5 ms·

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

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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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
  - 5upplied_demand 10mo ago
    > His thesis is that American success is due to Americans and what is distinctive about them Can you please link to when and where he said this? Because it raises a question of when someone becomes "American." Trump's grandfather was born in Germany, so when did the Trumps become American? > all concrete policies consistent with that thesis Those were concrete policies from Project 2025, which Trump directly said was not related to his campaign or administration. We know he was clearly and directly lying, but with someone so willing to lie about everything, I'm not sure how you can prescribe some type of unifying thesis about his policy stances or actions. It feels like you are trying to paste your ideas onto his actions.
lotsofpulp 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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.

5upplied_demand 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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
- 5upplied_demand 10mo ago
  > His thesis is that American success is due to Americans and what is distinctive about them Can you please link to when and where he said this? Because it raises a question of when someone becomes "American." Trump's grandfather was born in Germany, so when did the Trumps become American? > all concrete policies consistent with that thesis Those were concrete policies from Project 2025, which Trump directly said was not related to his campaign or administration. We know he was clearly and directly lying, but with someone so willing to lie about everything, I'm not sure how you can prescribe some type of unifying thesis about his policy stances or actions. It feels like you are trying to paste your ideas onto his actions.

lotsofpulp 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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.