5 ms·

“And in their desperation, they turned to a man they didn't fully understand.” — Alfred describing why the mob hired the Joker It’s clear that both political

“And in their desperation, they turned to a man they didn't fully understand.” — Alfred describing why the mob hired the Joker It’s clear that both political parties in the US are captured by the investor class, the democrats didn’t even have an election to choose Kamala she was selected by their donors who preferred someone they could control over someone with the best chance of winning. If the lesson people take away from this is that Republicans are just uneducated and naive, they’re missing the point. People were desperate for something different, they thought Trump was someone from outside of the system but they didn’t realize that the system is money and no one is outside of it.

scryers_bloom 2y ago
Interesting take. I believe this is a theme that everyone in the US is familiar with, but the idea that "big money is the enemy" and the reality of it has somehow not permeated through the general public enough. It seems that the Trump-voting public sees the Democrats as compromised rather than the Republicans, but even with this one action by Trump you can argue strongly that they are as well.
CoastalCoder 2y ago
Could someone explain why the parent comment would (currently) be downvoted? It has an interesting conjecture, and sounds like it was written in good faith.
- aftbit 2y ago
  Likely because it enraged some Democrats with the reference to Kamala being unelected. It's back above 0 for me now, so it looks like the broader consensus is that this is in fact a good comment.
  - const_cast 2y ago
    It doesn't anger anyone, it's just dishonest. The circumstances of her being the democratic candidate are well-document, you can't just say things that aren't true. Biden won the primary, then he stepped down. That's the actual story, and if you don't include the teensy little detail you're being dishonest. As a reminder to everyone, choosing not to tell the whole truth is dishonesty.
    - an0malous 2y ago
      > The nomination will officially be voted on either shortly before or during the convention itself. Unless a major Democratic figure mounts a serious challenge — which did not appear to happen within 24 hours of Biden’s announcement — the president’s endorsement of Harris will likely carry the day with delegates https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/is-it-really-unlawful-to-replace-biden-on-the-democratic-ticket-election-law-experts-say-no https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/is-it-really-unlawful-... You’re the one being dishonest. The democratic nomination wasn’t official until August, and to suggest the Democratic Party had no other option is factually incorrect and a revision of history that ignores the months the party and pundits spent discussing other options, as well as the legal argument the party itself made to justify choosing Harris.
- jimbob45 2y ago
  Harris was the only option for the DNC unless major election laws would have been changed very late in the cycle (moving funds raised to another candidate - highly improbable). There’s a strong argument that the DNC was at fault for not preparing a suitable backup candidate in case of emergencies. There’s even an argument that such a thing was done deliberately so that voters would be stuck with Harris. Nevertheless, once Biden dropped out, she was the only practical option. Two important notes: the RNC would have been just as screwed if the DNC had succeeded in putting a bullet in Trump’s brain. Also, Harris performed unusually badly during her presidential primary, stoking angers that she was not only unelected, but that she wouldn’t have been elected given the chance.
  - myvoiceismypass 2y ago
    > if the DNC had succeeded in putting a bullet in Trump’s brain Wait, what?
  - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
    > There’s even an argument that such a thing was done deliberately so that voters would be stuck with Harris. Nevertheless, once Biden dropped out, she was the only practical option Ultimately, if Harris wasn't a good candidate for the Presidency, then she shouldn't have been VP in 2020. That was where the issue lay.
  - an0malous 2y ago
    You’re conflating the option to move funds with the option to choose a different candidate. Harris was not the only option, anyone could have been selected up until the official nomination in August: > The nomination will officially be voted on either shortly before or during the convention itself. Unless a major Democratic figure mounts a serious challenge — which did not appear to happen within 24 hours of Biden’s announcement — the president’s endorsement of Harris will likely carry the day with delegates. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/is-it-really-unlawful-to-replace-biden-on-the-democratic-ticket-election-law-experts-say-no https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/is-it-really-unlawful-... The idea that Harris was the only option because they couldn’t move funding is absurd, we’re talking about an election for the highest position in the world. If the party wanted to choose someone else, they would have found a way to reallocate the funding or just eat the cost.
shadowgovt 2y ago
The Democrats chose Biden in the election. If a party's candidate cannot serve, there is a process to choose a new candidate, which is not a general party election. (https://www.vox.com/2016/9/12/12887632/if-presidential-nominee-drops-out https://www.vox.com/2016/9/12/12887632/if-presidential-nomin...). There's a very good reason for this: those general elections cost states money. Money they have not budgeted to re-run a primary. In addition, in most states, the primary is framed in a legal process that does not allow for an "out-of-band" second election. It would, generally, have been illegal to re-run an election (at least using the physical voting apparatus of the myriad states) to choose an alternate when Biden dropped, which is why the party chooses via their own process. And as far as I'm aware, that process was followed following Biden's announcement. I wouldn't accuse Republicans of being uneducated and naive if people didn't vote for Harris because "she never won a primary..." I'd accuse traditional Democrat voters of not knowing very much about the party they (nominally) tend to support. It'd be nice if civics weren't just something people's parents and grandparents did. As for being an outsider... In 2024, I fail to see how voters would think a former President could be considered outside the system.
- aftbit 2y ago
  Biden should have simply refused to run again in 2024. There was already signalling to this effect in 2019, though it was never explicitly promised.[1][2] If he had just kept to that, there would have been plenty of time to run a primary and an actually strong candidate could have been selected. 1: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/12/joe-biden-one-term-lame-duck.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/12/joe-biden-one-te... 2: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/06/biden-president-trump-rematch-one-term-promise-nate-silver.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/06/biden-president-...
  - scryers_bloom 2y ago
    My understanding is that Biden was very concerned about his legacy and there are rumors about the "no daylight" phrase he spoke with Harris on her campaign and probably part of the reason she lost. But Biden should have dropped down much earlier and will taint his legacy forever. At least he passed the infrastructure bill.
easyThrowaway 2y ago
Let me give you a simpler, Occam's-razorish explanation: People who voted for Trump aren't stupid, or naive, or anything. They simply were unable or unwilling to accept the world changing around them regarding race, sexuality, welfare, climate, economy, foreign and domestic policies. They elected someone who told them "we'll go back to the old times one way or another, consequences be damned". This is exactly what they voted for, what they were hoping for. They knew leopards would've eaten the face of a few of them, but it was somewhat expected, a calculated risk. There's a few casualties even when you win the war. They saw something they could cling to, to avoid changes for the remaining of their lives, even if this meant destroying their country, the rest of the world or the future for the matter. And they replied with "Yes, we're fine with that".
- antonvs 2y ago
  > … but it was somewhat expected, a calculated risk. The way many of them think of it is that illness and death due to disease, starvation, lack of medication, problem pregnancies, etc. are acts of god and a part of life. They don’t want relief from that, if it comes with a government that has the power to change things they don’t want to change.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  TBF, that sounds a lot like "stupid or naive" with extra words. You can't rewind history. Not without a lot of death; the only way to kill a meme is to destroy every mind it's hiding in and burn every record it was recorded in. There's moving forward, developing the time that is now into a future time by refining and challenging the existing ideas; backwards isn't a desirable goal. In particular, the "Make America Great Again" era they seem to hearken to was an era of massive industrial growth fueled by being the largest country untouched domestically by a World War. Getting back there would require burning half the world again. We shouldn't want that. These are lessons history teaches consistently, and I'm sorry they apparently slept through that day of class.
- nativeit 2y ago
  It is true that Trump won his reelection with 49.8% of the vote, but that isn’t the same thing as 49.8% of voters. With only 63.7% of eligible voters casting ballots last November, Trump’s share of the vote narrows to just under a third of the electorate, significantly less than half. But it is worth noting that an April 2024 NBC News poll showed Trump leading voters who say they do not follow political news by 26-points. Meanwhile voters who said they read a newspaper every day supported Joe Biden 70% to Trump’s 21%.[0] Additionally, a survey conducted in November 2024 by Northeastern University found that just 24% of Republican voters relied on news media, while the rest said they got their news from family and friends, as well as social media. This means that while less than 1/3rd of eligible voters cast their ballots for Trump, only ~8.3% of the electorate entered the voting booth reliably informed, and then still chose to support him. 0. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/poll-biden-trump-supporters-sharply-divided-media-consume-rcna149497 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/poll-biden-tr...

scryers_bloom 2y ago

Interesting take. I believe this is a theme that everyone in the US is familiar with, but the idea that "big money is the enemy" and the reality of it has somehow not permeated through the general public enough. It seems that the Trump-voting public sees the Democrats as compromised rather than the Republicans, but even with this one action by Trump you can argue strongly that they are as well.

CoastalCoder 2y ago

Could someone explain why the parent comment would (currently) be downvoted? It has an interesting conjecture, and sounds like it was written in good faith.

aftbit 2y ago
Likely because it enraged some Democrats with the reference to Kamala being unelected. It's back above 0 for me now, so it looks like the broader consensus is that this is in fact a good comment.
- const_cast 2y ago
  It doesn't anger anyone, it's just dishonest. The circumstances of her being the democratic candidate are well-document, you can't just say things that aren't true. Biden won the primary, then he stepped down. That's the actual story, and if you don't include the teensy little detail you're being dishonest. As a reminder to everyone, choosing not to tell the whole truth is dishonesty.
  - an0malous 2y ago
    > The nomination will officially be voted on either shortly before or during the convention itself. Unless a major Democratic figure mounts a serious challenge — which did not appear to happen within 24 hours of Biden’s announcement — the president’s endorsement of Harris will likely carry the day with delegates https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/is-it-really-unlawful-to-replace-biden-on-the-democratic-ticket-election-law-experts-say-no https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/is-it-really-unlawful-... You’re the one being dishonest. The democratic nomination wasn’t official until August, and to suggest the Democratic Party had no other option is factually incorrect and a revision of history that ignores the months the party and pundits spent discussing other options, as well as the legal argument the party itself made to justify choosing Harris.
jimbob45 2y ago
Harris was the only option for the DNC unless major election laws would have been changed very late in the cycle (moving funds raised to another candidate - highly improbable). There’s a strong argument that the DNC was at fault for not preparing a suitable backup candidate in case of emergencies. There’s even an argument that such a thing was done deliberately so that voters would be stuck with Harris. Nevertheless, once Biden dropped out, she was the only practical option. Two important notes: the RNC would have been just as screwed if the DNC had succeeded in putting a bullet in Trump’s brain. Also, Harris performed unusually badly during her presidential primary, stoking angers that she was not only unelected, but that she wouldn’t have been elected given the chance.
- myvoiceismypass 2y ago
  > if the DNC had succeeded in putting a bullet in Trump’s brain Wait, what?
- disgruntledphd2 2y ago
  > There’s even an argument that such a thing was done deliberately so that voters would be stuck with Harris. Nevertheless, once Biden dropped out, she was the only practical option Ultimately, if Harris wasn't a good candidate for the Presidency, then she shouldn't have been VP in 2020. That was where the issue lay.
- an0malous 2y ago
  You’re conflating the option to move funds with the option to choose a different candidate. Harris was not the only option, anyone could have been selected up until the official nomination in August: > The nomination will officially be voted on either shortly before or during the convention itself. Unless a major Democratic figure mounts a serious challenge — which did not appear to happen within 24 hours of Biden’s announcement — the president’s endorsement of Harris will likely carry the day with delegates. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/is-it-really-unlawful-to-replace-biden-on-the-democratic-ticket-election-law-experts-say-no https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/is-it-really-unlawful-... The idea that Harris was the only option because they couldn’t move funding is absurd, we’re talking about an election for the highest position in the world. If the party wanted to choose someone else, they would have found a way to reallocate the funding or just eat the cost.

shadowgovt 2y ago

The Democrats chose Biden in the election. If a party's candidate cannot serve, there is a process to choose a new candidate, which is not a general party election. (https://www.vox.com/2016/9/12/12887632/if-presidential-nominee-drops-out https://www.vox.com/2016/9/12/12887632/if-presidential-nomin...). There's a very good reason for this: those general elections cost states money. Money they have not budgeted to re-run a primary. In addition, in most states, the primary is framed in a legal process that does not allow for an "out-of-band" second election. It would, generally, have been illegal to re-run an election (at least using the physical voting apparatus of the myriad states) to choose an alternate when Biden dropped, which is why the party chooses via their own process. And as far as I'm aware, that process was followed following Biden's announcement. I wouldn't accuse Republicans of being uneducated and naive if people didn't vote for Harris because "she never won a primary..." I'd accuse traditional Democrat voters of not knowing very much about the party they (nominally) tend to support. It'd be nice if civics weren't just something people's parents and grandparents did. As for being an outsider... In 2024, I fail to see how voters would think a former President could be considered outside the system.

aftbit 2y ago
Biden should have simply refused to run again in 2024. There was already signalling to this effect in 2019, though it was never explicitly promised.[1][2] If he had just kept to that, there would have been plenty of time to run a primary and an actually strong candidate could have been selected. 1: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/12/joe-biden-one-term-lame-duck.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/12/joe-biden-one-te... 2: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/06/biden-president-trump-rematch-one-term-promise-nate-silver.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/06/biden-president-...
- scryers_bloom 2y ago
  My understanding is that Biden was very concerned about his legacy and there are rumors about the "no daylight" phrase he spoke with Harris on her campaign and probably part of the reason she lost. But Biden should have dropped down much earlier and will taint his legacy forever. At least he passed the infrastructure bill.

easyThrowaway 2y ago

Let me give you a simpler, Occam's-razorish explanation: People who voted for Trump aren't stupid, or naive, or anything. They simply were unable or unwilling to accept the world changing around them regarding race, sexuality, welfare, climate, economy, foreign and domestic policies. They elected someone who told them "we'll go back to the old times one way or another, consequences be damned". This is exactly what they voted for, what they were hoping for. They knew leopards would've eaten the face of a few of them, but it was somewhat expected, a calculated risk. There's a few casualties even when you win the war. They saw something they could cling to, to avoid changes for the remaining of their lives, even if this meant destroying their country, the rest of the world or the future for the matter. And they replied with "Yes, we're fine with that".

antonvs 2y ago
> … but it was somewhat expected, a calculated risk. The way many of them think of it is that illness and death due to disease, starvation, lack of medication, problem pregnancies, etc. are acts of god and a part of life. They don’t want relief from that, if it comes with a government that has the power to change things they don’t want to change.
shadowgovt 2y ago
TBF, that sounds a lot like "stupid or naive" with extra words. You can't rewind history. Not without a lot of death; the only way to kill a meme is to destroy every mind it's hiding in and burn every record it was recorded in. There's moving forward, developing the time that is now into a future time by refining and challenging the existing ideas; backwards isn't a desirable goal. In particular, the "Make America Great Again" era they seem to hearken to was an era of massive industrial growth fueled by being the largest country untouched domestically by a World War. Getting back there would require burning half the world again. We shouldn't want that. These are lessons history teaches consistently, and I'm sorry they apparently slept through that day of class.
nativeit 2y ago
It is true that Trump won his reelection with 49.8% of the vote, but that isn’t the same thing as 49.8% of voters. With only 63.7% of eligible voters casting ballots last November, Trump’s share of the vote narrows to just under a third of the electorate, significantly less than half. But it is worth noting that an April 2024 NBC News poll showed Trump leading voters who say they do not follow political news by 26-points. Meanwhile voters who said they read a newspaper every day supported Joe Biden 70% to Trump’s 21%.[0] Additionally, a survey conducted in November 2024 by Northeastern University found that just 24% of Republican voters relied on news media, while the rest said they got their news from family and friends, as well as social media. This means that while less than 1/3rd of eligible voters cast their ballots for Trump, only ~8.3% of the electorate entered the voting booth reliably informed, and then still chose to support him. 0. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/poll-biden-trump-supporters-sharply-divided-media-consume-rcna149497 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/poll-biden-tr...