5 ms·

It’s more futile than this, my parents are big Trumpers. My father watches a ton of Fox News and rants about how immigrants are flooding the cities. When shown

It’s more futile than this, my parents are big Trumpers. My father watches a ton of Fox News and rants about how immigrants are flooding the cities. When shown data and statistics and pointing out Trumps blatant lying and the hysteria about it, my father will move the goal post, change the subject and say things like “I don’t like Trump but Biden is too old.” Okay I said, if Biden is too old who is chosen when he steps down? Kamala, who while qualified was chosen to gain vote. Is that the alternative you want? Silence. Trump is also too old and definitely showing his age but it doesn’t matter anymore because the goal post moves again. It’s pure radicalization and anything that can be labeled as a negative is rationalized to avoid regret. My mother remains 100% silent about politics. Which is equally as hard to have a conversation. So when you have people so radicalized they only put ear plugs in their ear, because they’ve been trained to want a war at home. They are too deep, what do we do? Wait until they die? What about the generations they’re radicalizing after them? These are tough questions in a world where people can’t be proud we even have any kind of infrastructure. People feel they deserve better when we already have the best circumstances to be alive. There is no consensus because there is very little left to strive for in the eyes of the average citizen. This is why we can’t have single payer healthcare, because our populations are too busy fighting for their radicalized ideas.

WillPostForFood 2y ago
rants about how immigrants are flooding the cities. When shown data and statistics and pointing out Trumps blatant lying What? You are more misinformed than your father if you don't know that illegal aliens are flooding into the country. Trying to choose a neutral source for you. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0jp4xqx2z3o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0jp4xqx2z3o Since January 2021, when Joe Biden came to office, there have been more than 10 million encounters - about 8 million came over the southwest land border with Mexico. Under the Trump administration, there were 2.4 million encounters on this border.
- daveguy 2y ago
  And what makes you think the Biden administration wasn't just doing a better job? Or Trump administration wasn't underreporting to make him look better. If you don't test, it isn't there!
  - decremental 2y ago
    [dead]
  - tsumnia 2y ago
    While I can recognize the sentiment, I do err on the side of caution moving into the post-COVID world. Once you start assuming "the other side could be lying" then its going to be pretty difficult for you to ever accept whatever truth is. You begin to doubt anything and everything in favor of whatever makes you feel right.
    - daveguy 2y ago
      Except Trump lies if it makes him look better as easy as he breathes. It's not that he "could be lying" -- he lies all the damn time. No concern for the truth, only for his image. Then he sends his propagandists out to push the narrative and make excuses for what he says. "They're eating the cats and dogs." -Trump, and "Just remember: What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what's happening." -Trump; It's ridiculously Orwellian.
      - tsumnia 2y ago
        Believe me, I get it. BUT, and even I hate saying this, if both sides continue to resort to "the other side is lying" - aka people claiming 2020 was rigged and people claiming deportation/crime numbers are under-reported. I'm not saying believe everything without due diligence. I'm saying everyone calling everyone else liars is not going to end peacefully for anyone.
        daveguy 2y ago
        I'm just saying, if you insist Trump is telling the truth, you should have evidence. Because there is rarely evidence to back the assertion he is telling the truth. I'm not calling everyone a liar. Just Trump and his cronies. Most people don't realize they are repeating lies for Trump because they believe the lies. I'm not going to sit back and give that guy the benefit of the doubt after he has lied over and over again. All benefit of the doubt goes to those he has deceived.
- righthand 2y ago
  Your neutral news source is from a country that’s very anti-immigrant.
  - decremental 2y ago
    [dead]
  - fakedang 2y ago
    Yet somehow has immigrant mayors for nearly all major cities, had a couple of immigrant PMs, and currently has a PoC immigrant-origin leader of the CONSERVATIVES? Please enlighten me for I'm utterly confused /s.
    - viraptor 2y ago
      You mean the immigrant from London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadiq_Khan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadiq_Khan and Liverpool https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Burnham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Burnham ? I'm not sure any other major cities in England even have an actual mayor. (Lord Mayor is just ceremonial) Tooting is just zone 3, not abroad :D
  - defrost 2y ago
    [flagged]
- basementcat 2y ago
  When basementcat was CTO, software engineers closed 2.4 million Jira tickets. When WillPostForFood was CTO, 10 million Jira tickets were closed. Is this sufficient information to determine who was the more effective CTO?
- mindslight 2y ago
  So Biden was 3x more effective at catching illegal immigrants than Trump was? This isn't the argument you seem to think it is. Was this due to Trump directing CBP to not bother watching the areas "guarded" by his scrap metal project or something?
- AaronFriel 2y ago
  That data isn't sufficient for the claim you're making. Another interpretation could be that one President's CBP was approximately four times as effective. The truth is harder to discern when each administration redefines encounters, but for example, the Trump administration deported fewer per annum than the Obama administration. I don't know what to make of that, myself, but I think that would come as a surprise to many voters.
0xy 2y ago
Obama had a super majority and could've done single payer, but he let the insurance companies write the ACA while letting Citibank choose his cabinet. Such is life when you give Democrats the power they need to make change. They'll fight back against the power structures by ceding control to them, and taking massive bribes. Every time. Even Bernie Sanders is a Big Pharma lackey, accepting millions.
- righthand 2y ago
  There isn’t a universe where insurance companies didn’t write the ACA under Obama. The lobbied to hell Congress and Senate write the laws, Obama pushes through the best we get from them. The ACA as a single payer totally supportive law would maybe have passed back in the early 1800s when communists headed West.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  Accepting millions from whom? When you run for president, people who happen to work in medicine might donate, that doesn't make you crooked.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  Obama did not have a supermajority. He didn’t even have 60 Democrat votes, hence having to compromise heavily on ACA, which passed in the 6 months (out of 8 years) that Obama had enough votes with a few independent Senators.
- cyberax 2y ago
  > Obama had a super majority and could've done single payer, but he let the insurance companies write the ACA Ah, a low-information voter, I see. _Obama_ didn't write the ACA. It was written in Congress, and it passed only because Democrats had a once-in-a-lifetime filibuster-proof majority. Not a single Republican Senator voted for the ACA. In particular, Joe Lieberman (Connecticut) blocked the public option. Obama tried to push for it behind the doors, but the ACA was as far as the Blue Dog Democrats were willing to be pushed. And then, of course, Mitch McConnell happened and the Senate ground to a halt. ACA basically has not been amended since its passing.
Dalewyn 2y ago
[flagged]
- righthand 2y ago
  I definitely have my radicalizations and biases but in my effort not to repeat the silence, I am definitely trying to aim away from what I view as mistakes. But heck I could totally be wrong and maybe I’m just a dumb asshole who wants healthcare.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  Considered and discarded as baseless. Next.
danans 2y ago
> They are too deep, what do we do? Wait until they die? Yeah, you tried. Any more is probably energy wasted. > What about the generations they’re radicalizing after them? Explain to them how oligarchs are burning the younger generation's security and quality of life to amass ever more wealth and power for themselves. Help them see how this is happening to both them and the people of their generation on the opposite side of the surface political divide.
- righthand 2y ago
  I don’t disagree but do you have a hypothetical or real example of what that looks like? I am stumped from trying over the last 20 years. It is important to realize that there is a mythos to your parents. My Trump voting father also voted for Obama because he hated Bush for the wars. I originally thought he saw the Hope. Stuff like that keeps you seeking the non-existent Hope person. You’re negotiating with the subliminal-y terrorized.
  - theultdev 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - righthand 2y ago
      Wait what? I’m asking about how you have a conversation with people who refuse to discuss their point of view. It’s me? I don’t know what you mean by that. Are you saying I’m in denial about my perspectives? I never advocated that an election was stolen or that Biden or Trump did nothing during their terms like my parents have. I am the one in denial? Can you point out this different perspective. A lot of commentary after the election was that “there’s a lesson to be learned here” and I hear that a lot from Trumpers. What is this lesson I need to learn about lying and hating? Why am I expected to take the lying side seriously? Won’t the answers be more lies?
      - theultdev 2y ago
        Just know that millions have his same opinions. You don't think there's any truth in the middle between your perspective and theirs? I probably share many of your father's opinions. Even though he cannot articulate his political feelings doesn't mean he's wrong. If you would like to discuss and learn more from the other side, pick a single topic I'll oblige.
roenxi 2y ago
FWIW, the algorithm people use in politics is usually to find someone who is on the same emotional wavelength as they are, then copy their actions. Trying to reason with people about political matters is generally futile because they don't take a particularly close interest in real politics and rationally don't make decisions based on arguments because they don't understand or remember any of the issues in detail. Although arguing is a lot of fun if you like arguing; and it can help sharpen the mind. Your arguments are going to be wildly unpersuasive because your parents don't understand why they're voting the way they vote. They just know that their emotional state is represented at Fox & Fox suggests voting for Trump. The same dynamic is true for pretty much everyone except the rare souls who like to actually look up how & why politicians vote in practice (which most people don't have time to do). Try figuring out what emotions your parents are feeling and why. Even if you don't change their minds you'll probably get to a better spot in the relationship than if you're trying to convince them Kamala was a strong candidate (which, given her record, tough sell - how does a strong candidate lose to Hitler, we might ask to annoy everyone).
Eextra953 2y ago
What we have to do is offer a hopeful vision of the future that rings true to a majority of people. This starts with breaking away from the current party lines that deny what most people know to be true. For example, almost everyone can agree that health care is too expensive, corporations have too much power, housing is unaffordable, Trump is too extreme, Biden was too old etc. yet neither party is willing to state the obvious. If we can get a major party to do this, or to at least support candidates that do, we can get out of this hole. Edited first response since it was too reactionary on my part.
- feoren 2y ago
  > hopeful vision of the future that rings true to a majority of people 77+ million Americans don't want a "hopeful vision of the future". They want to be angry. They're addicted to the anger. They want to hurt people. Present them any vision you want; they are not ever going to pay attention to it.
  - tayo42 2y ago
    I think your right for some. I think there is also some aspect of identity. "I identify with <these set of ideals> and that's just what we do" kind of thing.
  - idle_zealot 2y ago
    They want populism. That requires an enemy. It doesn't, however, require hurting anyone. If you're doing populism, you can either identify a set of scapegoats to slaughter or identify the actual impediments to solving the problems people experience in their lives. No party will identify such impediments, though. It would be very bad for business.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Most people don't want to be angry. But it's easy to be angry in times like this, and people just need to point to a target to justify the anger. The answer is to ignore the theater and focus on improving lives anyway. The few truly hateful ones will be resolved quickly once people aren't worrying about rent, groceries, and making a living wage.
SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
I don't understand the underlying presumption that data and statistics are how you deradicalize people. People become radical when they really want something they feel they can't get, and the most effective way to fight that is to offer some of what they want. There's no argument that can prove your father isn't allowed to want less immigration, even if you and I might prefer more. It's a genuinely hard problem, of course, because there are lots of people in the Democratic coalition who are radicalized the other direction. They feel - equally genuinely, and equally strongly - that excluding or deporting an immigrant is a grievous moral wrong which we can't tolerate for mere political expediency. That's what it means to say that there's not a consensus on immigration.
- yxhuvud 2y ago
  I don't buy it. Nazis don't get less radical if you change your laws to get more in line with their thoughts, they get emboldened and want even more.
  - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
    What makes you think the original commenter's dad is a Nazi?
- dmvdoug 2y ago
  That’s kind of sweet that you think radicalization is about policy preferences. Like the GP, my elderly parents have turned into Trump partisans. They listen to Fox News all day and night. It’s constant exposure to and participation in Two Minutes of Hate. My dad’s actually a sweet guy, and when I can address some of the crazy shit he’s clearly hearing from somewhere else, and ask him to take a step back and talk to me, not at me, we often get to a place where he’ll acknowledge that what he said/repeated really doesn’t reflect his own thoughts or feelings about something, but then it’s just right back into the vortex of propaganda, lies, and hatred spewing out of the TV, and it’s like we never talked at all.
  - Eextra953 2y ago
    I sometimes wonder if Fox goes beyond extreme partisanship and into a sort of pavlovian training of their audience. I've watched Fox before and whenever there is a negative or scary story they follow it up with a story about Democrats. At what point does that association get burned into the audience so that Dem\Prog = bad?
sweeter 2y ago
> There is no consensus because there is very little left to strive for in the eyes of the average citizen. I heavily agree on this, people have nothing to look forward to, and nothing to be proud of. In fact, the state of the US is more embarrassing than anything. Every other country has free healthcare, high speed rail, free education etc... On top of that, there is no upwards social mobility. I know a lot of people my age are literally gambling everything on crypto and hustle culture because they have no future prospects or hope. > This is why we can’t have single payer healthcare, because our populations are too busy fighting for their radicalized ideas. but I have to say that this is beyond naive. A single payer healthcare system is broadly popular, it has had the majority of support for decades at this point. We can't have it because it goes against the profit motive of the people running that industry. We already pay more than we would in taxpayer money than we would if healthcare was free across the board. Its as simple as that. Blatant corruption. And this circles back to the last point, people see this, they realize this... and they don't believe that they can change this. This is exactly why, across the world, Luigi Mangione is hailed as a Saint. Thats exactly why the response was, "I get it." and people should try to examine that more. Its honestly not very complicated. Fox News and such, are the only ones providing answers and giving people a place to channel this anger. But it is at the expense of marginalized groups, and truthfully, everyone. The Neo-Liberal order has failed everyone, and the Democrats have nothing to offer. I mean, we have corruption and oligarchs controlling the government. People feel hopeless, and powerless.
- chanakya 2y ago
  > People feel hopeless, and powerless. Some people, I guess. Looks like more than half the people approve of what he's doing. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/us/politics/trump-approval-polls.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/us/politics/trump-approva...
  - blackqueeriroh 2y ago
    You know that they don’t actually poll all citizens, right?
  - sweeter 2y ago
serial_dev 2y ago
[flagged]
gadders 2y ago
>>It’s pure radicalization and anything that can be labeled as a negative is rationalized to avoid regret. This from the party that spent 4 years claiming Biden didn't have severe mental decline but "a stutter".
- matwood 2y ago
  We need age limits up and down the offices. Neither Biden nor Trump should have been allowed to run this time and probably not last time either.
  - Integrape 2y ago
    I would rather have term limits up and down.
    - matwood 2y ago
      Agreed. We need both.
      - gadders 2y ago
        Term limits and trading/ wealth growth restrictions. You should not become a multimillionaire by getting elected.
- righthand 2y ago
  Are we to agree the parties and their PR mouth pieces do not speak for the people? A lot of blue did not want Biden the first time. The mouth piece said he was a bridge to 2024 when they’d have a better candidate ready. Do not blame the voters for PR mouth piece unless you hear the lies are being repeated by the voters. If you don’t avoid this then it turns into a goal post moving contest.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    >Are we to agree the parties and their PR mouth pieces do not speak for the people? Perhaps. But they sure do do a great job rallying people as well. So... I will blame the voters when they unironically fall for it.
matwood 2y ago
It’s hard for a number of reasons. Many people are struggling, and people’s tendency to bike shed means they look for and grasp onto the explanation(s) they think they understand. Propaganda takes advantage of this fact. Whatever the problem, it’s Biden/immigrants/DEIs fault.
- righthand 2y ago
  The bigger scapegoat is “progressives fault” in a nation that’s been run by moderates for a good few decades.
basementcat 2y ago
Your parents remind me of a former colleague who completely changed his political views after frequently listening to AM talk radio every time he drove between Goldstone and LA. Many of us (me included) are like a "sponge", we take on characteristics of those we surround ourselves with (virtually or in real life). I try (and I don’t always succeed) to associate myself with individuals that I admire and possess characteristics worthy of emulation. I have to be careful and have the discipline to avoid those with characteristics that I don’t want to unconsciously assume.
- matwood 2y ago
  Most people are sponges in that way. There's a say that 'you are the average of the 5 people you are closest with'. Birds of a feather do in fact flock together.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
>what do we do? Wait until they die? To be frank, yes. Arguing with most single individuals is pointless anyway. If we were able to focus these conversations on congress we'd be in much better shape. >What about the generations they’re radicalizing after them? You have time to stop them. It's just scientific fact that younger brains are more malleable and open to information. It won't always work, but there is some hope there. >There is no consensus because there is very little left to strive for in the eyes of the average citizen. Maybe we shouldn't have let a few hundred rich guys beat us in an argument about Healthcare. Which is a bipartisan issue but they divide us with politics.

WillPostForFood 2y ago

rants about how immigrants are flooding the cities. When shown data and statistics and pointing out Trumps blatant lying What? You are more misinformed than your father if you don't know that illegal aliens are flooding into the country. Trying to choose a neutral source for you. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0jp4xqx2z3o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0jp4xqx2z3o Since January 2021, when Joe Biden came to office, there have been more than 10 million encounters - about 8 million came over the southwest land border with Mexico. Under the Trump administration, there were 2.4 million encounters on this border.

daveguy 2y ago
And what makes you think the Biden administration wasn't just doing a better job? Or Trump administration wasn't underreporting to make him look better. If you don't test, it isn't there!
- decremental 2y ago
  [dead]
- tsumnia 2y ago
  While I can recognize the sentiment, I do err on the side of caution moving into the post-COVID world. Once you start assuming "the other side could be lying" then its going to be pretty difficult for you to ever accept whatever truth is. You begin to doubt anything and everything in favor of whatever makes you feel right.
  - daveguy 2y ago
    Except Trump lies if it makes him look better as easy as he breathes. It's not that he "could be lying" -- he lies all the damn time. No concern for the truth, only for his image. Then he sends his propagandists out to push the narrative and make excuses for what he says. "They're eating the cats and dogs." -Trump, and "Just remember: What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what's happening." -Trump; It's ridiculously Orwellian.
    - tsumnia 2y ago
      Believe me, I get it. BUT, and even I hate saying this, if both sides continue to resort to "the other side is lying" - aka people claiming 2020 was rigged and people claiming deportation/crime numbers are under-reported. I'm not saying believe everything without due diligence. I'm saying everyone calling everyone else liars is not going to end peacefully for anyone.
      - daveguy 2y ago
        I'm just saying, if you insist Trump is telling the truth, you should have evidence. Because there is rarely evidence to back the assertion he is telling the truth. I'm not calling everyone a liar. Just Trump and his cronies. Most people don't realize they are repeating lies for Trump because they believe the lies. I'm not going to sit back and give that guy the benefit of the doubt after he has lied over and over again. All benefit of the doubt goes to those he has deceived.
righthand 2y ago
Your neutral news source is from a country that’s very anti-immigrant.
- decremental 2y ago
  [dead]
- fakedang 2y ago
  Yet somehow has immigrant mayors for nearly all major cities, had a couple of immigrant PMs, and currently has a PoC immigrant-origin leader of the CONSERVATIVES? Please enlighten me for I'm utterly confused /s.
  - viraptor 2y ago
    You mean the immigrant from London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadiq_Khan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadiq_Khan and Liverpool https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Burnham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Burnham ? I'm not sure any other major cities in England even have an actual mayor. (Lord Mayor is just ceremonial) Tooting is just zone 3, not abroad :D
- defrost 2y ago
  [flagged]
basementcat 2y ago
When basementcat was CTO, software engineers closed 2.4 million Jira tickets. When WillPostForFood was CTO, 10 million Jira tickets were closed. Is this sufficient information to determine who was the more effective CTO?
mindslight 2y ago
So Biden was 3x more effective at catching illegal immigrants than Trump was? This isn't the argument you seem to think it is. Was this due to Trump directing CBP to not bother watching the areas "guarded" by his scrap metal project or something?
AaronFriel 2y ago
That data isn't sufficient for the claim you're making. Another interpretation could be that one President's CBP was approximately four times as effective. The truth is harder to discern when each administration redefines encounters, but for example, the Trump administration deported fewer per annum than the Obama administration. I don't know what to make of that, myself, but I think that would come as a surprise to many voters.

0xy 2y ago

Obama had a super majority and could've done single payer, but he let the insurance companies write the ACA while letting Citibank choose his cabinet. Such is life when you give Democrats the power they need to make change. They'll fight back against the power structures by ceding control to them, and taking massive bribes. Every time. Even Bernie Sanders is a Big Pharma lackey, accepting millions.

righthand 2y ago
There isn’t a universe where insurance companies didn’t write the ACA under Obama. The lobbied to hell Congress and Senate write the laws, Obama pushes through the best we get from them. The ACA as a single payer totally supportive law would maybe have passed back in the early 1800s when communists headed West.
__MatrixMan__ 2y ago
Accepting millions from whom? When you run for president, people who happen to work in medicine might donate, that doesn't make you crooked.
lotsofpulp 2y ago
Obama did not have a supermajority. He didn’t even have 60 Democrat votes, hence having to compromise heavily on ACA, which passed in the 6 months (out of 8 years) that Obama had enough votes with a few independent Senators.
cyberax 2y ago
> Obama had a super majority and could've done single payer, but he let the insurance companies write the ACA Ah, a low-information voter, I see. _Obama_ didn't write the ACA. It was written in Congress, and it passed only because Democrats had a once-in-a-lifetime filibuster-proof majority. Not a single Republican Senator voted for the ACA. In particular, Joe Lieberman (Connecticut) blocked the public option. Obama tried to push for it behind the doors, but the ACA was as far as the Blue Dog Democrats were willing to be pushed. And then, of course, Mitch McConnell happened and the Senate ground to a halt. ACA basically has not been amended since its passing.

Dalewyn 2y ago

[flagged]

righthand 2y ago
I definitely have my radicalizations and biases but in my effort not to repeat the silence, I am definitely trying to aim away from what I view as mistakes. But heck I could totally be wrong and maybe I’m just a dumb asshole who wants healthcare.
HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
Considered and discarded as baseless. Next.

danans 2y ago

> They are too deep, what do we do? Wait until they die? Yeah, you tried. Any more is probably energy wasted. > What about the generations they’re radicalizing after them? Explain to them how oligarchs are burning the younger generation's security and quality of life to amass ever more wealth and power for themselves. Help them see how this is happening to both them and the people of their generation on the opposite side of the surface political divide.

righthand 2y ago
I don’t disagree but do you have a hypothetical or real example of what that looks like? I am stumped from trying over the last 20 years. It is important to realize that there is a mythos to your parents. My Trump voting father also voted for Obama because he hated Bush for the wars. I originally thought he saw the Hope. Stuff like that keeps you seeking the non-existent Hope person. You’re negotiating with the subliminal-y terrorized.
- theultdev 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - righthand 2y ago
    Wait what? I’m asking about how you have a conversation with people who refuse to discuss their point of view. It’s me? I don’t know what you mean by that. Are you saying I’m in denial about my perspectives? I never advocated that an election was stolen or that Biden or Trump did nothing during their terms like my parents have. I am the one in denial? Can you point out this different perspective. A lot of commentary after the election was that “there’s a lesson to be learned here” and I hear that a lot from Trumpers. What is this lesson I need to learn about lying and hating? Why am I expected to take the lying side seriously? Won’t the answers be more lies?
    - theultdev 2y ago
      Just know that millions have his same opinions. You don't think there's any truth in the middle between your perspective and theirs? I probably share many of your father's opinions. Even though he cannot articulate his political feelings doesn't mean he's wrong. If you would like to discuss and learn more from the other side, pick a single topic I'll oblige.

roenxi 2y ago

FWIW, the algorithm people use in politics is usually to find someone who is on the same emotional wavelength as they are, then copy their actions. Trying to reason with people about political matters is generally futile because they don't take a particularly close interest in real politics and rationally don't make decisions based on arguments because they don't understand or remember any of the issues in detail. Although arguing is a lot of fun if you like arguing; and it can help sharpen the mind. Your arguments are going to be wildly unpersuasive because your parents don't understand why they're voting the way they vote. They just know that their emotional state is represented at Fox & Fox suggests voting for Trump. The same dynamic is true for pretty much everyone except the rare souls who like to actually look up how & why politicians vote in practice (which most people don't have time to do). Try figuring out what emotions your parents are feeling and why. Even if you don't change their minds you'll probably get to a better spot in the relationship than if you're trying to convince them Kamala was a strong candidate (which, given her record, tough sell - how does a strong candidate lose to Hitler, we might ask to annoy everyone).

Eextra953 2y ago

What we have to do is offer a hopeful vision of the future that rings true to a majority of people. This starts with breaking away from the current party lines that deny what most people know to be true. For example, almost everyone can agree that health care is too expensive, corporations have too much power, housing is unaffordable, Trump is too extreme, Biden was too old etc. yet neither party is willing to state the obvious. If we can get a major party to do this, or to at least support candidates that do, we can get out of this hole. Edited first response since it was too reactionary on my part.

feoren 2y ago
> hopeful vision of the future that rings true to a majority of people 77+ million Americans don't want a "hopeful vision of the future". They want to be angry. They're addicted to the anger. They want to hurt people. Present them any vision you want; they are not ever going to pay attention to it.
- tayo42 2y ago
  I think your right for some. I think there is also some aspect of identity. "I identify with <these set of ideals> and that's just what we do" kind of thing.
- idle_zealot 2y ago
  They want populism. That requires an enemy. It doesn't, however, require hurting anyone. If you're doing populism, you can either identify a set of scapegoats to slaughter or identify the actual impediments to solving the problems people experience in their lives. No party will identify such impediments, though. It would be very bad for business.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Most people don't want to be angry. But it's easy to be angry in times like this, and people just need to point to a target to justify the anger. The answer is to ignore the theater and focus on improving lives anyway. The few truly hateful ones will be resolved quickly once people aren't worrying about rent, groceries, and making a living wage.

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago

I don't understand the underlying presumption that data and statistics are how you deradicalize people. People become radical when they really want something they feel they can't get, and the most effective way to fight that is to offer some of what they want. There's no argument that can prove your father isn't allowed to want less immigration, even if you and I might prefer more. It's a genuinely hard problem, of course, because there are lots of people in the Democratic coalition who are radicalized the other direction. They feel - equally genuinely, and equally strongly - that excluding or deporting an immigrant is a grievous moral wrong which we can't tolerate for mere political expediency. That's what it means to say that there's not a consensus on immigration.

yxhuvud 2y ago
I don't buy it. Nazis don't get less radical if you change your laws to get more in line with their thoughts, they get emboldened and want even more.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  What makes you think the original commenter's dad is a Nazi?
dmvdoug 2y ago
That’s kind of sweet that you think radicalization is about policy preferences. Like the GP, my elderly parents have turned into Trump partisans. They listen to Fox News all day and night. It’s constant exposure to and participation in Two Minutes of Hate. My dad’s actually a sweet guy, and when I can address some of the crazy shit he’s clearly hearing from somewhere else, and ask him to take a step back and talk to me, not at me, we often get to a place where he’ll acknowledge that what he said/repeated really doesn’t reflect his own thoughts or feelings about something, but then it’s just right back into the vortex of propaganda, lies, and hatred spewing out of the TV, and it’s like we never talked at all.
- Eextra953 2y ago
  I sometimes wonder if Fox goes beyond extreme partisanship and into a sort of pavlovian training of their audience. I've watched Fox before and whenever there is a negative or scary story they follow it up with a story about Democrats. At what point does that association get burned into the audience so that Dem\Prog = bad?

sweeter 2y ago

> There is no consensus because there is very little left to strive for in the eyes of the average citizen. I heavily agree on this, people have nothing to look forward to, and nothing to be proud of. In fact, the state of the US is more embarrassing than anything. Every other country has free healthcare, high speed rail, free education etc... On top of that, there is no upwards social mobility. I know a lot of people my age are literally gambling everything on crypto and hustle culture because they have no future prospects or hope. > This is why we can’t have single payer healthcare, because our populations are too busy fighting for their radicalized ideas. but I have to say that this is beyond naive. A single payer healthcare system is broadly popular, it has had the majority of support for decades at this point. We can't have it because it goes against the profit motive of the people running that industry. We already pay more than we would in taxpayer money than we would if healthcare was free across the board. Its as simple as that. Blatant corruption. And this circles back to the last point, people see this, they realize this... and they don't believe that they can change this. This is exactly why, across the world, Luigi Mangione is hailed as a Saint. Thats exactly why the response was, "I get it." and people should try to examine that more. Its honestly not very complicated. Fox News and such, are the only ones providing answers and giving people a place to channel this anger. But it is at the expense of marginalized groups, and truthfully, everyone. The Neo-Liberal order has failed everyone, and the Democrats have nothing to offer. I mean, we have corruption and oligarchs controlling the government. People feel hopeless, and powerless.

chanakya 2y ago
> People feel hopeless, and powerless. Some people, I guess. Looks like more than half the people approve of what he's doing. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/us/politics/trump-approval-polls.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/us/politics/trump-approva...
- blackqueeriroh 2y ago
  You know that they don’t actually poll all citizens, right?
- sweeter 2y ago

serial_dev 2y ago

[flagged]

gadders 2y ago

>>It’s pure radicalization and anything that can be labeled as a negative is rationalized to avoid regret. This from the party that spent 4 years claiming Biden didn't have severe mental decline but "a stutter".

matwood 2y ago
We need age limits up and down the offices. Neither Biden nor Trump should have been allowed to run this time and probably not last time either.
- Integrape 2y ago
  I would rather have term limits up and down.
  - matwood 2y ago
    Agreed. We need both.
    - gadders 2y ago
      Term limits and trading/ wealth growth restrictions. You should not become a multimillionaire by getting elected.
righthand 2y ago
Are we to agree the parties and their PR mouth pieces do not speak for the people? A lot of blue did not want Biden the first time. The mouth piece said he was a bridge to 2024 when they’d have a better candidate ready. Do not blame the voters for PR mouth piece unless you hear the lies are being repeated by the voters. If you don’t avoid this then it turns into a goal post moving contest.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >Are we to agree the parties and their PR mouth pieces do not speak for the people? Perhaps. But they sure do do a great job rallying people as well. So... I will blame the voters when they unironically fall for it.

matwood 2y ago

It’s hard for a number of reasons. Many people are struggling, and people’s tendency to bike shed means they look for and grasp onto the explanation(s) they think they understand. Propaganda takes advantage of this fact. Whatever the problem, it’s Biden/immigrants/DEIs fault.

righthand 2y ago
The bigger scapegoat is “progressives fault” in a nation that’s been run by moderates for a good few decades.

basementcat 2y ago

Your parents remind me of a former colleague who completely changed his political views after frequently listening to AM talk radio every time he drove between Goldstone and LA. Many of us (me included) are like a "sponge", we take on characteristics of those we surround ourselves with (virtually or in real life). I try (and I don’t always succeed) to associate myself with individuals that I admire and possess characteristics worthy of emulation. I have to be careful and have the discipline to avoid those with characteristics that I don’t want to unconsciously assume.

matwood 2y ago
Most people are sponges in that way. There's a say that 'you are the average of the 5 people you are closest with'. Birds of a feather do in fact flock together.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

>what do we do? Wait until they die? To be frank, yes. Arguing with most single individuals is pointless anyway. If we were able to focus these conversations on congress we'd be in much better shape. >What about the generations they’re radicalizing after them? You have time to stop them. It's just scientific fact that younger brains are more malleable and open to information. It won't always work, but there is some hope there. >There is no consensus because there is very little left to strive for in the eyes of the average citizen. Maybe we shouldn't have let a few hundred rich guys beat us in an argument about Healthcare. Which is a bipartisan issue but they divide us with politics.