing this rhetoric.
      - anthonypasq 2y ago
        this is pathetic and embarassing
beedeebeedee 2y ago
> Another option is that voters are just very stupid and fail to see that which is "obvious", repeatedly, despite billions spent on trying to make them "see". Fox News. The folks who voted trump watch only Fox News, which has crafted an alternative and immersive world view that appears coherent if you only watch Fox News and reject conflicting information as lies.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  There are more people who voted for Trump than there are people who only watch Fox News. So maybe you ought to re-consider the GP's point.
  - intended 2y ago
    The OP is correct though. If the issue is that their statement is weak when its being reduced to just Fox News subscribers, then sure. However the issue is about the kind of information ecosystems that drive polarization and misinformation. Disinfo and misinformation campaigns target right wing / conservative viewers more than they do left wing / liberals. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07942-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07942-8 But I can point to research and articles till the cows come home. The fact is that people reject everything negative about Trump and fill in the blanks with whatever they want to believe. We’re basically playing whose line is it anyway
    - throwaway817472 2y ago
      Who is defining what is misinformation? It would be easy to reframe such that the opposite can be just as “true, “ depending on your perspective. For example: Trump turned out not to be working with Russia, despite the media and politicians constantly saying they had evidence. Trump started zero wars, despite fear mongering that he would start World War 3. He ended the tensions with North Korea, despite pundits saying diplomacy doesn’t work with dictators. Arguably all of that was misinformation, so one could argue the opposite of what you said is also true. Whomever defines “misinformation” can make that statement with full confidence and be correct in their own mind every time.
hanniabu 2y ago
One side has good marketing and the other has bad marketing. That simple really.
lesuorac 2y ago
> the majority of US voters are so morally bankrupt that they prefer reprehensible and irredeemable candidates. Well, to make this non political. Look at how many sports players have a history of domestic abuse; the character of a player is secondary to their ability to play the sport.
intended 2y ago
> It implies that either they themselves are even more reprehensible and irredeemable > or the majority of US voters are so morally bankrupt that they prefer reprehensible and irredeemable candidates You dont need to go that far. You just need to create an information environment that is beyond the ability of the average person to navigate. At that point, the other side is just evil, and your team, even if they are convicted for crimes, have ties to Epstein or anything - doesn’t matter. —— I mean, you can have privatized thought policing, there aren’t any laws or regulations to prevent. Everyone reads about Big Brother and worries about government control. So you can create enough of FUD shared till it’s believed. Don’t forget - we had to deal with Creationism, and that was wildly successful for a completely unscientific argument.
locococo 2y ago
I have another take, the democratic party is incompetent. If they can't convince voters to vote for them given how bad the other side looks then they must be really incompetent. What's the point of having all the feel good rallies in cities with famous people if you can't reach people in rural areas. The democratic party is too elitist, too far from regular people.

bjourne 2y ago

You are asking why they would say true things.

archon1410 2y ago
No, I am asking why they would knowingly desire the approval of those who prefer "irredeemable" candidates. They would either have to lie a lot to get it, or pull themselves down to be more reprehensible. So, what's their strategy? Lieing a lot after telling the "one truth", or becoming more reprehensible themselves? Probably both.
- bjourne 2y ago
  You did: "The latter is probably true, but why would they say that" The implication of your comment is that politicians shouldn't tell the truth because that offends voters.
- Zak 2y ago
  Seeking votes is not like seeking approval in a social context. Someone trying to win a contested election desires votes for the purpose of winning.
- bigfudge 2y ago
  Or educate and persuade?
  - inetknght 2y ago
    > Or educate and persuade? There's a lot of people around me who are actively against education, or attack facts because they don't believe them, or vomit opinions as "facts". It's practically impossible to persuade people like that.

data_maan 2y ago

Voters everywhere are stupid but in the country of exceptionalism, they lately seem to have become exceptionally stu... tolerant!

throw0101d 2y ago

> Another option is that voters are just very stupid and fail to see that which is "obvious", repeatedly, despite billions spent on trying to make them "see". I think this is the correct options. I mean, look at the people who worked for him in the last administration: > So how do we explain this near-universal rejection of Trump by the people who worked with him most closely? I guess one explanation is that they’ve all been infected with the dreaded Woke Mind Virus. But it’s unclear why working for Donald Trump would cause almost everyone to be exposed to the Woke Mind Virus, when working for, say, JD Vance, or Ron DeSantis, or any other prominent right-wing figure does not seem to produce such an infection. > Of course, not everyone who worked for Trump has abandoned and denounced him. Rudy Giuliani, who is now under indictment in several different states, is still among the faithful. Michael Flynn, who was fired by Obama for insubordination and then removed by Trump for improper personal dealings with the Russian government, is still on board, and is now threatening to unleash the “gates of Hell” on Trump’s political enemies. Peter Navarro, the economist1 who served four months in prison for defying a Congressional subpoena, is still a Trump fan. And so on. > You may perhaps notice a pattern among the relatively few people who are still on board the Trump Train from his first term. They are all very shady people. I don’t think this is a coincidence; I think it’s something systematic about Donald Trump’s personality and his method of rule. * https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/trumpism-is-kakistocracy https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/trumpism-is-kakistocracy The GOP party has changed: > As many people have noted, Trump’s movement is a cult of personality. Since Trump took over the Republican party in 2016, essentially every tenet of modern conservatism has been replaced with belief in a single leader. Trump appointed the judges that killed Roe v. Wade, but he constantly goes back and forth on the topic of abortion rights. Trump didn’t cut entitlement spending, but whether he wants to do that in his second term or not depends on which day you ask him. Trump has flip-flopped on the TikTok bill, on marijuana legalization, on the filibuster, on SALT caps, and so on. > But these flip-flops do not matter to his support at all. His supporters are sure that whichever decision Trump makes, it will be the right one, and if he changes it the following week, that will be the right decision as well. If tomorrow Trump declared that tariffs are terrible and illegal immigration is great, this would immediately become the essence of Trumpism. Trump’s followers put their trust not in principled ideas, but in a man — or, to be more accurate, in the idea of a man. That is what Trumpism requires of its adherents. * Idid.

hhjinks 2y ago

So your opinion is that elections are a referendum on the moral virtue of the candidate, or that you shouldn't run for office if you think the electorate is morally bankrupt? I'm sorry, but I have to be blunt. That is an extremely narrow view, and a single second of critical thinking should present a million other possibilities. The former is obviously untrue, considering Trump's long list of vices. The latter is a complete non sequitur. Power is power; the electorate's morals only matter insofar as they're willing to check the box next to my name. Trump can be reprehensible and irredemable, and still win if he's more believable on the issues Americans care the most about. He could be a fraud, a cheat, even a traitor, so long as he's persuasive. That's how democracy works, how it should work.

GTP 2y ago

> why would they say that and then continue to run for elections? Are you suggesting that the USA should have a single political party? Anyone that cares for democracy would be against that, regardless of their other political views.

cdrini 2y ago
My guess would be what they meant was that they should quit. Ie either you respect the intelligence/morallity of the people who you want to vote for you, or maybe you shouldn't be trying to represent them. And not quit as in leave only a single party, but quit as in leave a vacuum for another party/candidate/etc to step in. Note these aren't necessarily my personal views, just trying to help clarify what I believe the commentator meant.

ninkendo 2y ago

> or the majority of US voters are so morally bankrupt that they prefer reprehensible and irredeemable candidates Correct, yes.

tightbookkeeper 2y ago
Maybe 4th time is the charm with this kind of divisive messaging?
- Pxtl 2y ago
  So you expect progressive voters to simply politely ignore the awful things Trump has done, and the fact that his supporters don't seem to care? Short list: Trump has been adjudicated in court as having sexually assaulted a woman, and has admitted to doing more. Nearly every person who has worked with him has described him in the worst possible terms. Stories of him celebrating Nazis [1], sexually fixating on his own daughter[2], horrifying things like that. The man is a convicted felon, and has only escaped punishment for various other crime by virtue of his own appointees in the court system. If a reader accepts these well-supported items as facts, what should they think about somebody who votes for that? Should they lie and say "a reasonable person would support this"? Or should they tell the truth even when it is "divisive"? [1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-said-hitler-did-some-good-things-and-wanted-generals-like-the-nazis-former-chief-of-staff-kelly-claims https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-said-hitler-did-... [2] https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/trumps-lewd-talk-about-daughter-ivanka-in-front-of-white-house-staff-recalled-in-new-book/ https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/trumps-lewd-talk-a...
  - tightbookkeeper 2y ago
    Yes. I think having a healthy community and successful future political campaign will require reframing this rhetoric.
    - anthonypasq 2y ago
      this is pathetic and embarassing

beedeebeedee 2y ago

> Another option is that voters are just very stupid and fail to see that which is "obvious", repeatedly, despite billions spent on trying to make them "see". Fox News. The folks who voted trump watch only Fox News, which has crafted an alternative and immersive world view that appears coherent if you only watch Fox News and reject conflicting information as lies.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
There are more people who voted for Trump than there are people who only watch Fox News. So maybe you ought to re-consider the GP's point.
- intended 2y ago
  The OP is correct though. If the issue is that their statement is weak when its being reduced to just Fox News subscribers, then sure. However the issue is about the kind of information ecosystems that drive polarization and misinformation. Disinfo and misinformation campaigns target right wing / conservative viewers more than they do left wing / liberals. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07942-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07942-8 But I can point to research and articles till the cows come home. The fact is that people reject everything negative about Trump and fill in the blanks with whatever they want to believe. We’re basically playing whose line is it anyway
  - throwaway817472 2y ago
    Who is defining what is misinformation? It would be easy to reframe such that the opposite can be just as “true, “ depending on your perspective. For example: Trump turned out not to be working with Russia, despite the media and politicians constantly saying they had evidence. Trump started zero wars, despite fear mongering that he would start World War 3. He ended the tensions with North Korea, despite pundits saying diplomacy doesn’t work with dictators. Arguably all of that was misinformation, so one could argue the opposite of what you said is also true. Whomever defines “misinformation” can make that statement with full confidence and be correct in their own mind every time.

hanniabu 2y ago

One side has good marketing and the other has bad marketing. That simple really.

lesuorac 2y ago

> the majority of US voters are so morally bankrupt that they prefer reprehensible and irredeemable candidates. Well, to make this non political. Look at how many sports players have a history of domestic abuse; the character of a player is secondary to their ability to play the sport.

intended 2y ago

> It implies that either they themselves are even more reprehensible and irredeemable > or the majority of US voters are so morally bankrupt that they prefer reprehensible and irredeemable candidates You dont need to go that far. You just need to create an information environment that is beyond the ability of the average person to navigate. At that point, the other side is just evil, and your team, even if they are convicted for crimes, have ties to Epstein or anything - doesn’t matter. —— I mean, you can have privatized thought policing, there aren’t any laws or regulations to prevent. Everyone reads about Big Brother and worries about government control. So you can create enough of FUD shared till it’s believed. Don’t forget - we had to deal with Creationism, and that was wildly successful for a completely unscientific argument.

locococo 2y ago

I have another take, the democratic party is incompetent. If they can't convince voters to vote for them given how bad the other side looks then they must be really incompetent. What's the point of having all the feel good rallies in cities with famous people if you can't reach people in rural areas. The democratic party is too elitist, too far from regular people.