6 ms·

>The issue seems to be that the US voting public is overwhelmed by the complexity of understanding what a good idea looks like or what is in their own interests

>The issue seems to be that the US voting public is overwhelmed by the complexity of understanding what a good idea looks like or what is in their own interests. I can't agree. The highest profile elections we are offered have, in the recent past, been choices between absolutely terrible options. In 2016 we could choose between a largely reviled Iraq War supporter and Trump, in 2020 the senile Biden and Trump, and in 2024 a continuation of Biden's term, represented by a poor politician hand-picked by the party and Trump, the one-term loser. In my adult life, the best candidate I have been able to vote for is a guy whose signature achievement in office was passing a heritage foundation Healthcare bill centered around fining me for not bolstering Blue Cross' bottom line. How am I supposed to vote in my interests?

bigstrat2003 1y ago
This is why I continually advocate for more federalism in our government (the way we used to have, before the Civil War and the New Deal rebuilt the country around the federal government). The presidential elections encompass so many issues, with so much at stake, that they invariably become messy elections which suck all the oxygen out of the room. What we need instead is to make the presidential office (and Congress too!) as boring and limited as we can get away with, and let those decisions be made as locally as possible. Obviously not all things are practical to solve locally (defense being the classic example), but a lot of things are. For example, there is no need to have the federal government dictating standards for education, let states do that. There's no need to have the federal government dictating what drugs are legal, let states do that. When we limit the power of the federal government, the government as a whole will become more responsible to the will of the people, because your political power won't be filled diluted the way it is now.
- cool_dude85 1y ago
  My political power would most certainly be more diluted - down to nothing - if we moved to a "state's rights" type system. As it happens, I live in Florida, so my choices for state and local office have been much worse than they have for president. I could absolutely not cast a vote in my interests if more power was at the state level.
  - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
    As hard as it seems to be, moving to a state that's more in line with your values might be a good idea.
    - DerArzt 1y ago
      The problem with moving states is that there's a devil to pay when you loose your support network (family, friends, local coworkers). And the cost of moving isn't realistic for some.
      - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
        I totally understand. Everyone has to weigh the cost for themself. Someone whose family is in danger just has to pay the price and move. Some might judge they can do more good by staying and fighting against the local bad actors.
yifanl 1y ago
It starts with the understanding that there's no such thing as a national politician whose every policy will align with your interests, unless you are the politician in question.
no_wizard 1y ago
How was Harris - who would have at the very least continued the sane economic policies of the Biden administration, a “terrible option” compared to Trump who repeatedly and with much enthusiasm, said he would pursue as much disruption as possible with tariffs, ice raids, and poor foreign trade policies? How are these equivalent to each other? That’s such false statement I don’t know how anyone can give it a pass at this point
- cool_dude85 1y ago
  You've given the game away. How was Harris a terrible option compared to Trump? She was not. But critically, she was only not a terrible option when compared to Trump! Maybe you might feel that Harris was herself an objectively good option, one who would successfully solve some of the problems brought up in the article. I personally find that very hard to believe.
- wpm 1y ago
  > the sane economic policies of the Biden administration Because those very same "sane" economic policies didn't actually do much perceivable improvement to the lives of most Americans. TFA even mentioned that Harris probably would've fired Lina Khan because "number must go up". Sure, being able to cancel Netflix with a button is nice but people want fucking healthcare and for there to be a shred of dignity in working an honest living. People in 2020 were suffering, so they voted for change. People in 2024 were suffering, so they voted for change. People in 2026 will be suffering, so they'll probably vote for change...people in 2028....
  - no_wizard 1y ago
    They were sane. As in, were not insane. As in, they wouldn't have deliberately wrecked the economy and not guaranteed economic uncertainty. Whether they were applicable to the day to day realities of many Americans is beside the point I'm making. It of course matters and goes a long way to explain how the Democrats lost the election in 2024, however, the policies weren't going to intentionally lead the US economy into a recession and promote economic uncertainty, shatter trust with our historic allies etc.
motorest 1y ago
> (...) in 2024 a continuation of Biden's term, represented by a poor politician hand-picked by the party and Trump, the one-term loser. Pause. Even though I'm not a US citizen, it is very hard to try to spin Biden's term as anything other than one of US's best governments in decades. Comparing Biden's term to any of Trump's terms, specially the utter pyrrhic trainwreck that is the current term, and proclaim they are comparable is simply something not rooted in reality. Try to be serious.
- cool_dude85 1y ago
  Again, I ask whether you think Harris or Biden produced objectively good results, or fixed any of the problems identified in the article. I agree that both are better choices than Trump, but my exact point is that I can't cast a vote that is actually in my best interests. Concretely, I lost real pay under Biden; at the same time, buying a house where I live probably is half again as expensive as it had been. Even my most narrow economic interest is that both these problems get fixed. Do you think Harris would have done that?
  - motorest 1y ago
    > Again, I ask whether you think Harris or Biden produced objectively good results, or fixed any of the problems identified in the article. I beg you to pause, take a deep breath, look at any of Trump's terms, and compare it with the output of Biden's administration. Do that, and you simply cannot say with a straight face that there was no choice or difference in outcomes. Not even as a joke. If you are honest with yourself and with everyone, you will acknowledge how outlandish that idea is. Let's be serious.
    - cool_dude85 1y ago
      You're repeating yourself. You are arguing that Harris and Biden performed better than Trump would have (and is, now). I agree. I am arguing that Biden was not, and Harris would not have been, acting in my best interests.

bigstrat2003 1y ago

This is why I continually advocate for more federalism in our government (the way we used to have, before the Civil War and the New Deal rebuilt the country around the federal government). The presidential elections encompass so many issues, with so much at stake, that they invariably become messy elections which suck all the oxygen out of the room. What we need instead is to make the presidential office (and Congress too!) as boring and limited as we can get away with, and let those decisions be made as locally as possible. Obviously not all things are practical to solve locally (defense being the classic example), but a lot of things are. For example, there is no need to have the federal government dictating standards for education, let states do that. There's no need to have the federal government dictating what drugs are legal, let states do that. When we limit the power of the federal government, the government as a whole will become more responsible to the will of the people, because your political power won't be filled diluted the way it is now.

cool_dude85 1y ago
My political power would most certainly be more diluted - down to nothing - if we moved to a "state's rights" type system. As it happens, I live in Florida, so my choices for state and local office have been much worse than they have for president. I could absolutely not cast a vote in my interests if more power was at the state level.
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  As hard as it seems to be, moving to a state that's more in line with your values might be a good idea.
  - DerArzt 1y ago
    The problem with moving states is that there's a devil to pay when you loose your support network (family, friends, local coworkers). And the cost of moving isn't realistic for some.
    - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
      I totally understand. Everyone has to weigh the cost for themself. Someone whose family is in danger just has to pay the price and move. Some might judge they can do more good by staying and fighting against the local bad actors.

yifanl 1y ago

It starts with the understanding that there's no such thing as a national politician whose every policy will align with your interests, unless you are the politician in question.

no_wizard 1y ago

How was Harris - who would have at the very least continued the sane economic policies of the Biden administration, a “terrible option” compared to Trump who repeatedly and with much enthusiasm, said he would pursue as much disruption as possible with tariffs, ice raids, and poor foreign trade policies? How are these equivalent to each other? That’s such false statement I don’t know how anyone can give it a pass at this point

cool_dude85 1y ago
You've given the game away. How was Harris a terrible option compared to Trump? She was not. But critically, she was only not a terrible option when compared to Trump! Maybe you might feel that Harris was herself an objectively good option, one who would successfully solve some of the problems brought up in the article. I personally find that very hard to believe.
wpm 1y ago
> the sane economic policies of the Biden administration Because those very same "sane" economic policies didn't actually do much perceivable improvement to the lives of most Americans. TFA even mentioned that Harris probably would've fired Lina Khan because "number must go up". Sure, being able to cancel Netflix with a button is nice but people want fucking healthcare and for there to be a shred of dignity in working an honest living. People in 2020 were suffering, so they voted for change. People in 2024 were suffering, so they voted for change. People in 2026 will be suffering, so they'll probably vote for change...people in 2028....
- no_wizard 1y ago
  They were sane. As in, were not insane. As in, they wouldn't have deliberately wrecked the economy and not guaranteed economic uncertainty. Whether they were applicable to the day to day realities of many Americans is beside the point I'm making. It of course matters and goes a long way to explain how the Democrats lost the election in 2024, however, the policies weren't going to intentionally lead the US economy into a recession and promote economic uncertainty, shatter trust with our historic allies etc.

motorest 1y ago

> (...) in 2024 a continuation of Biden's term, represented by a poor politician hand-picked by the party and Trump, the one-term loser. Pause. Even though I'm not a US citizen, it is very hard to try to spin Biden's term as anything other than one of US's best governments in decades. Comparing Biden's term to any of Trump's terms, specially the utter pyrrhic trainwreck that is the current term, and proclaim they are comparable is simply something not rooted in reality. Try to be serious.

cool_dude85 1y ago
Again, I ask whether you think Harris or Biden produced objectively good results, or fixed any of the problems identified in the article. I agree that both are better choices than Trump, but my exact point is that I can't cast a vote that is actually in my best interests. Concretely, I lost real pay under Biden; at the same time, buying a house where I live probably is half again as expensive as it had been. Even my most narrow economic interest is that both these problems get fixed. Do you think Harris would have done that?
- motorest 1y ago
  > Again, I ask whether you think Harris or Biden produced objectively good results, or fixed any of the problems identified in the article. I beg you to pause, take a deep breath, look at any of Trump's terms, and compare it with the output of Biden's administration. Do that, and you simply cannot say with a straight face that there was no choice or difference in outcomes. Not even as a joke. If you are honest with yourself and with everyone, you will acknowledge how outlandish that idea is. Let's be serious.
  - cool_dude85 1y ago
    You're repeating yourself. You are arguing that Harris and Biden performed better than Trump would have (and is, now). I agree. I am arguing that Biden was not, and Harris would not have been, acting in my best interests.