4 ms·

That wasn't nostalgia on my end. I was only making an implied point. To remember that era clearly is to know that it is impossible for sentiment to be worse. My

That wasn't nostalgia on my end. I was only making an implied point. To remember that era clearly is to know that it is impossible for sentiment to be worse. My point is about the flaws of perception and memory, and regrettably immortal pabulum. US approval varies across all populations, from inception. Some British still refer to us as Colinists, with a hint of disdain. People have always complained about the United States. Which is irrelevant, on balance, in the modern period. What are these complaints about? DJT in general? Same record, different guy. Tariffs? Inevitable regardless of the office holder. Prepared for by both sides, for a long time now. In a complex economy that few to no people in public discussions understand. A bottomless fall along which that particular immortal complaint is always relevant is no fall at all. Which was my implication about the relative silliness of the boilerplate comments. This isn't even a defense of any particular issue. More like a wish for a better breed of critic, if nothing but for a change of pace and interest. Or maybe because we need actually effective critics, to maintain a healthy ecosystem. I mean, "they aren't aware of their own interests" is truly basement tier immature rhetoric. Perhaps it'd be better for the OP to explain how whomever they want to vote for will address opposition voter's perceived most important interests. Otherwise, one can't credibly complain about their vote.

quickslowdown 1y ago
I'm going to just toss the entirety of your comment out to focus on the last line. Yes I can. We all lived through the same 4 years, saw and felt the disaster the first time, and now we're fucking doing it again. If your only policy issue is that you don't think women & gay people deserve rights & you want to be able to use slurs with impunity, you don't have policy positions. Nobody should be falling into the trap of trying to approach these people as rational actors with a coherent idea of what they want or how the country should be run. They've proven to us, twice in the last decade, that they don't have anything resembling a serious idea. I'm sure this comment will get flagged & I'll probably get a note about remaining civil, but fuck this whole comment. You may feel fine hand waving, equivocating, & telling yourself this is "business as usual." Sit this one out. Your head isn't in the game and the stakes are different this time.
- mrangle 1y ago
  Spare us the theatrics. Every four years wherein the opposition is in office is a perceived "disaster" for the other side. Here's a question for you and the Nation: did the other side also see the first four years as a disaster? Can you accurately describe why? You complain about a lack of "rational actors", and yet your complaints aren't couched in rational language. Your comment resembles a teenage outburst more than anything else. Can the Nation advance via teenage-style emotional breakdowns, or will the teenagers have to "sit this one out" so that the noise can be turned down enough to progress to a better stage? What I see is someone who isn't confident enough in the persuasion of their views to do anything but engage in an embarrassing tantrum and hyperbole that isn't designed to solve a single problem. You say that "my head isn't in the game", and yet you proudly refuse to play on the board. It's literally impossible to perceive your strategy. It isn't persuasion let alone compromise. How do you intend to win?
bryant 1y ago
> Perhaps it'd be better for the OP to explain how whomever they want to vote for will address opposition voter's perceived most important interests. Otherwise, one can't credibly complain about their vote. 87% of Trump voters during Oct 23-25 2024 at least slightly believed that "American jobs are insecure right now and our future prosperity is under threat."[0] I reckon I don't have to point at what's been going on the last few months. It's certain that the election going the other way would've at least not resulted in the current debacle. > Tariffs? Inevitable regardless of the office holder. Prepared for by both sides, for a long time now. Implying that tariffs of this magnitude would've been inevitable[1][2] regardless of the government elected shows a lack of good-faith participation in this conversation, so I'll move on. Cheers, mate. [0] Cambridge/YouGov survey finalized Nov 7 2024. https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/UniversityOfCambridge_PreUSElection_Tables_241107_1.pdf https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/docume... // press release https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/trump-voters-2024 https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/trump-voters-2024 [1] Harris policy proposals budget model, noting no tariffs and reasonably assumed to have remained consistent with a Harris win. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2024/8/26/harris-campaign-policy-proposals-2024 https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2024/8/26/harri... [2] Trump policy proposals budget model, noting the anticipated 10+% tariffs that have since materialized, including retaliation etc. from trading partners. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2024/8/26/trump-campaign-policy-proposals-2024 https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2024/8/26/trump...
- mrangle 1y ago
  My opinion stands. Claiming that I'm not being honest in my opinion is not a valid escape from the conversation. But be my guest. Tariffs were inevitable, in any administration. Unless the plan was to have been much worse. With all due respect, truly, I'm sure that you don't understand how the international monetary system works at a basic level. For reasons, tariffs were inevitable. All sides have been preparing. Kamala Harris had zero chance of winning, lost in a landslide, and could have said whatever she pleased because she was never going to be there to follow through. Believe they knew she didn't have a chance. She was truly a candidate who could not win. Hillary Clinton could not beat Donald Trump, and she was a vastly superior candidate. Anyone with political horse sense knew that the first woman POTUS would not be Kamala Harris. Forcing Biden out was equivalent to throwing the election. Though, I'm not saying that I know that he would have won. Second, I look at policy to inform on politician intention. I recommend that you do the same. Instead of looking at stated intent. Preparation for reshoring under Joe Biden: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act https://www.wri.org/insights/inflation-reduction-act-anniversary-manufacturing-resurgence https://www.wri.org/insights/inflation-reduction-act-anniver... Herded via tariffs, look for foreign-owned companies to begin setting up in Foreign Trade Zones on US soil. Thereby avoiding tariffs. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/economy/foreign-trade-zones-could-help-businesses-with-new-tariffs/ar-AA1CgXyE https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/economy/foreign-trade-zones-... https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/17/2023-08065/foreign-trade-zone-ftz-75-authorization-of-production-activity-tsmc-arizona-corporation https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/17/2023-08... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-trade_zones_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-trade_zones_of_the_Uni...
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

quickslowdown 1y ago

I'm going to just toss the entirety of your comment out to focus on the last line. Yes I can. We all lived through the same 4 years, saw and felt the disaster the first time, and now we're fucking doing it again. If your only policy issue is that you don't think women & gay people deserve rights & you want to be able to use slurs with impunity, you don't have policy positions. Nobody should be falling into the trap of trying to approach these people as rational actors with a coherent idea of what they want or how the country should be run. They've proven to us, twice in the last decade, that they don't have anything resembling a serious idea. I'm sure this comment will get flagged & I'll probably get a note about remaining civil, but fuck this whole comment. You may feel fine hand waving, equivocating, & telling yourself this is "business as usual." Sit this one out. Your head isn't in the game and the stakes are different this time.

mrangle 1y ago
Spare us the theatrics. Every four years wherein the opposition is in office is a perceived "disaster" for the other side. Here's a question for you and the Nation: did the other side also see the first four years as a disaster? Can you accurately describe why? You complain about a lack of "rational actors", and yet your complaints aren't couched in rational language. Your comment resembles a teenage outburst more than anything else. Can the Nation advance via teenage-style emotional breakdowns, or will the teenagers have to "sit this one out" so that the noise can be turned down enough to progress to a better stage? What I see is someone who isn't confident enough in the persuasion of their views to do anything but engage in an embarrassing tantrum and hyperbole that isn't designed to solve a single problem. You say that "my head isn't in the game", and yet you proudly refuse to play on the board. It's literally impossible to perceive your strategy. It isn't persuasion let alone compromise. How do you intend to win?

bryant 1y ago

> Perhaps it'd be better for the OP to explain how whomever they want to vote for will address opposition voter's perceived most important interests. Otherwise, one can't credibly complain about their vote. 87% of Trump voters during Oct 23-25 2024 at least slightly believed that "American jobs are insecure right now and our future prosperity is under threat."[0] I reckon I don't have to point at what's been going on the last few months. It's certain that the election going the other way would've at least not resulted in the current debacle. > Tariffs? Inevitable regardless of the office holder. Prepared for by both sides, for a long time now. Implying that tariffs of this magnitude would've been inevitable[1][2] regardless of the government elected shows a lack of good-faith participation in this conversation, so I'll move on. Cheers, mate. [0] Cambridge/YouGov survey finalized Nov 7 2024. https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/UniversityOfCambridge_PreUSElection_Tables_241107_1.pdf https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/docume... // press release https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/trump-voters-2024 https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/trump-voters-2024 [1] Harris policy proposals budget model, noting no tariffs and reasonably assumed to have remained consistent with a Harris win. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2024/8/26/harris-campaign-policy-proposals-2024 https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2024/8/26/harri... [2] Trump policy proposals budget model, noting the anticipated 10+% tariffs that have since materialized, including retaliation etc. from trading partners. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2024/8/26/trump-campaign-policy-proposals-2024 https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2024/8/26/trump...

mrangle 1y ago
My opinion stands. Claiming that I'm not being honest in my opinion is not a valid escape from the conversation. But be my guest. Tariffs were inevitable, in any administration. Unless the plan was to have been much worse. With all due respect, truly, I'm sure that you don't understand how the international monetary system works at a basic level. For reasons, tariffs were inevitable. All sides have been preparing. Kamala Harris had zero chance of winning, lost in a landslide, and could have said whatever she pleased because she was never going to be there to follow through. Believe they knew she didn't have a chance. She was truly a candidate who could not win. Hillary Clinton could not beat Donald Trump, and she was a vastly superior candidate. Anyone with political horse sense knew that the first woman POTUS would not be Kamala Harris. Forcing Biden out was equivalent to throwing the election. Though, I'm not saying that I know that he would have won. Second, I look at policy to inform on politician intention. I recommend that you do the same. Instead of looking at stated intent. Preparation for reshoring under Joe Biden: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act https://www.wri.org/insights/inflation-reduction-act-anniversary-manufacturing-resurgence https://www.wri.org/insights/inflation-reduction-act-anniver... Herded via tariffs, look for foreign-owned companies to begin setting up in Foreign Trade Zones on US soil. Thereby avoiding tariffs. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/economy/foreign-trade-zones-could-help-businesses-with-new-tariffs/ar-AA1CgXyE https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/economy/foreign-trade-zones-... https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/17/2023-08065/foreign-trade-zone-ftz-75-authorization-of-production-activity-tsmc-arizona-corporation https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/17/2023-08... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-trade_zones_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-trade_zones_of_the_Uni...

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]