6 ms·

> Those who know where this will lead are unwilling to speak up and the rest follow. They did speak up. And they lost the popular vote. Democracy is only as

> Those who know where this will lead are unwilling to speak up and the rest follow. They did speak up. And they lost the popular vote. Democracy is only as good as its voters. A country is only as good as its people. Replace good with productive/sane/not corrupt, etc.

OgsyedIE 11mo ago
Not only did they lose the popular vote, they lost it repeatedly. Although it was only a matter of degree at each step, Clinton was more isolationist than Bush and Dole. Bush was more isolationist than Gore and Kerry. Obama was more isolationist than McCain and Romney. Trump was more isolationist than Clinton, Biden was more isolationist than first-term Trump and Trump beat Biden last year partially on the basis of becoming much more isolationist than his first term version, surpassing Biden.
Hendrikto 11mo ago
If you do not get votes, it’s not the voters who failed, it is you. If politicians got that through their heads, and started trying to convince voters on their own merit, instead of simply trash-talking their opponents and telling people they voted “wrong”, they would start to get things done again, and we could actually solve real problems.
- 5upplied_demand 11mo ago
  > started trying to convince voters on their own merit I'm not sure this is true anymore given the splitting of media and news sources. When everyone watched the same 3 news programs it was easier to speak to those people. It is very hard to penetrate the "other sides" messaging platforms. > instead of simply trash-talking their opponents This was the President's entire election platform (twice). > we could actually solve real problems If voters wanted the solve real problems, they would vote for people who present solutions to real problems. Instead, we vote for people who provide easy scapegoats and fake solutions, which ends up making things worse. Trump has the slimmest policy stance of any President ever elected.
  - rayiner 11mo ago
    Trump has a far-reaching policy stance. His thesis is that American success is due to Americans and what is distinctive about them, and our engagement with foreigners on the present terms is not good for America. That has implications for everything from immigration policy, to trade policy, military positions, to how to teach kids in schools. Closing the border, deporting all illegal immigrants, screening legal immigrants, abandoning unfounded foreign policy commitments, using tariffs as a tool of trade policy, shutting down USAID, pushing patriotic education, etc., are all concrete policies consistent with that thesis. If you buy into liberal universalism, sure you don’t agree with the policy. If you think the only difference between an Iowan and a Bangladeshi is the need for sunscreen and external factors outside people’s control—you don’t see how the policy is a good one. But to say that there’s no policy there is absurd.
    - trymas 11mo ago
      > Trump has a far-reaching policy stance. His thesis is that American success is due to Americans and what is distinctive about them, and our engagement with foreigners on the present terms is not good for America. When he says success or about “you gonna be so rich you’re not gonna believe it” - he talks about himself and his billionaire buddies not you. His only policy stance is to surround himself with yes-men and enrich himself through blatant open corruption. Anything is for sale: crimes, pardons, citizenships, you name it - directly contradicting your thesis. Also I truly believe he hates half of Americans because of wrong-think. But he will deal with them after he deals with brown people. > Closing the border, deporting all illegal immigrants Lets deport farmers, construction employers and business owners who “import” such workforce to essentially slave for them. How such employers are not deeply scrutinised by public and politicians - I will never understand. > abandoning unfounded foreign policy commitments Abandon Ukraine, but financing Israel, Argentina, attempt truly unfounded war against Venezuela (reasons change every other day and contradict other policies like pardoning Hernandez on drug trafficking but threatening Maduro with war for same reason in the same week). > using tariffs as a tool of trade policy Sure if it’s deliberate, calculated and strategic. China laughs at your soy bean farmers. Coffee exporters give zero damns about your tarrifs. Canadians laugh at you when you’ll wait 30 years to grow your lumber. And on top of all of it - policy is so chaotic (who said men are not emotional?) - no actual long term commitment from industries will happen. Also more points how his views are contradictory from my previous comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46158110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46158110
- lotsofpulp 11mo ago
  When voters vote for the person who baseless attacked an election (counts as treason in my book), and campaigned on aiding and abetting those who perpetrated treason against the country, it is the voters (and non voters) who failed.
  - spwa4 11mo ago
    Why? If you look at history you will quickly realize that voters vote pretty much like shareholders do. While not excluding every last other factor, democratic voters vote largely in their own short term economic interest. Trump convinced them that was where he was superior and was rewarded with the election. If you like democracy ... then what's wrong with that?
  - Hendrikto 11mo ago
    You fell into the same trap: You only provided an argument for WHY NOT to vote for Trump. Instead, provide an argument for why to vote for somebody else.
    - lotsofpulp 11mo ago
      In a first past the post election system, those are logically equivalent. Claiming that the two choices are equally bad is the “trap”, when actions clearly indicate one is worse for democracy, and societal trust in general.
- close04 11mo ago
  > started trying to convince voters on their own merit A selfish voter will throw the world under the bus if it means they win something. An uneducated voter won't understand the full implications of their vote. A hateful voter will go down with the ship if this takes their enemies down too. What "merit"? Look around, look at the last US presidential elections, those politicians were elected "on their own merit". Hate, bigotry, populism, treason, corruption. That "merit".
- mcphage 11mo ago
  > started trying to convince voters on their own merit, instead of simply trash-talking their opponents That’s hard to claim to make right after a Trump victory—trashing their opponents has been the Republicans playbook my entire life, and it’s currently working quite well for them.
  - IAmBroom 11mo ago
    Yes, the Democratic Party was the one who "took the high road", and lost. This line of reasoning is cute, but fact-free.
- jswelker 11mo ago
  I think it is fair to say everyone has failed on every level and every side to some extent. This is classic tragedy of the commons, where the commons is the seemingly unlimited power and wealth of America that everyone wanted to cash in on and externalize the costs.
tmountain 11mo ago
Propaganda is a hell of a drug. Many people's views are shaped by algorithms and established without any grounding in actual facts. The last election was largely decided based on affordability with a healthy dose of nostalgia for an economy that no longer exists. The democrats made a huge mistake running Harris without a real primary. Biden should have stepped down long before the election, yadda yadda yadda.
- lotsofpulp 11mo ago
  > Many people's views are shaped by algorithms and established without any grounding in actual facts The facts are there, easily accessible for people to read or see. That they choose to ignore them is evidence of the problem with democracy. Whatever mistakes were made by the party that lost, their candidate was not the one with a (comparatively) long track record of fraud, treason, and overall lack of decorum.
stfp 11mo ago
I don’t know if that’s meaningfully true. When a candidate lies and the information distribution industries are by and large just repeating the lies, on top of decades of voter suppression measures, can we say that the popular vote really represents what people want? I don’t think so. So yeah one candidate will win by a razor-thin margin but I don’t think that actually gives legitimacy to what is happening.

OgsyedIE 11mo ago

Not only did they lose the popular vote, they lost it repeatedly. Although it was only a matter of degree at each step, Clinton was more isolationist than Bush and Dole. Bush was more isolationist than Gore and Kerry. Obama was more isolationist than McCain and Romney. Trump was more isolationist than Clinton, Biden was more isolationist than first-term Trump and Trump beat Biden last year partially on the basis of becoming much more isolationist than his first term version, surpassing Biden.

Hendrikto 11mo ago

If you do not get votes, it’s not the voters who failed, it is you. If politicians got that through their heads, and started trying to convince voters on their own merit, instead of simply trash-talking their opponents and telling people they voted “wrong”, they would start to get things done again, and we could actually solve real problems.

5upplied_demand 11mo ago
> started trying to convince voters on their own merit I'm not sure this is true anymore given the splitting of media and news sources. When everyone watched the same 3 news programs it was easier to speak to those people. It is very hard to penetrate the "other sides" messaging platforms. > instead of simply trash-talking their opponents This was the President's entire election platform (twice). > we could actually solve real problems If voters wanted the solve real problems, they would vote for people who present solutions to real problems. Instead, we vote for people who provide easy scapegoats and fake solutions, which ends up making things worse. Trump has the slimmest policy stance of any President ever elected.
- rayiner 11mo ago
  Trump has a far-reaching policy stance. His thesis is that American success is due to Americans and what is distinctive about them, and our engagement with foreigners on the present terms is not good for America. That has implications for everything from immigration policy, to trade policy, military positions, to how to teach kids in schools. Closing the border, deporting all illegal immigrants, screening legal immigrants, abandoning unfounded foreign policy commitments, using tariffs as a tool of trade policy, shutting down USAID, pushing patriotic education, etc., are all concrete policies consistent with that thesis. If you buy into liberal universalism, sure you don’t agree with the policy. If you think the only difference between an Iowan and a Bangladeshi is the need for sunscreen and external factors outside people’s control—you don’t see how the policy is a good one. But to say that there’s no policy there is absurd.
  - trymas 11mo ago
    > Trump has a far-reaching policy stance. His thesis is that American success is due to Americans and what is distinctive about them, and our engagement with foreigners on the present terms is not good for America. When he says success or about “you gonna be so rich you’re not gonna believe it” - he talks about himself and his billionaire buddies not you. His only policy stance is to surround himself with yes-men and enrich himself through blatant open corruption. Anything is for sale: crimes, pardons, citizenships, you name it - directly contradicting your thesis. Also I truly believe he hates half of Americans because of wrong-think. But he will deal with them after he deals with brown people. > Closing the border, deporting all illegal immigrants Lets deport farmers, construction employers and business owners who “import” such workforce to essentially slave for them. How such employers are not deeply scrutinised by public and politicians - I will never understand. > abandoning unfounded foreign policy commitments Abandon Ukraine, but financing Israel, Argentina, attempt truly unfounded war against Venezuela (reasons change every other day and contradict other policies like pardoning Hernandez on drug trafficking but threatening Maduro with war for same reason in the same week). > using tariffs as a tool of trade policy Sure if it’s deliberate, calculated and strategic. China laughs at your soy bean farmers. Coffee exporters give zero damns about your tarrifs. Canadians laugh at you when you’ll wait 30 years to grow your lumber. And on top of all of it - policy is so chaotic (who said men are not emotional?) - no actual long term commitment from industries will happen. Also more points how his views are contradictory from my previous comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46158110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46158110
lotsofpulp 11mo ago
When voters vote for the person who baseless attacked an election (counts as treason in my book), and campaigned on aiding and abetting those who perpetrated treason against the country, it is the voters (and non voters) who failed.
- spwa4 11mo ago
  Why? If you look at history you will quickly realize that voters vote pretty much like shareholders do. While not excluding every last other factor, democratic voters vote largely in their own short term economic interest. Trump convinced them that was where he was superior and was rewarded with the election. If you like democracy ... then what's wrong with that?
- Hendrikto 11mo ago
  You fell into the same trap: You only provided an argument for WHY NOT to vote for Trump. Instead, provide an argument for why to vote for somebody else.
  - lotsofpulp 11mo ago
    In a first past the post election system, those are logically equivalent. Claiming that the two choices are equally bad is the “trap”, when actions clearly indicate one is worse for democracy, and societal trust in general.
close04 11mo ago
> started trying to convince voters on their own merit A selfish voter will throw the world under the bus if it means they win something. An uneducated voter won't understand the full implications of their vote. A hateful voter will go down with the ship if this takes their enemies down too. What "merit"? Look around, look at the last US presidential elections, those politicians were elected "on their own merit". Hate, bigotry, populism, treason, corruption. That "merit".
mcphage 11mo ago
> started trying to convince voters on their own merit, instead of simply trash-talking their opponents That’s hard to claim to make right after a Trump victory—trashing their opponents has been the Republicans playbook my entire life, and it’s currently working quite well for them.
- IAmBroom 11mo ago
  Yes, the Democratic Party was the one who "took the high road", and lost. This line of reasoning is cute, but fact-free.
jswelker 11mo ago
I think it is fair to say everyone has failed on every level and every side to some extent. This is classic tragedy of the commons, where the commons is the seemingly unlimited power and wealth of America that everyone wanted to cash in on and externalize the costs.

tmountain 11mo ago

Propaganda is a hell of a drug. Many people's views are shaped by algorithms and established without any grounding in actual facts. The last election was largely decided based on affordability with a healthy dose of nostalgia for an economy that no longer exists. The democrats made a huge mistake running Harris without a real primary. Biden should have stepped down long before the election, yadda yadda yadda.

lotsofpulp 11mo ago
> Many people's views are shaped by algorithms and established without any grounding in actual facts The facts are there, easily accessible for people to read or see. That they choose to ignore them is evidence of the problem with democracy. Whatever mistakes were made by the party that lost, their candidate was not the one with a (comparatively) long track record of fraud, treason, and overall lack of decorum.

stfp 11mo ago

I don’t know if that’s meaningfully true. When a candidate lies and the information distribution industries are by and large just repeating the lies, on top of decades of voter suppression measures, can we say that the popular vote really represents what people want? I don’t think so. So yeah one candidate will win by a razor-thin margin but I don’t think that actually gives legitimacy to what is happening.