4 ms·

This is the part I'm curious about. Trump may be many things, but lacking transparency around his motives and actions is not one of them. As you say, he is doin

This is the part I'm curious about. Trump may be many things, but lacking transparency around his motives and actions is not one of them. As you say, he is doing basically exactly what he said he would. So what I'm curious about is whether anyone who voted for Trump, and especially not the hard core MAGA folks but more the "The Dems suck, prices are too high" folks that shifted toward Trump in 2024 vs previous elections, are surprised/angered/scared by his actions. If so, what was their thought process? I'm especially curious how they feel about Musk's role in all this. I just can't wrap my head around people that were "drain the swamp" nativists are cool with an unelected foreign-born billionaire having free reign, essentially unaccountably, to do whatever he wants to any federal department. If somebody told me in 2010 that this would happen in 2025 I would tell tell them that they are nuts. If the Dems had done anything 1/10th as egregious, Republicans would be apoplectic, and rightfully so.

skulk 2y ago
> I just can't wrap my head around people that were "drain the swamp" nativists are cool with an unelected foreign-born billionaire having free reign, essentially unaccountably, to do whatever he wants to any federal department. Go on Twitter or any other site that doesn't ban a certain flavor of discourse. Observe how much glee is being expressed towards negative emotions of others (such as "libs" or marginalized people). That's the point.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  Again, I don't think that's really the whole story. For the 35-40% of the electorate that is hard core MAGA, sure, and for the smaller percentage of "terminally online" Twitter people, moreso. But for the folks who really were just unsatisfied with the direction of the country, didn't like the Dems, wanted to send a protest vote over Gaza, etc. - what are those people thinking/feeling?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - bbqfog 2y ago
    I'm thinking the same thing that I was thinking when Biden was president, that Israel has corrupted our entire government. Nothing that's happening here even approaches what we've been enabling in Gaza, so if you weren't upset about that, it seems strange to be up in arms about what Trump is doing. I'd say it's a double standard that places way more value on the lives of Americans than those outside our borders.
- Aachen 2y ago
  > Go on Twitter or any other site that doesn't ban a certain flavor of discourse. I just don't understand where people even get this idea. Is it the repetition and perpetuation of it that makes so many people believe it? We are and have always been allowed to have whatever opinions we wanted on any of the regular platforms, so long as it doesn't affect the rights of others (so there's a line at racism, calling for violence, and advertising for scams for example). There has never been a "flavor ban" unless one's flavor is KKK
  - skulk 2y ago
    > advertising for scams > racism these are examples of flavors I'm talking about. I should have said "flavors" instead of flavor.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    > We are and have always been allowed to have whatever opinions we wanted on any of the regular platforms, so long as it doesn't affect the rights of others If only it were that simple, because that's demonstrably not true. I'll give you a perfect example that was made clear by recent events. Before last month, it was against Meta's rules to say that being LGBT was a mental illness. Similarly, you couldn't say people had a mental illness due to their religion. But by this point I think it should be pretty clear that, in many respects, what we define as a "mental illness" is not some hard and fast rule, it's largely what we see as beyond the norm of socially acceptable boundaries at any given time. I am gay. For someone else to have an opinion that being gay is a mental illness is a perfectly valid opinion, and it doesn't infringe on my rights (as long as they're not advocating for locking me up or whatever). I literally see no need to prohibit people from expressing the valid opinion that my being gay is a mental illness (I may think you're an asshole, but being a jerk certainly isn't banned on the Internet). So when Meta announced their policy change to allow more "free speech", at first I was like "Ok, cool". I only became livid when I read the policy and saw that it's still against their rules to say people in "protected groups" have a mental illness except for a specific carve out for gay and trans people. F that. So I have to pretend all of the completely absurd religious nonsense about believing some sky fairy is out there and randomly does things like performing miracles (but for some reason never obvious enough to actually be miraculous) is not a sign of mental illness, but being gay is? Yeah, free speech my ass. Point being, in your comment you have basically made an arbitrary division between what "whatever opinions" are valid, and what counts as e.g. racism, and pretend that it's a clear line.
Aachen 2y ago
> Trump may be many things, but lacking transparency around his motives and actions is not one of them. That's not the perception I have. Between changing opinions 180° for no discernible reason (besides reports/speculation of money changing hands, but it's not given as the reason so that's hardly transparent) and most actions being in the short-term interest only of himself, it doesn't strike me as though everyone is aware that voting for him is going to make their future worse (exceptions may include some of the ultra rich affected by the same short term gains as himself). What I hear on this side of the pond is that he also e.g. denies knowing the people who wrote project 2025 and the plan being ridiculous, then (I checked Wikipedia to see what came of it) "nominated several of the plan's architects and supporters to positions in his administration" and it was found that "nearly two-thirds of his executive actions 'mirror or partially mirror' proposals from Project 2025." (Wikipedia, last paragraph of article lede on project 2025) I'm curious how you see it, since you might be more into USA politics than me (most people are). Doesn't he change opinion most of the time and am I just hearing of the exceptions? Are his denials regarding project 2025 seen as obvious lies and thus deemed transparent that this open-secretly is the plan known to everyone? Or do you see it this way for another reason?
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  Sure, Trump flip flops all the time (in his previous term he negotiated the most recent trade agreement with Canada and Mexico that replaced NAFTA, touted it as a uniquely awesome trade deal, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-united-states-mexico-canada-agreement-delivers-historic-win-american-workers/ https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/pr..., and now is the one ripping it up), and he lies every other word. But my point is that behavior is completely predictable at this point, and if anyone is shocked by what he's done so far, they haven't been paying attention. Stuff like: 1. His extreme narcissism, and the fact that loyalty is a one-way street with him. 2. His desire for revenge 3. 0 respect for any governmental norms 4. His ability to bend (or break) the law to suit his needs. Since the Supreme Court granted him complete immunity for any official acts, and since it's so obvious that Congress are completely feckless at this point, he is essentially unconstrained by law. When you ask "Are his denials regarding project 2025 seen as obvious lies and thus deemed transparent" I would say absolutely. But of course, when people are angry about the direction of things, they tend to want to believe the stuff they want to believe ("Trump will get in there and shake things up!") and minimize the things they don't ("Trump will shut down programs and departments I depend upon").
tempestn 2y ago
It basically comes down to ignorance. Most people don't have the time, inclination, and/or capacity to evaluate political platforms or the competence of individual politicians. They just decide based on heuristics or "vibes". Trump seems confident and strong. Harris doesn't seem to stand for anything much besides the status quo. They don't like that there was inflation under Biden, and Trump is the opposite of Biden. They don't necessarily like Trump's attitude, but figure they don't have to like him as long as he gets the job done. That's roughly the level of thinking that's happening, in the cases where there's much thinking at all, and people aren't just voting the way their friends, family, and neighbors all vote. Basically this is a fundamental flaw of democracy, that you leave the most important decision in the hands of the median citizen, who has no particular aptitude for making it. Of course, other systems of government have their own flaws. Like Churchill said, democracy's the worst form of government, except for all the others. (Though I would argue that the particular structure of the American democratic system is especially flawed.)
lunarboy 2y ago
There's no point in wondering this. Soros is swamp but Musk is not? There's just no rational, two neurons connecting there. It's just their side bad, my side good brainwashing.

skulk 2y ago

> I just can't wrap my head around people that were "drain the swamp" nativists are cool with an unelected foreign-born billionaire having free reign, essentially unaccountably, to do whatever he wants to any federal department. Go on Twitter or any other site that doesn't ban a certain flavor of discourse. Observe how much glee is being expressed towards negative emotions of others (such as "libs" or marginalized people). That's the point.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
Again, I don't think that's really the whole story. For the 35-40% of the electorate that is hard core MAGA, sure, and for the smaller percentage of "terminally online" Twitter people, moreso. But for the folks who really were just unsatisfied with the direction of the country, didn't like the Dems, wanted to send a protest vote over Gaza, etc. - what are those people thinking/feeling?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- bbqfog 2y ago
  I'm thinking the same thing that I was thinking when Biden was president, that Israel has corrupted our entire government. Nothing that's happening here even approaches what we've been enabling in Gaza, so if you weren't upset about that, it seems strange to be up in arms about what Trump is doing. I'd say it's a double standard that places way more value on the lives of Americans than those outside our borders.
Aachen 2y ago
> Go on Twitter or any other site that doesn't ban a certain flavor of discourse. I just don't understand where people even get this idea. Is it the repetition and perpetuation of it that makes so many people believe it? We are and have always been allowed to have whatever opinions we wanted on any of the regular platforms, so long as it doesn't affect the rights of others (so there's a line at racism, calling for violence, and advertising for scams for example). There has never been a "flavor ban" unless one's flavor is KKK
- skulk 2y ago
  > advertising for scams > racism these are examples of flavors I'm talking about. I should have said "flavors" instead of flavor.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  > We are and have always been allowed to have whatever opinions we wanted on any of the regular platforms, so long as it doesn't affect the rights of others If only it were that simple, because that's demonstrably not true. I'll give you a perfect example that was made clear by recent events. Before last month, it was against Meta's rules to say that being LGBT was a mental illness. Similarly, you couldn't say people had a mental illness due to their religion. But by this point I think it should be pretty clear that, in many respects, what we define as a "mental illness" is not some hard and fast rule, it's largely what we see as beyond the norm of socially acceptable boundaries at any given time. I am gay. For someone else to have an opinion that being gay is a mental illness is a perfectly valid opinion, and it doesn't infringe on my rights (as long as they're not advocating for locking me up or whatever). I literally see no need to prohibit people from expressing the valid opinion that my being gay is a mental illness (I may think you're an asshole, but being a jerk certainly isn't banned on the Internet). So when Meta announced their policy change to allow more "free speech", at first I was like "Ok, cool". I only became livid when I read the policy and saw that it's still against their rules to say people in "protected groups" have a mental illness except for a specific carve out for gay and trans people. F that. So I have to pretend all of the completely absurd religious nonsense about believing some sky fairy is out there and randomly does things like performing miracles (but for some reason never obvious enough to actually be miraculous) is not a sign of mental illness, but being gay is? Yeah, free speech my ass. Point being, in your comment you have basically made an arbitrary division between what "whatever opinions" are valid, and what counts as e.g. racism, and pretend that it's a clear line.

Aachen 2y ago

> Trump may be many things, but lacking transparency around his motives and actions is not one of them. That's not the perception I have. Between changing opinions 180° for no discernible reason (besides reports/speculation of money changing hands, but it's not given as the reason so that's hardly transparent) and most actions being in the short-term interest only of himself, it doesn't strike me as though everyone is aware that voting for him is going to make their future worse (exceptions may include some of the ultra rich affected by the same short term gains as himself). What I hear on this side of the pond is that he also e.g. denies knowing the people who wrote project 2025 and the plan being ridiculous, then (I checked Wikipedia to see what came of it) "nominated several of the plan's architects and supporters to positions in his administration" and it was found that "nearly two-thirds of his executive actions 'mirror or partially mirror' proposals from Project 2025." (Wikipedia, last paragraph of article lede on project 2025) I'm curious how you see it, since you might be more into USA politics than me (most people are). Doesn't he change opinion most of the time and am I just hearing of the exceptions? Are his denials regarding project 2025 seen as obvious lies and thus deemed transparent that this open-secretly is the plan known to everyone? Or do you see it this way for another reason?

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
Sure, Trump flip flops all the time (in his previous term he negotiated the most recent trade agreement with Canada and Mexico that replaced NAFTA, touted it as a uniquely awesome trade deal, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-united-states-mexico-canada-agreement-delivers-historic-win-american-workers/ https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/pr..., and now is the one ripping it up), and he lies every other word. But my point is that behavior is completely predictable at this point, and if anyone is shocked by what he's done so far, they haven't been paying attention. Stuff like: 1. His extreme narcissism, and the fact that loyalty is a one-way street with him. 2. His desire for revenge 3. 0 respect for any governmental norms 4. His ability to bend (or break) the law to suit his needs. Since the Supreme Court granted him complete immunity for any official acts, and since it's so obvious that Congress are completely feckless at this point, he is essentially unconstrained by law. When you ask "Are his denials regarding project 2025 seen as obvious lies and thus deemed transparent" I would say absolutely. But of course, when people are angry about the direction of things, they tend to want to believe the stuff they want to believe ("Trump will get in there and shake things up!") and minimize the things they don't ("Trump will shut down programs and departments I depend upon").

tempestn 2y ago

It basically comes down to ignorance. Most people don't have the time, inclination, and/or capacity to evaluate political platforms or the competence of individual politicians. They just decide based on heuristics or "vibes". Trump seems confident and strong. Harris doesn't seem to stand for anything much besides the status quo. They don't like that there was inflation under Biden, and Trump is the opposite of Biden. They don't necessarily like Trump's attitude, but figure they don't have to like him as long as he gets the job done. That's roughly the level of thinking that's happening, in the cases where there's much thinking at all, and people aren't just voting the way their friends, family, and neighbors all vote. Basically this is a fundamental flaw of democracy, that you leave the most important decision in the hands of the median citizen, who has no particular aptitude for making it. Of course, other systems of government have their own flaws. Like Churchill said, democracy's the worst form of government, except for all the others. (Though I would argue that the particular structure of the American democratic system is especially flawed.)

lunarboy 2y ago

There's no point in wondering this. Soros is swamp but Musk is not? There's just no rational, two neurons connecting there. It's just their side bad, my side good brainwashing.