5 ms·

I'm a little bewildered by this sort of prediction. How will you update your priors in 2028 when this doesn't happen? What will be the excuse for why this didn'

I'm a little bewildered by this sort of prediction. How will you update your priors in 2028 when this doesn't happen? What will be the excuse for why this didn't happen?

lm28469 2y ago
It's insane, exactly the same slippery slope fallacy as "the left want to make your kids gay", people completely lost their mind on both side of the spectrum
- aredox 2y ago
  What was insane was Jan 6th. Both sides are not the same.
arcticbull 2y ago
I dunno, to quote the new top dog "in four years, you won't have to vote again" I'd say if it doesn't happen he failed to deliver on an election promise. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-tells-christians-they-wont-have-vote-after-this-election-2024-07-27/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-tells-christians-they...
- marknutter 2y ago
  Are you sure you know exactly what he meant by that?
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    That was the line the news media took for the first year or two - "we can't read his mind, so we can't call it a lie!" It's a mistake not to at least credit his own words and the logical conclusions they result in. https://apnews.com/general-news-domestic-news-domestic-news-united-states-government-88675d3fdd674c7c9ec70f170f6e4a1a https://apnews.com/general-news-domestic-news-domestic-news-...
  - dimator 2y ago
    Exactly how many times can "nah you're not getting what he meant" be repeated? Is anything he says anything he means?
    - lolinder 2y ago
      As many times as people deliberately twist his words to mean something different than he meant? I despise Trump, but it's really disheartening to see how the elite doesn't realize that they actually lost the election in part because they lost credibility by fighting dirty. The ends do not justify the means, and the means were deliberate distortions, out of context quotes, and politically-motivated prosecutions. I held my nose and voted KH because I think Trump actually managed to be even worse, but I can hardly fault other voters for deciding that the Democrats had it coming to them after all the intentional distortions.
      - aredox 2y ago
        How is it twisting words when the context is Trump refusing to say he will accept the results of the election every time he's asked, "joking" about staying more than two terms, and actually trying to overthrow the Republic on Jan 6th?
- nrjames 2y ago
  That will never happen because there are too many other power-hungry people in the GOP who are not going to just let Trump sit in the White House indefinitely, if for no other reason.
  - fooqux 2y ago
    He's 78. I think there would be plenty of people willing to enable him to sit on his throne indefinitely because they know that's really only ten years or so at best. And then, once he's gotten it warmed up and did the hard job of making it the norm, they get to take his place.
    - sirbutters 2y ago
      Well said.
  - rootusrootus 2y ago
    That is the same kind of thing people have been saying since the day he rode the escalator down. Ten years later, why does this argument still get made? Trump has power for one reason, and one reason only -- because enough voters love him. Many people on the conservative side loathe him and want nothing more than to see him gone, but they kiss his ass and fawn over him anyway, because why? The voters love him, and hate anyone who does not kiss the ring. Over and over and over this plays out. If Trump wants to stay in office after this term is finished, all that matters are what the voters think. The supreme court will likely side with him and find an interpretation of the constitution that makes it work. But even if they don't, so what? The court doesn't have an army. Even if they did, if the voters want a king, that is what they will get. The republic is a reflection of our collective will and we can destroy it if we so choose.
- DiggyJohnson 2y ago
  This is just taken wildly out of context. And that’s coming from me, who can’t stand DJT. You’re literally fishing for a retort that doesn’t even make sense.
  - rootusrootus 2y ago
    I am having a heard time reading his exact words and understanding them to mean something else. When he says to 'my beautiful Christians' that in four years you won't have to vote again, what is he trying to say? What is the missing context?
    - squigz 2y ago
      The full quote being: > "in four years, you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good, you're not gonna have to vote." One can reasonably interpret that as meaning that in the next 4 years, Trump and his party are going to fix the country so much and so well that Christians won't have to go out to vote next time.
      - lolinder 2y ago
        Not only is that the most reasonable interpretation of the words, it's the one he explicitly gave when asked [0]. The only way to arrive at the alternate interpretation is to be coming from a place where you already assume Trump is a threat to democracy. I think there are reasons to have arrived at that place (Jan 6th), but this quote is not evidence for it unless wildly misinterpreted. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/30/donald-trump-wont-have-to-vote-anymore-fox-interview https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/30/dona...
        rootusrootus 2y ago
        > where you already assume Trump is a threat to democracy You know, the people who see him as a threat to democracy are not just putting words in his mouth. Maybe they just listen to what he says, and believe him. Is that unreasonable?
Latty 2y ago
He literally attempted a coup, it's pretty amazing people are still trying to act like this is exaggeration or unreasonable. It's not guaranteed, no, and I sincerely doubt we are going to see Trump literally cancel elections, but it's a very reasonable assumption that they are going to do what they've said they'll do and tried to do: install judges that will swing things their ways, suppress voters who don't support them, punish anyone who opposes them, inspire and promote political violence against anyone who opposes them, and gerrymander as much as possible. That's enough to functionally end US democracy if they do it well. That's not some wild prediction or unlikely outcome, it's the logical continuation of their previous actions. Someone attempting something they tried before isn't unexpected. He actively tried to subvert democracy and the public have rewarded him, why would he not?
- objektif 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - Ancapistani 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - aredox 2y ago
      ... And then you have Trump refusing to say he would accept the results of the election every time he's asked, "joking" about staying more than two terms, calling bog standard politicians "internal enemies", wishing total obedience from generals and dreaming of using the military to crack down on civilians... Brown shirts are just civil disobedience in your book?
  - Filligree 2y ago
    He failed at a coup, but it's hard to pretend he didn't make the attempt. You're right that the failure was inevitable. That time. Neither of us can read the future, here.
  - Latty 2y ago
    Attempting it and failing doesn't mean he didn't attempt it. He actively tried to stop the results being certified, he tried to get people to fraudulently invent votes for him. We have the Trump–Raffensperger call on tape, the evidence is right there, it's an indisputable fact by anyone who cares about reality. And no, I wouldn't be wrong, because it's a fact he did try to do that, and even if they did—for whatever reason—decide not to try it again, that doesn't change it being what any reasonable person should assume they will do.
gbalint 2y ago
I'm a citizen of a country where the authoritarian leader captured the state and mostly destroyed democracy. So we managed to find out whether he was a danger to democracy or not (he was). What sucks, is that when it is proved, then there is already too late to do anything about it (because by definition you can not send them away in an election). So my 2 cents: if there are any signs that someone is a risk to democracy, it is better be safe than sorry, and just choose a different candidate. Everything else can be corrected in the next election, but not this.
- andrewla 2y ago
  > if there are any signs that someone is a risk to democracy All due respect, I'm curious as to what these signs actually are for Trump. Everything I've seen and heard has been horrifyingly taken out of context -- "dictator on day one" and "you won't need to vote in four years" and "he'll prosecute his political enemies", or exaggerated past the point of recognition, like "he tried to steal an election" or "he wants to put journalists in jail". Under the Biden administration, we have seen actual criminal charges against Trump. Not theoretical, not threats, not innuendo, but actual criminal charges for trivial administrative offenses. We have seen extensive media collaboration with the administration (and the opposition when Trump was in office) in an attempt to distort Trump's words to portray him as being dangerous. I do not agree that the US, under Harris or Trump, is at any risk of becoming an authoritarian nation. The "signs" here from both sides are all imaginary trivial things and political rhetoric. But if the watchword is "any signs" then I've got to say that I don't see how you can vote for anyone but Trump. My forlorn hope is that people who think that Trump represents a threat of authoritarian backsliding can, in four years, revisit their assumptions and realize that the markers they have chosen to represent that threat are all wrong. They're just incorrect. Update your priors.
  - gbalint 2y ago
    The most important sign is that he already tried to keep the power when he lost last time. And he still does not accept that he lost. This alone is more than enough reason to never vote for him.
dudefeliciano 2y ago
“You know, FDR 16 years – almost 16 years – he was four terms. I don’t know, are we going to be considered three-term? Or two-term?” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/19/trum https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/19/trum... he has vowed to be dictator on day one https://apnews.com/article/trump-hannity-dictator-authoritar https://apnews.com/article/trump-hannity-dictator-authoritar... On February 27th-the Reichstag in Berlin was set on fire. 4 weeks before, Hitler was appointed to chancellor. Hitler placed an urgency regulation to ban all political activities. He destroyed democracy in one month. Trump can now do it one day. he is definitely signaling something, whether it will come true or not is another question.
aredox 2y ago
Will you update your priors after searching a bit more how Republicans have already done huge efforts to eliminate parts of the voting population, between gerrymandering, voter rolls purges, putting polling stations in inaccessible places, counting prison population in the electoral weighting of districts...

I'm a little bewildered by this sort of prediction. How will you update your priors in 2028 when this doesn't happen? What will be the excuse for why this didn't happen?

lm28469 2y ago

It's insane, exactly the same slippery slope fallacy as "the left want to make your kids gay", people completely lost their mind on both side of the spectrum

aredox 2y ago
What was insane was Jan 6th. Both sides are not the same.

arcticbull 2y ago

I dunno, to quote the new top dog "in four years, you won't have to vote again" I'd say if it doesn't happen he failed to deliver on an election promise. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-tells-christians-they-wont-have-vote-after-this-election-2024-07-27/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-tells-christians-they...

marknutter 2y ago
Are you sure you know exactly what he meant by that?
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  That was the line the news media took for the first year or two - "we can't read his mind, so we can't call it a lie!" It's a mistake not to at least credit his own words and the logical conclusions they result in. https://apnews.com/general-news-domestic-news-domestic-news-united-states-government-88675d3fdd674c7c9ec70f170f6e4a1a https://apnews.com/general-news-domestic-news-domestic-news-...
- dimator 2y ago
  Exactly how many times can "nah you're not getting what he meant" be repeated? Is anything he says anything he means?
  - lolinder 2y ago
    As many times as people deliberately twist his words to mean something different than he meant? I despise Trump, but it's really disheartening to see how the elite doesn't realize that they actually lost the election in part because they lost credibility by fighting dirty. The ends do not justify the means, and the means were deliberate distortions, out of context quotes, and politically-motivated prosecutions. I held my nose and voted KH because I think Trump actually managed to be even worse, but I can hardly fault other voters for deciding that the Democrats had it coming to them after all the intentional distortions.
    - aredox 2y ago
      How is it twisting words when the context is Trump refusing to say he will accept the results of the election every time he's asked, "joking" about staying more than two terms, and actually trying to overthrow the Republic on Jan 6th?
nrjames 2y ago
That will never happen because there are too many other power-hungry people in the GOP who are not going to just let Trump sit in the White House indefinitely, if for no other reason.
- fooqux 2y ago
  He's 78. I think there would be plenty of people willing to enable him to sit on his throne indefinitely because they know that's really only ten years or so at best. And then, once he's gotten it warmed up and did the hard job of making it the norm, they get to take his place.
  - sirbutters 2y ago
    Well said.
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  That is the same kind of thing people have been saying since the day he rode the escalator down. Ten years later, why does this argument still get made? Trump has power for one reason, and one reason only -- because enough voters love him. Many people on the conservative side loathe him and want nothing more than to see him gone, but they kiss his ass and fawn over him anyway, because why? The voters love him, and hate anyone who does not kiss the ring. Over and over and over this plays out. If Trump wants to stay in office after this term is finished, all that matters are what the voters think. The supreme court will likely side with him and find an interpretation of the constitution that makes it work. But even if they don't, so what? The court doesn't have an army. Even if they did, if the voters want a king, that is what they will get. The republic is a reflection of our collective will and we can destroy it if we so choose.
DiggyJohnson 2y ago
This is just taken wildly out of context. And that’s coming from me, who can’t stand DJT. You’re literally fishing for a retort that doesn’t even make sense.
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  I am having a heard time reading his exact words and understanding them to mean something else. When he says to 'my beautiful Christians' that in four years you won't have to vote again, what is he trying to say? What is the missing context?
  - squigz 2y ago
    The full quote being: > "in four years, you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good, you're not gonna have to vote." One can reasonably interpret that as meaning that in the next 4 years, Trump and his party are going to fix the country so much and so well that Christians won't have to go out to vote next time.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      Not only is that the most reasonable interpretation of the words, it's the one he explicitly gave when asked [0]. The only way to arrive at the alternate interpretation is to be coming from a place where you already assume Trump is a threat to democracy. I think there are reasons to have arrived at that place (Jan 6th), but this quote is not evidence for it unless wildly misinterpreted. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/30/donald-trump-wont-have-to-vote-anymore-fox-interview https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/30/dona...
      - rootusrootus 2y ago
        > where you already assume Trump is a threat to democracy You know, the people who see him as a threat to democracy are not just putting words in his mouth. Maybe they just listen to what he says, and believe him. Is that unreasonable?

Latty 2y ago

He literally attempted a coup, it's pretty amazing people are still trying to act like this is exaggeration or unreasonable. It's not guaranteed, no, and I sincerely doubt we are going to see Trump literally cancel elections, but it's a very reasonable assumption that they are going to do what they've said they'll do and tried to do: install judges that will swing things their ways, suppress voters who don't support them, punish anyone who opposes them, inspire and promote political violence against anyone who opposes them, and gerrymander as much as possible. That's enough to functionally end US democracy if they do it well. That's not some wild prediction or unlikely outcome, it's the logical continuation of their previous actions. Someone attempting something they tried before isn't unexpected. He actively tried to subvert democracy and the public have rewarded him, why would he not?

objektif 2y ago
[flagged]
- Ancapistani 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - aredox 2y ago
    ... And then you have Trump refusing to say he would accept the results of the election every time he's asked, "joking" about staying more than two terms, calling bog standard politicians "internal enemies", wishing total obedience from generals and dreaming of using the military to crack down on civilians... Brown shirts are just civil disobedience in your book?
- Filligree 2y ago
  He failed at a coup, but it's hard to pretend he didn't make the attempt. You're right that the failure was inevitable. That time. Neither of us can read the future, here.
- Latty 2y ago
  Attempting it and failing doesn't mean he didn't attempt it. He actively tried to stop the results being certified, he tried to get people to fraudulently invent votes for him. We have the Trump–Raffensperger call on tape, the evidence is right there, it's an indisputable fact by anyone who cares about reality. And no, I wouldn't be wrong, because it's a fact he did try to do that, and even if they did—for whatever reason—decide not to try it again, that doesn't change it being what any reasonable person should assume they will do.

gbalint 2y ago

I'm a citizen of a country where the authoritarian leader captured the state and mostly destroyed democracy. So we managed to find out whether he was a danger to democracy or not (he was). What sucks, is that when it is proved, then there is already too late to do anything about it (because by definition you can not send them away in an election). So my 2 cents: if there are any signs that someone is a risk to democracy, it is better be safe than sorry, and just choose a different candidate. Everything else can be corrected in the next election, but not this.

andrewla 2y ago
> if there are any signs that someone is a risk to democracy All due respect, I'm curious as to what these signs actually are for Trump. Everything I've seen and heard has been horrifyingly taken out of context -- "dictator on day one" and "you won't need to vote in four years" and "he'll prosecute his political enemies", or exaggerated past the point of recognition, like "he tried to steal an election" or "he wants to put journalists in jail". Under the Biden administration, we have seen actual criminal charges against Trump. Not theoretical, not threats, not innuendo, but actual criminal charges for trivial administrative offenses. We have seen extensive media collaboration with the administration (and the opposition when Trump was in office) in an attempt to distort Trump's words to portray him as being dangerous. I do not agree that the US, under Harris or Trump, is at any risk of becoming an authoritarian nation. The "signs" here from both sides are all imaginary trivial things and political rhetoric. But if the watchword is "any signs" then I've got to say that I don't see how you can vote for anyone but Trump. My forlorn hope is that people who think that Trump represents a threat of authoritarian backsliding can, in four years, revisit their assumptions and realize that the markers they have chosen to represent that threat are all wrong. They're just incorrect. Update your priors.
- gbalint 2y ago
  The most important sign is that he already tried to keep the power when he lost last time. And he still does not accept that he lost. This alone is more than enough reason to never vote for him.

dudefeliciano 2y ago

“You know, FDR 16 years – almost 16 years – he was four terms. I don’t know, are we going to be considered three-term? Or two-term?” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/19/trum https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/19/trum... he has vowed to be dictator on day one https://apnews.com/article/trump-hannity-dictator-authoritar https://apnews.com/article/trump-hannity-dictator-authoritar... On February 27th-the Reichstag in Berlin was set on fire. 4 weeks before, Hitler was appointed to chancellor. Hitler placed an urgency regulation to ban all political activities. He destroyed democracy in one month. Trump can now do it one day. he is definitely signaling something, whether it will come true or not is another question.

aredox 2y ago

Will you update your priors after searching a bit more how Republicans have already done huge efforts to eliminate parts of the voting population, between gerrymandering, voter rolls purges, putting polling stations in inaccessible places, counting prison population in the electoral weighting of districts...