13 ms·

Our government is literally falling in a matter of weeks. It's being assaulted, and we're all just standing by.

by bmitc 2y ago

I_dream_of_Gen1 2y ago
[dead]
khazhoux 2y ago
The people spoke very clearly in November: they wanted this.
- Loudergood 2y ago
  Thanks to California's incredibly slow counting system it was a lot closer in popular vote than it initially appeared.
- kevstev 2y ago
  This is my big struggle with all of this. His first term I felt America was duped by a con man so protested and made a fuss on social media. Americans saw the first four years and astonishingly decided they wanted more of it, by a decent margin. So while I absolutely hate what is going on right now this seems to be what the people wanted. I question each day whether that needs to be respected or we should resist. I also wonder if his supporters have any idea of what is going on. I am sure fox news isn't covering any of this and if they are it's probably being spun in some horrific way.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    What is "the people" at this point, even? Is there really such a thing as "American people" that can be meaningfully defined? What would be its ideals?
  - bmitc 2y ago
    > I also wonder if his supporters have any idea of what is going on. They do not. Most of his supporters are either rich or uneducated normal people who lack the mental capacity to realize what's going on. They just repeat the talking points. Respond to anyone of them with a non-talking point, compassion, and honesty and they just shut down. They haven't a clue about what's really going on. I bet none of his supporters even know who Robert Mercer is, the person that got him elected in the first place.
    - codingrightnow 2y ago
      I feel like you're interacting with the same people I'm interacting with because your assessment of them is spot on. They love the talking points. Whenever you shut down one talking point with facts they pole vault over that into the next talking point. They want to be 20 ft up in the air away from the truth and never question why they've been lied to. They believe and even make up wild conspiracy theories on the spot when confronted with information that conflicts with what Trump and his supporters have said and done. Their brains leap over every possible barrier I put up, never letting it stop them. Maybe I'm not a good debater but facts are facts and they don't seem to appreciate or respect or even value them. I need to find a new, less depressing group of people to be around which will unfortunately mean quitting my job but I just can't do it anymore.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        +1 I spend a lot of time engaging with these folks in good faith as well, and exact same pattern. Repeat statement from Trump -> demonstrate that it's untrue -> repeat statement from Trump on new topic -> demonstrate that it's untrue -> repeat statement from Trump on new topic -> demonstrate that it's untrue They're in a cult.
  - devkevkevdev 2y ago
    [dead]
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - anigbrowl 2y ago
      What is wrong with being reappointed to the same job for 22 years? What if she's just...competent? Your argument seems to be that anyone having the same job for that long must be corrupt in some way, but you don't provide anything to support that premise. Ironically, you're implicitly endorsing the resort to illegal means for her removal, rather than following the process defined in law.
      - sidibe 2y ago
        [flagged]
    - khazhoux 2y ago
      > With regards specifically to Phyllis Fong, I have no confidence that an Inspector-General that occupied the office for twenty two years straight[1] can ethically perform their prescribed role. I am in complete agreement with her termination, we need someone (anyone) new and different in there. Are you "in complete agreement" because of actual things Fong did, or because you think that 22 years experience in a position is disqualifying?
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        >because you think that 22 years experience in a position is disqualifying? Yes. An Inspector-General is in charge of inspecting and auditing, as the name would suggest. That requires being impartial in absolute terms, because you must be able to call out problems no matter how inconvenient they are. Being in a position of power means an inevitable accrual of reputation and influence, and 22 straight years of accrual is ridiculous. Her excessively long tenure is also unusual; the longest-serving Inspector-General besides her served for 8 years, shortest being 2 years not counting acting IGs, average is about 4 years each IG not counting her 22 year tenure. So yes, I support her termination because her long tenure lends me no confidence she can perform her duties ethically anymore. There must be a regular changing of the incumbent to head off the office being bought or otherwise corrupted. There are millions of other D.C. bureaucrats to replace her with, and even more Americans overall. There is no reason to keep her specifically for this long and I daresay that the lack of a term limit for this office has to be an oversight.
  - anigbrowl 2y ago
    No, you don't need to respect it for the same reason we needn't respect the decision-making of suicide cults.
  - codr7 2y ago
    Don't live in the US, but I got the impression that a lot of people actually saw positive change in their lives in the first round, which is a pretty good reason to want more. Do you honestly believe your news is being spun any less?
    - kevstev 2y ago
      Yes I read high quality news sources- the WSJ, NYTimes, foreign affairs and a few others like the national review and mother Jones from time to time. I hear this argument a lot and my issues with Trump were from the primary source- his own words and tweets. The economy was already humming when Trump first entered office and despite his best efforts it continued to do so through his term.
      - chasely 2y ago
        I feel like his first term benefitted from his administration being wholly unprepared to govern, as witnessed by the numerous stories of there effectively being no transition plan for a vast majority of departments. The only real policy victory his first term was the TCJA. Otherwise, it was a lot of bark, no bite. But now with four years to prepare, they came in barking and biting like hell. Ironically, losing in 2020 gave MAGA time to create a game plan which we’re seeing in action now. A second Trump term right after the first would have been more effectual than the first, but not to the degree we’re seeing now.
      - codr7 2y ago
        And you honestly believe these "special" news sources are not spun to at least the same degree. I think you have a few nasty surprises coming up.
        kevstev 2y ago
        They aren't. You are showing your true colors. Fox news literally says in it's tos that it's a source of entertainment and not real news. There is no false equivalence here. Fox news is absolute trash. Don't even attempt to put it in the same conversation as othe news sources.
  - o11c 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - lazystar 2y ago
      maintaining the status-quo was at least predictable. change was needed, and was inevitable, but will the result be akin to the replacement of the articles of confederation with the constitution, or the replacement of the french republic with the first french empire?
    - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
      The ACA is just more of the same? Are you kidding me? Do you know how many lives that changed? No more pre-existing conditions? Literally before that if you lost your insurance you just died.
      - g-b-r 2y ago
        And it was just a compromise with the republicans
        bmitc 2y ago
        It was a Republican policy! From the 80s.
        _DeadFred_ 2y ago
        You mean 'a Republican's (I.E. Mitt Romney) policy'. What a manipulative response. Republics hated it and fought against it.
        arp242 2y ago
        It goes back a lot further; see e.g. https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/02/07/the-tortuous-conservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/02/07/the-to... And Republicans fought against it because the wrong party/person proposed it.
  - takeda 2y ago
    Or election were hacked, but not the way you think. Social media was weaponized and turned into a tool that manipulates people's view of the reality. Each person gets a personalized feed that presses their buttons to think certain way. For example with war in gaza. If for example you were pro Israeli, you will see content that Harris was siding with Hamas, and trump actually was the most Israel friendly candidate. If you were supporting Palestine you would get that there's no difference between Harris and trump, and it is best to do protest vote. Same with leaning too much to the left, or not enough to the left etc. Pretty much every issue was handled this way. People who got their news from social media had no idea what her stance were on any topic, because that was filtered. Few years ago we had huge scandal about Cambridge Analytica, there was a bit loud about it and then died out, meanwhile it all continued and was perfected. Twitter, Instagram, Facebook manipulated older generation. While TikTok managed to capture younger, left leaning generation and make it more apathetic. I don't think it is a coincidence that pretty much all social media (except the Chinese TikTok) was present on his inauguration. I also don't think it is a coincidence that all social media companies have involvement with AI. With it, they no longer need humans to generate content, so the whole manipulation is much easier to do. This isn't just isolated to US and it is being used in Europe too. Look at elections in Moldova, Romania, what's happening in Germany etc. Timothy Snyder's "On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From the Twentieth Century" book is a must read so we can prevent this. Here's summary of the lessons: https://substack.com/@snyder/p-155209838 https://substack.com/@snyder/p-155209838 The book is quite short and he also reads and discussed them on his YouTube channel.
    - khazhoux 2y ago
      > Social media was weaponized and turned into a tool that manipulates people's view of the reality I really dislike this argument. It shifts responsibility from the voters to evil nebulous puppet-masters. I reject that. At some point, you have to accept that people can think and make decisions for themselves.
      - takeda 2y ago
        Yeah. Everyone is convinced ads don't work on them, yet somehow it is a trillion dollar industry. Perhaps you are lucky and don't have anyone in your family affected by disinformation. I have family members that no longer watch TV, listen radio, read news papers. All "news" they are getting is from sources that also tell them that all other sources lie. They live in complete different reality that it is a distorted mirror of actual reality.
  - jacobjjacob 2y ago
    He’s an elected president, not an elected dictator. It’s totally reasonable in our democracy to say that you don’t get to do anything everything you want just because you got 51% of the vote. We have a constitution and separation of powers which many seem to have forgotten about this week
    - kccoder 2y ago
      *49.8%
- Terr_ 2y ago
  A minority spoke clearly. Many of "the people" didn't vote, and Trump got less than 50% of those that did.
  - akmarinov 2y ago
    The ones that didn’t vote are ok with what the voters choose, otherwise they would’ve voted
    - DFHippie 2y ago
      They're okay the way a patient in a coma is okay with whatever the doctor does.
      - khazhoux 2y ago
        I'm sorry, but how many non-voters were physically unable to vote? My heart goes out to them. But everyone else, who chose to stay home, chose to let others speak for them.
    - Terr_ 2y ago
      "Spoke clearly that they wanted $X" != "Didn't take the opportunity to express any opinion." Those are fundamentally different.
      - akmarinov 2y ago
        By deciding not to vote, you’re actively saying that either option is fine. So you’re ok with the outcome.
  - khazhoux 2y ago
    Everyone who decided not to vote literally relinquished their voice in the matter. They simply don't count. They were "OK" with whatever others decided. Their opinion has as much weight as my dog's (and I don't even have a dog!).
    - 2y ago
- fuzztester 2y ago
  [dead]
- watwut 2y ago
  Can we then openly call republican voters guilty then? Instead of pretending that people voting for that party are good people? I do agree that many wanted the harm and that is why they voted for Trump.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    IMO they're morally (and practically) responsible but it is politically unwise to do this.
    - watwut 2y ago
      I don't know. For years and years, center acted on the assumption it is unwise to be anything but accommodating and nice. Center enabled raise of extremism by tacitly suporting them. Trump won by being not nice. Democrats lost by being nice.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        Yeah, I’m obviously sympathetic to this view. I think things have changed in the last few days. This hostile takeover is going to be very bad for a lot of GOP and MAGA folks too and we need to ensure they’re ire is pointed in the right direction.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  I also spoke when I voted for my Senators and Congressmen/women. I voted for Congress to do their jobs.
- Red_Comet_88 2y ago
  Americans are desperate. May not be felt among the HN crowd, but standards of living in the US have been declining consistently for a long time [1]. Remember that Trump was not re-elected to a second term initially specifically because he failed to deliver on his promise of "MAGA". He instead did a Jeb Bush presidency, complete with Wall Street (Mnuchin) and the CIA (Pompeo) running the country exactly as would have occurred had Bush won. So Americans tried Biden, in the hopes of a return to Obama era America. This obviously didn't happen, as standard of living continued to decline. So they tried Trump again, in sheer desperation. I don't see a positive future for the US, as it is so clearly a declining empire, exhibiting every textbook symptom. The startup/tech crowd loves talking about cheap phones and "services", but the reality is bleak outside of this narrow tech bubble. 1. https://www.oftwominds.com/blogjun24/negativity6-24.html https://www.oftwominds.com/blogjun24/negativity6-24.html
  - watwut 2y ago
    Nah. You cant explain fascism just by them being desperate economically. That is not how it works. They did not had to have Trump to be representant of the republican party again. If they were bothered by economics, they would pick someone else even if they wanted to change parties. They wanted to cause harm for reasons unrelated to economics.
    - khazhoux 2y ago
      You see an electorate that wanted to cause harm. I see an electorate that thought anything is better than a black woman in charge. :-\
      - codr7 2y ago
        [flagged]
        jmye 2y ago
        > Yeah, the fact that she can barely speak full sentences surely had nothing to do with it. This is a bald lie, and is wildly unbecoming of discussion on this site. But it’s also a hilarious assertion in the face of literally anything Trump has ever tried to say out loud.
- zardo 2y ago
  If you look at everyone eligible to vote, the people spoke clearly in November with the same message they have for decades, "none of the above".
  - khazhoux 2y ago
    Those people spoke loud and clear: "We're OK with whatever everyone else decides!" So again: the people have spoken. America is getting exactly what America wants.
    - srpablo 2y ago
      He won the popular vote by less than Hillary won it in 2016, _when she lost the election._ Every time he's been candidate or president, he's the least popular of either in the history we've polled popularity or approval. Many pluralities who constitute "America" (felons, especially when you consider how many people we imprison; and immigrants) who are subject to US law don't get to vote. And many institutions (DC not having senators, Puerto Rico, and the Senate generally) are barely representational and serving the function of democracy. So I know it makes you feel intelligent and cool to say "ah, but you see: this is what they wanted," but in every other way you can measure it besides the very narrow way you're focused on, it's as untrue as it could be.
- computerthings 2y ago
  Where did Trump promise to remove Phyllis Fong? Or something less specific that would translate to this? He promised to lower egg prices, and "the majority of the few people voted for Trump, so any random thing he now does is what THE AMERICAN PEOPLE wanted" is just not true. And even if it was, to me the question isn't "did someone else want this at some point in the past, probably based on false or even no information" anyway, but how to judge it now. Sometimes people want wrong things for shitty reasons and a minority has to stand up to them standing on their principles.
- TrackerFF 2y ago
  The majority just wanted lower grocery / gas / rent. Unfortunately they either didn't read the fine print, or concluded that it was a price they were willing to pay. I suspect it is more the former. As Obama said, elections have consequences.
- tzs 2y ago
  If 49.8% of the vote is the people speaking clearly, then what do you call the 50.2% of the vote that did not vote for this?
- sebazzz 2y ago
  Social media made them think that some problems were huge and these elected people would solve them, while at the same time demonizing all other media so all signals that these people are not right were effectively muted.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  > The people spoke very clearly in November: they wanted this. 49.8% of the people who voted wanted this. 50.2% wanted someone else to be president (but did not pass the threshold for someone other than Trump).
- MrSkelter 2y ago
  Where do you get that from? Huge numbers didn’t vote. Of those who did Trump squeaked by with a small lead but significantly less than 50% of the populace voted for him. He has no mandate.
callamdelaney 2y ago
[flagged]
- foobarchu 2y ago
  Trump has decided he controls the purse (a privilege of the legislative branch that he legally DOES NOT HAVE), has begun to fire people illegally and ignoring the legal methods (such as Fong), is doing so through someone who is not part of the federal government and has active conflicts of interest (Musk), and is actively working to remove the 22nd amendment that prevents him from becoming a dictator for life. Most of congress has just bent over and let him, seemingly. What exactly do you think is "gonna be just fine" about the most intense set of attacks of democracy this country has ever seen?
  - fuzztester 2y ago
    >Most of congress has just bent over and let him, seemingly. bent over is right. that is the height of their calibre.
  - amazingamazing 2y ago
    I bet America will be basically the same as it was in 2012, with respect to having two houses of congress, and democratically run elections, by 2028.
    - foobarchu 2y ago
      If Congress does whatever he says because he says it, let's him control the purse, and never does anything he doesn't directly approve of, then wtf is the point of having congress? That's a dictatorship with lipstick on. Also, think we can get there without him genociding the adult trans community, putting trans minors in correction camps, and invalidating the human rights of all homosexual Americans? Can we get there without him turning every ally against us? I'm feeling pretty pessimistic about that. Can we do it while still having
zfg 2y ago
Hitler got rid of Germany's democracy in 53 days: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/01/hitler-germany-constitution-authoritarianism/681233/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/01/hitler-ger... Maybe Musk and Trump can beat his record.
- Hikikomori 2y ago
  So a false flag and then martial law, maybe after taking over most law enforcement? The project 2025 leader did say that the next revolution remain bloodless if the left allows it to be. Maybe this is what the 2nd amendment was for.
sleazy_b 2y ago
One thing you can do is shun employees of associated companies (Amazon, Tesla, Facebook) and refuse to give them a job. That requires some sacrifice though.
agieocean 2y ago
Not everyone's standing by I've been working on hardened long range communications for cheap so the people that need it can have it. But thats just me, there's tons of people fighting back but those stories don't tend to make the news because it spits in the face of the prevailing narrative that people want this.
- mauflows 2y ago
  Have any more details on this?
  - agieocean 2y ago
    https://piermesh.net/ https://piermesh.net/ But the basics are we're using Meshtastic as a base to run a decentralized lightweight alternative internet that's run by the people using it. I've managed to squeeze a lot of juice out of one of the compatible esp32 boards so that for $15+ (what the board costs from Lilygo) an sd card you can run a web server on the board as well.

Our government is literally falling in a matter of weeks. It's being assaulted, and we're all just standing by.

by bmitc 2y ago

Our government is literally falling in a matter of weeks. It's being assaulted, and we're all just standing by.

I_dream_of_Gen1 2y ago

[dead]

khazhoux 2y ago

The people spoke very clearly in November: they wanted this.

Loudergood 2y ago
Thanks to California's incredibly slow counting system it was a lot closer in popular vote than it initially appeared.
kevstev 2y ago
This is my big struggle with all of this. His first term I felt America was duped by a con man so protested and made a fuss on social media. Americans saw the first four years and astonishingly decided they wanted more of it, by a decent margin. So while I absolutely hate what is going on right now this seems to be what the people wanted. I question each day whether that needs to be respected or we should resist. I also wonder if his supporters have any idea of what is going on. I am sure fox news isn't covering any of this and if they are it's probably being spun in some horrific way.
- int_19h 2y ago
  What is "the people" at this point, even? Is there really such a thing as "American people" that can be meaningfully defined? What would be its ideals?
- bmitc 2y ago
  > I also wonder if his supporters have any idea of what is going on. They do not. Most of his supporters are either rich or uneducated normal people who lack the mental capacity to realize what's going on. They just repeat the talking points. Respond to anyone of them with a non-talking point, compassion, and honesty and they just shut down. They haven't a clue about what's really going on. I bet none of his supporters even know who Robert Mercer is, the person that got him elected in the first place.
  - codingrightnow 2y ago
    I feel like you're interacting with the same people I'm interacting with because your assessment of them is spot on. They love the talking points. Whenever you shut down one talking point with facts they pole vault over that into the next talking point. They want to be 20 ft up in the air away from the truth and never question why they've been lied to. They believe and even make up wild conspiracy theories on the spot when confronted with information that conflicts with what Trump and his supporters have said and done. Their brains leap over every possible barrier I put up, never letting it stop them. Maybe I'm not a good debater but facts are facts and they don't seem to appreciate or respect or even value them. I need to find a new, less depressing group of people to be around which will unfortunately mean quitting my job but I just can't do it anymore.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      +1 I spend a lot of time engaging with these folks in good faith as well, and exact same pattern. Repeat statement from Trump -> demonstrate that it's untrue -> repeat statement from Trump on new topic -> demonstrate that it's untrue -> repeat statement from Trump on new topic -> demonstrate that it's untrue They're in a cult.
- devkevkevdev 2y ago
  [dead]
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - anigbrowl 2y ago
    What is wrong with being reappointed to the same job for 22 years? What if she's just...competent? Your argument seems to be that anyone having the same job for that long must be corrupt in some way, but you don't provide anything to support that premise. Ironically, you're implicitly endorsing the resort to illegal means for her removal, rather than following the process defined in law.
    - sidibe 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - khazhoux 2y ago
    > With regards specifically to Phyllis Fong, I have no confidence that an Inspector-General that occupied the office for twenty two years straight[1] can ethically perform their prescribed role. I am in complete agreement with her termination, we need someone (anyone) new and different in there. Are you "in complete agreement" because of actual things Fong did, or because you think that 22 years experience in a position is disqualifying?
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      >because you think that 22 years experience in a position is disqualifying? Yes. An Inspector-General is in charge of inspecting and auditing, as the name would suggest. That requires being impartial in absolute terms, because you must be able to call out problems no matter how inconvenient they are. Being in a position of power means an inevitable accrual of reputation and influence, and 22 straight years of accrual is ridiculous. Her excessively long tenure is also unusual; the longest-serving Inspector-General besides her served for 8 years, shortest being 2 years not counting acting IGs, average is about 4 years each IG not counting her 22 year tenure. So yes, I support her termination because her long tenure lends me no confidence she can perform her duties ethically anymore. There must be a regular changing of the incumbent to head off the office being bought or otherwise corrupted. There are millions of other D.C. bureaucrats to replace her with, and even more Americans overall. There is no reason to keep her specifically for this long and I daresay that the lack of a term limit for this office has to be an oversight.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  No, you don't need to respect it for the same reason we needn't respect the decision-making of suicide cults.
- codr7 2y ago
  Don't live in the US, but I got the impression that a lot of people actually saw positive change in their lives in the first round, which is a pretty good reason to want more. Do you honestly believe your news is being spun any less?
  - kevstev 2y ago
    Yes I read high quality news sources- the WSJ, NYTimes, foreign affairs and a few others like the national review and mother Jones from time to time. I hear this argument a lot and my issues with Trump were from the primary source- his own words and tweets. The economy was already humming when Trump first entered office and despite his best efforts it continued to do so through his term.
    - chasely 2y ago
      I feel like his first term benefitted from his administration being wholly unprepared to govern, as witnessed by the numerous stories of there effectively being no transition plan for a vast majority of departments. The only real policy victory his first term was the TCJA. Otherwise, it was a lot of bark, no bite. But now with four years to prepare, they came in barking and biting like hell. Ironically, losing in 2020 gave MAGA time to create a game plan which we’re seeing in action now. A second Trump term right after the first would have been more effectual than the first, but not to the degree we’re seeing now.
    - codr7 2y ago
      And you honestly believe these "special" news sources are not spun to at least the same degree. I think you have a few nasty surprises coming up.
      - kevstev 2y ago
        They aren't. You are showing your true colors. Fox news literally says in it's tos that it's a source of entertainment and not real news. There is no false equivalence here. Fox news is absolute trash. Don't even attempt to put it in the same conversation as othe news sources.
- o11c 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - lazystar 2y ago
    maintaining the status-quo was at least predictable. change was needed, and was inevitable, but will the result be akin to the replacement of the articles of confederation with the constitution, or the replacement of the french republic with the first french empire?
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    The ACA is just more of the same? Are you kidding me? Do you know how many lives that changed? No more pre-existing conditions? Literally before that if you lost your insurance you just died.
    - g-b-r 2y ago
      And it was just a compromise with the republicans
      - bmitc 2y ago
        It was a Republican policy! From the 80s.
        _DeadFred_ 2y ago
        You mean 'a Republican's (I.E. Mitt Romney) policy'. What a manipulative response. Republics hated it and fought against it.
        arp242 2y ago
        It goes back a lot further; see e.g. https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/02/07/the-tortuous-conservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/02/07/the-to... And Republicans fought against it because the wrong party/person proposed it.
- takeda 2y ago
  Or election were hacked, but not the way you think. Social media was weaponized and turned into a tool that manipulates people's view of the reality. Each person gets a personalized feed that presses their buttons to think certain way. For example with war in gaza. If for example you were pro Israeli, you will see content that Harris was siding with Hamas, and trump actually was the most Israel friendly candidate. If you were supporting Palestine you would get that there's no difference between Harris and trump, and it is best to do protest vote. Same with leaning too much to the left, or not enough to the left etc. Pretty much every issue was handled this way. People who got their news from social media had no idea what her stance were on any topic, because that was filtered. Few years ago we had huge scandal about Cambridge Analytica, there was a bit loud about it and then died out, meanwhile it all continued and was perfected. Twitter, Instagram, Facebook manipulated older generation. While TikTok managed to capture younger, left leaning generation and make it more apathetic. I don't think it is a coincidence that pretty much all social media (except the Chinese TikTok) was present on his inauguration. I also don't think it is a coincidence that all social media companies have involvement with AI. With it, they no longer need humans to generate content, so the whole manipulation is much easier to do. This isn't just isolated to US and it is being used in Europe too. Look at elections in Moldova, Romania, what's happening in Germany etc. Timothy Snyder's "On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From the Twentieth Century" book is a must read so we can prevent this. Here's summary of the lessons: https://substack.com/@snyder/p-155209838 https://substack.com/@snyder/p-155209838 The book is quite short and he also reads and discussed them on his YouTube channel.
  - khazhoux 2y ago
    > Social media was weaponized and turned into a tool that manipulates people's view of the reality I really dislike this argument. It shifts responsibility from the voters to evil nebulous puppet-masters. I reject that. At some point, you have to accept that people can think and make decisions for themselves.
    - takeda 2y ago
      Yeah. Everyone is convinced ads don't work on them, yet somehow it is a trillion dollar industry. Perhaps you are lucky and don't have anyone in your family affected by disinformation. I have family members that no longer watch TV, listen radio, read news papers. All "news" they are getting is from sources that also tell them that all other sources lie. They live in complete different reality that it is a distorted mirror of actual reality.
- jacobjjacob 2y ago
  He’s an elected president, not an elected dictator. It’s totally reasonable in our democracy to say that you don’t get to do anything everything you want just because you got 51% of the vote. We have a constitution and separation of powers which many seem to have forgotten about this week
  - kccoder 2y ago
    *49.8%
Terr_ 2y ago
A minority spoke clearly. Many of "the people" didn't vote, and Trump got less than 50% of those that did.
- akmarinov 2y ago
  The ones that didn’t vote are ok with what the voters choose, otherwise they would’ve voted
  - DFHippie 2y ago
    They're okay the way a patient in a coma is okay with whatever the doctor does.
    - khazhoux 2y ago
      I'm sorry, but how many non-voters were physically unable to vote? My heart goes out to them. But everyone else, who chose to stay home, chose to let others speak for them.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    "Spoke clearly that they wanted $X" != "Didn't take the opportunity to express any opinion." Those are fundamentally different.
    - akmarinov 2y ago
      By deciding not to vote, you’re actively saying that either option is fine. So you’re ok with the outcome.
- khazhoux 2y ago
  Everyone who decided not to vote literally relinquished their voice in the matter. They simply don't count. They were "OK" with whatever others decided. Their opinion has as much weight as my dog's (and I don't even have a dog!).
  - 2y ago
fuzztester 2y ago
[dead]
watwut 2y ago
Can we then openly call republican voters guilty then? Instead of pretending that people voting for that party are good people? I do agree that many wanted the harm and that is why they voted for Trump.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  IMO they're morally (and practically) responsible but it is politically unwise to do this.
  - watwut 2y ago
    I don't know. For years and years, center acted on the assumption it is unwise to be anything but accommodating and nice. Center enabled raise of extremism by tacitly suporting them. Trump won by being not nice. Democrats lost by being nice.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Yeah, I’m obviously sympathetic to this view. I think things have changed in the last few days. This hostile takeover is going to be very bad for a lot of GOP and MAGA folks too and we need to ensure they’re ire is pointed in the right direction.
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
I also spoke when I voted for my Senators and Congressmen/women. I voted for Congress to do their jobs.
Red_Comet_88 2y ago
Americans are desperate. May not be felt among the HN crowd, but standards of living in the US have been declining consistently for a long time [1]. Remember that Trump was not re-elected to a second term initially specifically because he failed to deliver on his promise of "MAGA". He instead did a Jeb Bush presidency, complete with Wall Street (Mnuchin) and the CIA (Pompeo) running the country exactly as would have occurred had Bush won. So Americans tried Biden, in the hopes of a return to Obama era America. This obviously didn't happen, as standard of living continued to decline. So they tried Trump again, in sheer desperation. I don't see a positive future for the US, as it is so clearly a declining empire, exhibiting every textbook symptom. The startup/tech crowd loves talking about cheap phones and "services", but the reality is bleak outside of this narrow tech bubble. 1. https://www.oftwominds.com/blogjun24/negativity6-24.html https://www.oftwominds.com/blogjun24/negativity6-24.html
- watwut 2y ago
  Nah. You cant explain fascism just by them being desperate economically. That is not how it works. They did not had to have Trump to be representant of the republican party again. If they were bothered by economics, they would pick someone else even if they wanted to change parties. They wanted to cause harm for reasons unrelated to economics.
  - khazhoux 2y ago
    You see an electorate that wanted to cause harm. I see an electorate that thought anything is better than a black woman in charge. :-\
    - codr7 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - jmye 2y ago
        > Yeah, the fact that she can barely speak full sentences surely had nothing to do with it. This is a bald lie, and is wildly unbecoming of discussion on this site. But it’s also a hilarious assertion in the face of literally anything Trump has ever tried to say out loud.
zardo 2y ago
If you look at everyone eligible to vote, the people spoke clearly in November with the same message they have for decades, "none of the above".
- khazhoux 2y ago
  Those people spoke loud and clear: "We're OK with whatever everyone else decides!" So again: the people have spoken. America is getting exactly what America wants.
  - srpablo 2y ago
    He won the popular vote by less than Hillary won it in 2016, _when she lost the election._ Every time he's been candidate or president, he's the least popular of either in the history we've polled popularity or approval. Many pluralities who constitute "America" (felons, especially when you consider how many people we imprison; and immigrants) who are subject to US law don't get to vote. And many institutions (DC not having senators, Puerto Rico, and the Senate generally) are barely representational and serving the function of democracy. So I know it makes you feel intelligent and cool to say "ah, but you see: this is what they wanted," but in every other way you can measure it besides the very narrow way you're focused on, it's as untrue as it could be.
computerthings 2y ago
Where did Trump promise to remove Phyllis Fong? Or something less specific that would translate to this? He promised to lower egg prices, and "the majority of the few people voted for Trump, so any random thing he now does is what THE AMERICAN PEOPLE wanted" is just not true. And even if it was, to me the question isn't "did someone else want this at some point in the past, probably based on false or even no information" anyway, but how to judge it now. Sometimes people want wrong things for shitty reasons and a minority has to stand up to them standing on their principles.
TrackerFF 2y ago
The majority just wanted lower grocery / gas / rent. Unfortunately they either didn't read the fine print, or concluded that it was a price they were willing to pay. I suspect it is more the former. As Obama said, elections have consequences.
tzs 2y ago
If 49.8% of the vote is the people speaking clearly, then what do you call the 50.2% of the vote that did not vote for this?
sebazzz 2y ago
Social media made them think that some problems were huge and these elected people would solve them, while at the same time demonizing all other media so all signals that these people are not right were effectively muted.
seanmcdirmid 2y ago
> The people spoke very clearly in November: they wanted this. 49.8% of the people who voted wanted this. 50.2% wanted someone else to be president (but did not pass the threshold for someone other than Trump).
MrSkelter 2y ago
Where do you get that from? Huge numbers didn’t vote. Of those who did Trump squeaked by with a small lead but significantly less than 50% of the populace voted for him. He has no mandate.

callamdelaney 2y ago

[flagged]

foobarchu 2y ago
Trump has decided he controls the purse (a privilege of the legislative branch that he legally DOES NOT HAVE), has begun to fire people illegally and ignoring the legal methods (such as Fong), is doing so through someone who is not part of the federal government and has active conflicts of interest (Musk), and is actively working to remove the 22nd amendment that prevents him from becoming a dictator for life. Most of congress has just bent over and let him, seemingly. What exactly do you think is "gonna be just fine" about the most intense set of attacks of democracy this country has ever seen?
- fuzztester 2y ago
  >Most of congress has just bent over and let him, seemingly. bent over is right. that is the height of their calibre.
- amazingamazing 2y ago
  I bet America will be basically the same as it was in 2012, with respect to having two houses of congress, and democratically run elections, by 2028.
  - foobarchu 2y ago
    If Congress does whatever he says because he says it, let's him control the purse, and never does anything he doesn't directly approve of, then wtf is the point of having congress? That's a dictatorship with lipstick on. Also, think we can get there without him genociding the adult trans community, putting trans minors in correction camps, and invalidating the human rights of all homosexual Americans? Can we get there without him turning every ally against us? I'm feeling pretty pessimistic about that. Can we do it while still having

zfg 2y ago

Hitler got rid of Germany's democracy in 53 days: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/01/hitler-germany-constitution-authoritarianism/681233/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/01/hitler-ger... Maybe Musk and Trump can beat his record.

Hikikomori 2y ago
So a false flag and then martial law, maybe after taking over most law enforcement? The project 2025 leader did say that the next revolution remain bloodless if the left allows it to be. Maybe this is what the 2nd amendment was for.

sleazy_b 2y ago

One thing you can do is shun employees of associated companies (Amazon, Tesla, Facebook) and refuse to give them a job. That requires some sacrifice though.

agieocean 2y ago

Not everyone's standing by I've been working on hardened long range communications for cheap so the people that need it can have it. But thats just me, there's tons of people fighting back but those stories don't tend to make the news because it spits in the face of the prevailing narrative that people want this.

mauflows 2y ago
Have any more details on this?
- agieocean 2y ago
  https://piermesh.net/ https://piermesh.net/ But the basics are we're using Meshtastic as a base to run a decentralized lightweight alternative internet that's run by the people using it. I've managed to squeeze a lot of juice out of one of the compatible esp32 boards so that for $15+ (what the board costs from Lilygo) an sd card you can run a web server on the board as well.