5 ms·

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 f

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%

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%