13 ms·

I've seen people use "sanewashing" to refer to the type of comment you're replying to, there's no sane explanation but people try to come up with one because th

I've seen people use "sanewashing" to refer to the type of comment you're replying to, there's no sane explanation but people try to come up with one because the world doesn't make sense otherwise

Gud 2y ago
It makes perfect sense. You have a narcissistic asshole in the White House who got elected because the Democratic Party fumbled the ball.
- kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
  Some corrupt members of Congress and the judiciary deserve some of the blame.
- ikt 2y ago
  I wouldn't put 100% of the blame on the Democrats, here in Australia we are frequently voting for the least worst option not the best, and I'm not sure how the Democrats weren't the least worst option when compared to the other option but for some reason a whole heap of people decided to stay home this time and this is the result, hope they still feel happy with their decision
  - tunesmith 2y ago
    I've heard that there's polling lately to indicate that's not true (unsure on source, it might have been an interview at Vox.com), and that higher turnout would have advantaged the Republicans further.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      Probably stemming from David Shor's Blue Rose Research. I bumped into that @ https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/new-insights-on-why-harris-lostand https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/new-insights-on-why-harris-...
- munksbeer 2y ago
  > You have a narcissistic asshole in the White House who got elected because the Democratic Party fumbled the ball. It don't want to sound too persnickety, but there is always at least one losing side in an election. It doesn't have to mean they dropped the ball, it could just mean people preferred the other option. Hindsight bias is wonderful, but you have no idea what would have happened if they'd run with a different agenda, they may have had a worse result.
  - CapricornNoble 2y ago
    > but you have no idea what would have happened if they'd run with a different agenda, they may have had a worse result. The 2024 election had historically-low support from normally stalwart Democrat demographics such as Latinos, the youth vote, and black males. That, IMO, supports the conclusion that the Democrats did something wrong this time. Also, not only did those groups abstain but Trump also picked up quite a few votes from them (especially working-age black males), suggesting that they are swing voters who probably could have been swayed to stay on the Dem plantation if exposed to more convincing messaging, or a more compelling Democrat candidate.
    - munksbeer 2y ago
      That's fair, thanks.
  - 7jjjjjjj 2y ago
    I'm not sure how you could look at 2024 and not see a historically terrible campaign by the Democrats. They had to force the presumptive nominee to drop out because his brain was dripping out his ears. That alone would do it!
bawolff 2y ago
I think often trump's policies are rooted in some sort of idea that is perhaps controversial but at least not totally insane, and then implemented in the most boneheaded way possible. E.g. one explanation given for these trade policies is that trump sees a war with china down the line and is worried that china has tons of factories that could be converted to make ammunition while usa does not. If so, there is at least some logic to the base idea, but the implementation is crazy, probably not going to work that effectively, and going to piss off all amrrica's allies which would be bad if WW3 is really on the horizon.
- facile3232 2y ago
  I like this take a lot. I also think that America competing on manufacturing is obviously never going to happen.
  - okr 2y ago
    Why is it obvious and why never?
    - vkou 2y ago
      Unemployment is at 4%, there's no reserve army of labor that can be mobilized to make flashlights and sew t-shirts for $3/hr. Anyways, I hope you're looking foward to prices for everything going up.
      - pcdoodle 2y ago
        Could be a thing? Perhaps people might start caring about product durability and stop buying cheap shit that goes in a landfill because the producers only care about shelf appeal.
        42772827 2y ago
        This is my hope, too. But also I fear the transition is going to be ugly. Personally I feel lucky that I’m not just starting out my life — I already have high quality stuff.
darawk 2y ago
[flagged]
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  I don't think half the population drafted this policy, so I could easily think the specific construction of the policy is insane without believing half the country is.
  - darawk 2y ago
    He's been articulating this policy for his entire campaign. Half the country voted for him. If you are saying that the details of its implementation are insane, then are you suggesting that Trump actually personally developed and scrutinized those details? Because I don't think any coherent theory of Trump would comport with that. I do think a lot of the details are bad. But Trump is not exactly a details guy. And while I think they could have been better (by a lot, fairly easily), I do think they are an accurate, if crude, representation of the policy vision Trump has been consistently articulating for decades (he's been talking about tariffs and trade deficits like this since the 90s).
    - jonathanstrange 2y ago
      I do believe that half of the US voters do not understand the economic impacts and workings of imposing indiscriminate, massive tariffs on trade partners. The evidence that the majority of Trump's voters have no clue what they've been voting for is quite overwhelming. I would even call it crazy to believe the opposite, to be honest.
      - poincaredisk 2y ago
        The majority of voters have no clue on what they've been voting. In particular it's also true for Trump's voters.
- sethammons 2y ago
  Because Trump won the vote, you believe that half the population understands and supports his every action. That doesn't follow. His shit still stinks. Pretty sure The Right now have to say how sweet it smells.
mytailorisrich 2y ago
Sometimes something does not make sense because we don't see or understand the big picture and what people are trying to achieve, and thus it literally does not "make sense". Trump is neither stupid nor insane and he will have access to many very smart people, too. Based on that the reasonable assumption is that they are trying to achieve a well-defined objective and have set a plan in motion to do so. The "game" is thus to figure it out. @ggm's comment above is one possibility.
- mkleczek 2y ago
  There are two issues with this thinking: 1. It is authoritarian. Democratically elected leader's duty is to present the policies he plans to implement so that voters can decide if they want them implemented. 2. It is based on the "4D chess" myth - that the leader is way smarter than the rest and is capable of outsmarting other countries. The history shows that it is never true. The leaders are normal people. And the institutions are as good as the founding principles that are honored by them.
  - mytailorisrich 2y ago
    (1) is you not liking it, not that it isn't the case. Whether it is authoritarian or not is besides the point. (2) I am not claiming that they can "outsmart" anyone, just that the objective and plan may not be publicly or explicitly stated, or even that what is publicly stated is not the real objective (this is not "4D chess" this is actually how things tend to be in practice from politics to business).
    - throwawayqqq11 2y ago
      (1) Bypassing the judicative branch is authoritarian. (2) You just claimed trump has access to smart advisors and some hidden masterplan but you ignore all counter indication. He ousts critical journalists, nominates incompetent staff, invasion-mongers, tweets and plays golf alot. If i can see any common factor in his insanity, its the need to have an enemy to pose as the strong man against, which indicates that trump does not have a constructive vision for the US.
gsf_emergency_2 2y ago
Paper backing ggm's take: https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/research/638199_A_Users_Guide_to_Restructuring_the_Global_Trading_System.pdf https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/rese... https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/markets-wrestle-with-trumps-unconventional-debt-ideas-2025-03-05/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/markets-wrestle-with-trum... >In a November paper, economist Stephen Miran, whom Trump has picked to chair his Council of Economic Advisors, raised the possibility that Trump could use the threat of tariffs and the lure of U.S. security support to persuade foreign governments to swap their Treasury holdings for lower-cost century bonds. Via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43350553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43350553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43561808 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43561808 Just so pple get the credit (even if they appear to be not so sane)

I've seen people use "sanewashing" to refer to the type of comment you're replying to, there's no sane explanation but people try to come up with one because the world doesn't make sense otherwise

Gud 2y ago

It makes perfect sense. You have a narcissistic asshole in the White House who got elected because the Democratic Party fumbled the ball.

kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
Some corrupt members of Congress and the judiciary deserve some of the blame.
ikt 2y ago
I wouldn't put 100% of the blame on the Democrats, here in Australia we are frequently voting for the least worst option not the best, and I'm not sure how the Democrats weren't the least worst option when compared to the other option but for some reason a whole heap of people decided to stay home this time and this is the result, hope they still feel happy with their decision
- tunesmith 2y ago
  I've heard that there's polling lately to indicate that's not true (unsure on source, it might have been an interview at Vox.com), and that higher turnout would have advantaged the Republicans further.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    Probably stemming from David Shor's Blue Rose Research. I bumped into that @ https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/new-insights-on-why-harris-lostand https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/new-insights-on-why-harris-...
munksbeer 2y ago
> You have a narcissistic asshole in the White House who got elected because the Democratic Party fumbled the ball. It don't want to sound too persnickety, but there is always at least one losing side in an election. It doesn't have to mean they dropped the ball, it could just mean people preferred the other option. Hindsight bias is wonderful, but you have no idea what would have happened if they'd run with a different agenda, they may have had a worse result.
- CapricornNoble 2y ago
  > but you have no idea what would have happened if they'd run with a different agenda, they may have had a worse result. The 2024 election had historically-low support from normally stalwart Democrat demographics such as Latinos, the youth vote, and black males. That, IMO, supports the conclusion that the Democrats did something wrong this time. Also, not only did those groups abstain but Trump also picked up quite a few votes from them (especially working-age black males), suggesting that they are swing voters who probably could have been swayed to stay on the Dem plantation if exposed to more convincing messaging, or a more compelling Democrat candidate.
  - munksbeer 2y ago
    That's fair, thanks.
- 7jjjjjjj 2y ago
  I'm not sure how you could look at 2024 and not see a historically terrible campaign by the Democrats. They had to force the presumptive nominee to drop out because his brain was dripping out his ears. That alone would do it!

bawolff 2y ago

I think often trump's policies are rooted in some sort of idea that is perhaps controversial but at least not totally insane, and then implemented in the most boneheaded way possible. E.g. one explanation given for these trade policies is that trump sees a war with china down the line and is worried that china has tons of factories that could be converted to make ammunition while usa does not. If so, there is at least some logic to the base idea, but the implementation is crazy, probably not going to work that effectively, and going to piss off all amrrica's allies which would be bad if WW3 is really on the horizon.

facile3232 2y ago
I like this take a lot. I also think that America competing on manufacturing is obviously never going to happen.
- okr 2y ago
  Why is it obvious and why never?
  - vkou 2y ago
    Unemployment is at 4%, there's no reserve army of labor that can be mobilized to make flashlights and sew t-shirts for $3/hr. Anyways, I hope you're looking foward to prices for everything going up.
    - pcdoodle 2y ago
      Could be a thing? Perhaps people might start caring about product durability and stop buying cheap shit that goes in a landfill because the producers only care about shelf appeal.
      - 42772827 2y ago
        This is my hope, too. But also I fear the transition is going to be ugly. Personally I feel lucky that I’m not just starting out my life — I already have high quality stuff.

darawk 2y ago

[flagged]

dragonwriter 2y ago
I don't think half the population drafted this policy, so I could easily think the specific construction of the policy is insane without believing half the country is.
- darawk 2y ago
  He's been articulating this policy for his entire campaign. Half the country voted for him. If you are saying that the details of its implementation are insane, then are you suggesting that Trump actually personally developed and scrutinized those details? Because I don't think any coherent theory of Trump would comport with that. I do think a lot of the details are bad. But Trump is not exactly a details guy. And while I think they could have been better (by a lot, fairly easily), I do think they are an accurate, if crude, representation of the policy vision Trump has been consistently articulating for decades (he's been talking about tariffs and trade deficits like this since the 90s).
  - jonathanstrange 2y ago
    I do believe that half of the US voters do not understand the economic impacts and workings of imposing indiscriminate, massive tariffs on trade partners. The evidence that the majority of Trump's voters have no clue what they've been voting for is quite overwhelming. I would even call it crazy to believe the opposite, to be honest.
    - poincaredisk 2y ago
      The majority of voters have no clue on what they've been voting. In particular it's also true for Trump's voters.
sethammons 2y ago
Because Trump won the vote, you believe that half the population understands and supports his every action. That doesn't follow. His shit still stinks. Pretty sure The Right now have to say how sweet it smells.

mytailorisrich 2y ago

Sometimes something does not make sense because we don't see or understand the big picture and what people are trying to achieve, and thus it literally does not "make sense". Trump is neither stupid nor insane and he will have access to many very smart people, too. Based on that the reasonable assumption is that they are trying to achieve a well-defined objective and have set a plan in motion to do so. The "game" is thus to figure it out. @ggm's comment above is one possibility.

mkleczek 2y ago
There are two issues with this thinking: 1. It is authoritarian. Democratically elected leader's duty is to present the policies he plans to implement so that voters can decide if they want them implemented. 2. It is based on the "4D chess" myth - that the leader is way smarter than the rest and is capable of outsmarting other countries. The history shows that it is never true. The leaders are normal people. And the institutions are as good as the founding principles that are honored by them.
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  (1) is you not liking it, not that it isn't the case. Whether it is authoritarian or not is besides the point. (2) I am not claiming that they can "outsmart" anyone, just that the objective and plan may not be publicly or explicitly stated, or even that what is publicly stated is not the real objective (this is not "4D chess" this is actually how things tend to be in practice from politics to business).
  - throwawayqqq11 2y ago
    (1) Bypassing the judicative branch is authoritarian. (2) You just claimed trump has access to smart advisors and some hidden masterplan but you ignore all counter indication. He ousts critical journalists, nominates incompetent staff, invasion-mongers, tweets and plays golf alot. If i can see any common factor in his insanity, its the need to have an enemy to pose as the strong man against, which indicates that trump does not have a constructive vision for the US.

gsf_emergency_2 2y ago

Paper backing ggm's take: https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/research/638199_A_Users_Guide_to_Restructuring_the_Global_Trading_System.pdf https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/rese... https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/markets-wrestle-with-trumps-unconventional-debt-ideas-2025-03-05/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/markets-wrestle-with-trum... >In a November paper, economist Stephen Miran, whom Trump has picked to chair his Council of Economic Advisors, raised the possibility that Trump could use the threat of tariffs and the lure of U.S. security support to persuade foreign governments to swap their Treasury holdings for lower-cost century bonds. Via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43350553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43350553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43561808 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43561808 Just so pple get the credit (even if they appear to be not so sane)