Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | fracus's comments login

This is going to be the "snake ate my face" situation real fast. Republicans push class divide so to keep their voter base uneducated and poor. Seems like they've reached the critical mass necessary. I don't understand any other way they vote someone in who has demonstrated time and again he'll work against their own interests. I understand short sighted single issue greed for the mighty dollar but it is a nonsensical vote for anyone else.

Are you interested in talking to people to understand, or do you prefer to just pontificate as to why people would engage in "nonsensical" behavior?

This is the part that blows my mind consistently. The number of people screaming “WHY would ANYONE vote for him?!” and then not even considering trying to find out is a true bummer.

Not trying? It was all the media did for like 2017 through 2018. “Venture safari-style among the rural or flyover-state-suburban white“ was practically its own genre, and it was everywhere. You couldn’t turn on NPR without hearing a devout rural white Christian relate how they prayed on it then held their nose and voted for the unrepentant sinner because of abortion. It’s why Vance’s weird, insulting book was embraced by the Left(!) as “real talk” from an actual member of the group they were trying to understand.

> voted for the unrepentant sinner

Kind of a silly point you're making, considering that Kamala's views and most Christian denominations are completely irreconcilable. Not that she has ever repented for anything - or even admitted to any mistakes of any kind.


This is the kind of thing the people they interviewed were saying.

[edit] I mean it was my shorthand for “I know he’s a serial adulterer, and his business dealings are shady, and he says some really awful things… but I prayed on it and…” which is closer to a direct quote of things I heard multiple times. Other demographics had other reasons but that was a common one from the pro-life set.


To be fair, most Christian denominations establish inflexibility at the outset by claiming to be a worldview that is "true", "unerring", or similar attribute, despite lacking any epistemological introspection -- meaning of the 5,000 or so different denominations in the world, at least 4,999 are sorely disappointed that not only do they not reconcile to each other, they also don't reconcile to reality.

Whereas a person can review an idea, try it on like a coat, see how it fits, and then keep or discard if it's found amenable and improving to their views of the world.

Vice President Harris' opponent also professes and acts on a worldview wildly deviant from most, if not all, Christian denominations.


Well, objectively, only one religion can be true if any religion is true, just as the existence of gravity is irreconcilable with the existence of no gravity; but go on. We haven't grown up as a nation and collectively decided which one it is yet, but I have preferences. Not that preferences even matter - if I'm falling off a building, my preference for there to be no gravity won't make a difference.

At most one. Kinda. Does depend on the beliefs, which are by convention basically unrestricted. Also how we’re defining “true” could easily admit partial truth for a whole bunch that might be incompatible if any were entirely true.

Oh, a big whopping plurality hits the "Nones" just fine. As it is not a religion, it avoids the plaguing morass of inchoate morality claims justifying a grift altogether.

> plaguing morass of inchoate morality claims justifying a grift altogether

And claims like this are why you lost this election, will never win elections, or win anyone over to your side.


> And claims like this are why you lost this election, will never win elections, or win anyone over to your side.

Interesting!

1. I didn't run for an office

2. I am a political independent

3. I am not a political party in a first-past-the-post-system defined by the reverberations of the 3/5th compromise.

I'm genuinely curious why you paint more than half the nation (though not half the presidential 2024 voters) with a broad brush of negative antithesis regarding a relatively different claim ("Nones" exercise morality individually, rather than externalizing their moral decision making to an inchoate morass of morality-derived alleged religious authorities).


> I'm genuinely curious why you paint more than half the nation (though not half the 2024 voters) with a broad brush of negative antithesis.

Simple. The only lesson people who despise Trump have learned, and are learning, is that they didn't call Trump supporters every brand of -ists enough. Huge surprise, this generates broad negative anthesis and it's well deserved, as well as completely backfiring. The name calling is useless now.

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1854242284952519158


Oh, I think I get your point, you want people to simply ignore folks that gleefully transgress social norms and exercise sexism, racism, and other bigotries against people who, by your definition, are mentally ill and thus a worthy target of mockery and conduct unbecoming christianity's moral standards, or by most normal people, are guilty of being women, of being men, of being gay, of being lesbian, of being queer, of being trans, of being of light pigment, of being educated, of being uneducated, of being homeless, of actually being mentally ill, of being disabled, of being children, of being elderly, of being generally unwanted by a heaving horde of hate.

Do you believe the same for people who violate religious taboos?

Regardless of the answer, we're far afield of the original discussion, and I'll not pursue this thread further.

Though, I do empathize -- it must be highly embarrassing to have racism, sexism, and other bigotries noted as being offensive to people in public. Triumphalism, often a result of religious fervor, masks that in an echo chamber, so social media can be jarring for folks in such a situation.

---

PS

>> If that's not sexist, I don't know what is.

This fact is quite apparent that you don't know what sexism, and somehow think it applies in a situation where a trans fem wants to be in a situation more protective than forcing a locker room share with her sexual assignment at birth. What your assumed resolution, coached carefully by pollsters no doubt before being coached through formal and informal propaganda channels, actually is is transgressive and probably unnecessary. Though to redefine sexism as "not respecting of gender norms my religion requires me to prefer" is quite a stretch


I believe my religion, and the religions of other people, is more deserving of protection than your self-proclaimed ability to transgress social norms; and voted accordingly.

> Though, I do empathize -- it must be highly embarrassing to have racism, sexism, and other bigotries noted as being offensive to people.

Reminder that Kamala Harris believes 15 year old young men who suddenly identify as female, have the right to compete with similar-aged young women and be in their locker rooms to see them naked. If that's not sexist, I don't know what is.

> Triumphalism, often a result of religious fervor, masks that in an echo chamber, so social media can be jarring for folks in such a situation.

So many platitudes, so many assertions, so many nuggets of delusion, so little reason to believe them as true.

> Though to redefine sexism as "not respecting of gender norms my religion requires me to prefer" is quite a stretch

Dude, even Richard Dawkins said this was insanity ("I object to the statement that a trans woman is a woman. This is a distortion of language and science.")

I look forward to the day it returns to that categorization. I am merely agreeing with one of the most prominent atheists in the world on this subject.

> transgressive and probably unnecessary

More dishonest name calling, and what a retarded perspective to assume I must be an idiot, or I would agree with you. We've had that for 8 years, and we don't give a darn, because you don't give a darn understanding our perspective either. Sticks and stones. I also will stick to the term "sexist," because to accept this view is to degrade women to the level of being completely interchangeable with men.


I object to the statement that a Black woman is a woman. This is a distortion of language and science.

Apologies, Dang. I wasn’t trying to spawn an instance of the Internet’s Oldest Flamewar by choosing as my example of Trump voter interviews in the late twenty-teens a paraphrase of the ones I remembered best, which happened to be the statements of pro-life evangelicals.

We know why. They are ignorant, don't care, or duped. There is no reason to vote for a person morally bankrupt and doesn't have any reasonable solutions to problems. A person with felonies can't even be on a Jury in this country, and people elected him President after his attempt to overthrow the government? I would struggle to hire him to mow my grass let alone run the country. This whole "You need to talk to us" is ridiculous as the positions.

I'll give it a shot, just maybe to help one person understand.

They voted for him because 15+ years of government + federal reserve policy has led to massive bubbles in all US capital assets while impoverishing a wide swath of the population. The people who voted for Trump are those who've "lost" in the giant crypto+stock Ponzi scheme.

The reason people on the winning side of this have such a hard time seeing it is that, en masse, they've turned away from any semblance of traditional valuation measures for capital assets. I assume they've done this because it's too emotionally uncomfortable to consider the notion that their entire wealth isn't because they're geniuses but because of deranged government policy.


And somehow Trump is going to reign this in? Him? How? Did you see both crypto markets and stock "ponzi" scheme reaction to his election? If this is their reasoning, it is flawed, to avoid using terms that are much less charitable. It feels that this kind of justification is trying to fit a narrative to the deed that makes no sense, somehow justify it.

I personally think it's a culture war thing that caused this. And it is probably going to get worse.


Of course he won't. But, see, no one will. Both parties are equally culpable here. People are just doing protest votes at this point. What are they even supposed to do? No one can even buy a house. The only actual solution is to put interest rates up to 8% and trigger a revaluation and a recession, but the odds of that are zero, no matter who is president.

Isn't Trump the pro-"crypto Ponzi scheme" (as you called it) candidate? Asset prices of both crypto and stocks seem to think so.

Yep. It's ironic and shitty, but people just did a protest vote. They aren't looking at the specific proposals. They don't care anymore. You're absolutely right, but honestly both parties are completely in on the Ponzi scheme. So it probably doesn't matter.

Not only pro but going to put your tax dollars in:

>US Senator Lummis reaffirms Bitcoin will be become a national reserve asset following Trump's victory


Read my other comments. It's a protest vote. They don't care what his actual policies are. No one is willing to pop the economic bubble, so voters are just going to burn the whole thing down.

I'd bet a dollar this is 100% incorrect, and that cryptobros voted overwhelming for Trump/Vance/Thiel/Musk.

It's probably split. But it doesn't matter. The important question is who the people who have lost in the lottery voted for, not who the winners voted for.

> They are ignorant, don't care, or duped.

That's what a lot of Trump voters believe about people who don't like him. He used to generally have good public opinion (prior to his ascendance in 2015). A lot of people believe that his bad press is primarily due to intentional smear campaigns and lawfare by the powers that be.

In that sense, for many people, a vote for Trump is like apes in /r/stonks buying and holding GME. It's less about what they want in a positive sense, and more about what they don't want: namely extreme leftism and the current ruling class in Washington, the media, billionaires, and everyone else who attended the WEF in Davos -- all the folks who care nothing for the average Joe.

He may not fix it, they may not even expect him to be able to, but voting for him is a way to have a voice. At least he really upsets all those powerful people! And he did get some stuff conservatives liked done in his first term.


They didn't want the rich guy, so they voted the rich guy in? I think you need to work on your argument.

It's not the riches per se that they take issue with. In fact, they admire and celebrate rich people who got there by hard work, luck, and good business (just like apes in /r/stonks celebrate how rich DFV got on GME options). What they take issue with is how certain powerful people use their riches and power in ways that benefit only themselves and hurt everyone else (who isn't rich) -- particularly the power establishment in Washington, New York, and Silicon Valley.

To give one specific example, private equity firms have been buying out small local businesses on a massive scale (like veterinary clinics), jacking up the prices, paying the workers less, and giving customers a worse experience.

That's not the sort of thing they perceive Trump to be doing with his riches and power. In fact, I don't see any way Trump is messing with the macroeconomy in his own business practices (do you know of any?).


Trump has a reputation for not paying his debts [1], and for stiffing the little people that have worked for him [2]

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/aa383026-ac12-4d39-b6ee-075c2a248...

[2] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dozens-of-lawsuits-accuse-t...


That's not the macroeconomy.

That's not like Bill Gates buying up 275000 acres of farmland. That's not like World Economic Forum people in Davos scheming to eliminate ownership from common people across the world.

There's such a wide gulf between Trump and these sorts of people.

Besides, the examples you gave would come across as something a legacy media smear campaign dug up and misrepresented.


I think it points to a real lack of humility. Why would you try to find out how your thinking might be flawed if you start with the assumption that everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot?

And I say this as someone who did this exact thing in 2016.


I did, partly out of curiosity, partly because I'm in a progressive town literally surrounded for a hundred miles by a sea of red.

They like Trump because he appears anti-establishment and they fear/dislike the establishment. They don't feel the establishment in place is good for them. They truly, truly struggle with finances. Many are in the military and on food stamps. Some are farmers who can't make farming work anymore. They fear immigrants because they might take jobs or bring crime (and drugs). They fear they cannot protect themselves so the want access to guns.

One common thread was the stimulus checks. They really liked the stimulus checks.

Another thing is pining for the good ol' days. Lot of that, too. No issues like pronouns muddying things up.

Generally, not racist, not sexist, but some are, just like any rando person.

Seemed to me just like regular folk who are scared and can't make ends meet like they used to, well, a long time ago. The grocery store prices that are annoying to me are truly a decision point for them.

Then when you take three steps back, and look at it objectively, it's often of their own doing. A lot, I mean a lot, of disparagement of education, even of K-12, so the means to get better employment is more of a struggle. A whole lot of drug and alcohol abuse on top of it. They are the only people I know who smoke. Lot of broken relationships and marriages. Family chaos. The image of solid salt of the earth isn't what my Trumper acquaintances (friends?) are experiencing. They are pretty desperate and really wish there was some way to get back on top of things.

So, in desperation they vote for a person that promises to make it better. And really they don't care about much else. If you want to win elections, do the chicken in every pot line.

This is all anecdotal of course, but I went to the effort, this was seven people, all of whom I'm on good terms with and converse with on a regular basis. And they were respectful of my position - that you need both conservatives (to keep what's good of the old ways) and progressives (to find new ways that are better) in the political arena to make it work. That's not a popular position, though.


This feels close enough to my experience that I believe you actually do speak genuinely with these people.

I think a huge part of it is also that they feel seen by someone, finally. Trump did a great job of making these people feel like the spotlight was finally on them, and honestly it’s true.


They’re literally trying to find out when they exclaim that question.

To me this seems a pretty clear case of inflation=“punish the incumbent” and also Biden spread out the pain of covid recovery instead of making red states bear the burden. Kamala promised more of the same, including lots of investment into rural and red areas that aren’t gonna vote for her anyway. Result? 10-15 million blue voters stayed home this cycle. Trump turned out his entire base.

Just pontificating…


> They’re literally trying to find out when they exclaim that question.

I've seen these conversations happen thousands of times in political communities online, before you know it, the person trying to understand starts getting angry at some point, and both people are calling each other names. Very few people truly want to understand the other side. If you want to understand the other side, the first step is to listen, and not say anything (don't try to defend your viewpoint, this isn't part of your goal, and it will derail it), ask questions, and agree to disagree politely.


Because those discussions go like this:

(to a C programmer) "Why are you using C?"

"Because it's memory-safe."

"But it's not memory-safe."

"Yes it is. Your program will just segfault rather than getting hacked."

"No it won't... see these examples of C programs getting hacked without segfaulting."

"You're using it wrong. See look, if you write with spaces instead of tabs, your program is memory-safe."

Do you remember "MongoDB is web scale"? Would you not get angry when trying to find good reasons to use MongoDB? That's what it's like talking to the average Trump supporter, except it's about the removal of human rights instead of just which database you should use.


Many of us have, and that's how we know their stated reasons are just nonsense. There's a video of the creator interviewing a Trumper about how tariffs work....

You think you're going to get a solid answer interviewing some random person on the street? That's what an intelligent person would call a strawman. Do you want me to point you to the video of well-educated coastal elites calling the assassination attempt a Hoax?

There are of course more than one reason why people voted for him, but there's literally tons of comments in this very thread explaining why with no nonsense and under no uncertain terms.

Ironically, a lot of those comments get flagged and are no longer visible.


No, I think there needs to be a culture of talking to and respecting people with different opinions.

And before you jump to the extreme of “but they don’t want me to EXIST!”, that’s not the point. The point is that we temper each other, partially by negotiating, and partially by simply making the “other side” more used to our ideas.

That just happens with repeated exposure. If something is scary, but generally not bad, people can get used to it, but only if they’re exposed to it regularly. You get used to public speaking after the ten thousandth time instead, because you’ve likely already confronted every fear you had in real life by now.

Ironically, this is extremely easy to fix. Politicians can simply get along in public. We’ve got studies showing that political extremism can die almost overnight when the opposing politicians simply explain that they do respect their opponent.

As for the people here explaining themselves clearly - that’s because dang has done a good job of fostering a community of high quality commenters. You won’t find this kind of discourse anywhere else, and it’s the main reason I treasure this site.


> No, I think there needs to be a culture of talking to and respecting people with different opinions.

Absolutely.

> As for the people here explaining themselves clearly - that’s because dang has done a good job of fostering a community of high quality commenters.

Hard disagree. The level of political discussion on HN is barely a step above r/politics. This is a forum for 110 IQ codecels who think minor domain expertise means they are smarter than everyone else in all aspects.

The contempt for ordinary people in this very thread is nauseating.


holy fuck this was the most based fucking thing i have read in a long time

> You think you're going to get a solid answer interviewing some random person on the street?

Yes. We educate the population for good reason. People _should_ understand that a tariff is a tax imposed on consumers, and if done with reasonable intent it is to prop up a key industry despite the distortionary effects with a particular goal in mind, such as national security, improvement of the populace, etc.

"Bringing back manufacturing" is not a coherent goal, it just sounds like one, because as soon as the tariffs are removed the US is back to offshoring again OR the purchasing power of the dollar is so low that it doesn't matter.

"Establishing manufacturing in key industries" is a completely reasonable goal -- which Biden did (solar, among others).

So once again, the Trump policy set is not actually good policy.


I am eternally grateful that my MIL is an unironic trumper from an unbelievably small town in the Midwest, specifically so that I don’t need to listen to a “creator”. It’s an eye-opening experience to hear what their true, heartfelt concerns are.

If nothing else, surely we can empathize with being frustrated for ages and finally feeling seen.


Well, what are their concerns and how does voting for a serial con man solve them?

Do they know Trump doesn't see them either - that he just wants their vote and their tax money?


Well, what are their concerns and how does voting for a serial con man solve them?

Do they know Trump doesn't see them either - that he just wants their vote and their tax money!


Why do people vote for him? America is a closet racist country and the education system obviously doesn't produce critical thinkers. The south is poor and Trump will make them money again some how - they believe that. Trump will make grocery prices' go down and create many magnificent jobs. Trump will make interest rates go down and loans cheaper. He will deport all the Mexicans so the black or white people can fill the jobs.Trump is a populist con man who conned his base. No public company or start up will ever hire a CEO like him. I call this political entropy. This is the decline in America in my view. It's a sad day and I will just stick my head in the sand and hope we make it through.

Yup all my comments offering to explain and explaining have been flagged. Even ones with no sarcasm. Just because waiting for someone to doxx me again and dang to do nothing.

HN just flags all comments that seem to support Trump in any way, even with good arguments. So no idea why comments are even open anymore when some points of view are obviously not allowed here yet 52% of the country seem to supported them to a degree. Obviously HN users just want their own groupthink eco chamber without wanting to hear other opinions. So in that regard I'm enjoying watching lib woketards having a mental breakdown for the second time since 2016. Stay ignorant, stay foolish.

Hell, I'm not even from America and I saw it comming from a mile away. Calling half of their country "nazis" and "fascist" was the worst campaign move I have ever seen in my life.


The user base here seems to be just as close-minded and condescending as it is on Reddit.

Very disappointing to be honest.


Ideally the new economic policies will break the stranglehold of Silicon Valley. Already with the arrival of Musk, oracle, etc in Texas, there's a balance beginning to shift.

Yeah, I've been threatened and doxxed on this forum... no action. So brave. Stunning.

Disclaimer: left wing European voter.

It's clear from the message what the grandparent post opinion is, there's no need for understanding the right, the conclusion is there already and it's that the right wing voters are:

> uneducated and poor

This narrative about the right voters has been there since at least the nineties, only for the left to wonder why dialogue dried up.

Then the left drops the ball on big ticket issues, and people move more and more to the right, while fringe right positions become normalized.

Oh well, if it weren't for those pesky uneducated voters!


The reason it doesn't make sense to people like him (and me) is that we look at all the times he promised to release the health care plan, the January 6 incident, the calls to states to "find" votes, the constant complaining about rigged elections, the constant complaining about basically EVERYTHING he doesn't like, and more, and we don't see how anyone can overlook that. He never answers policy questions clearly. He doesn't understand tarriffs will raise our prices. He thinks RFK should be in charge of HHS. He wants to shut down TV networks that criticize him.

When I ask folks why those things don't matter, I either get "what about So-and-so," or "I don't believe that," or they just blow off the question without an answer. I even went to the Ask a Conservative sub on Reddit and asked why people think millions of noncitizens are voting in elections, and I got yelled at, called naive, and told that some local municipalities allow non-citizen votes in local elections so therefore they can vote federally too.

That said, I'd LOVE to know why none of the things Trump says or does dissuades his voters. Truly, because I really do not understand. I don't want to argue, or to try to convince you you're wrong, I would love to know why those things don't matter and you think Trump is a force for good.


> we look at all the times he promised to release the health care plan, the January 6 incident, the calls to states to "find" votes, the constant complaining about rigged elections, the constant complaining about basically EVERYTHING he doesn't like, and more

Have you considered the possibility his supporters know something you don't? A lot of what you mentioned is either debunked or is fraught with misinformation


Yes, I HAVE considered that, it's why I keep ASKING Trump fans. I even stated in my comment that I never get real responses. I get responses like yours, which is "you're wrong, it's been debunked" but I'm never let in on the debunking evidence.

I'm dead serious and 100% sincere: Please show me the evidence. I REALLY want to see it. I don't believe people, I believe data. I don't even believe MYSELF without data.

I live in Georgia, I heard the tape with Trump and Raffensperger, but if you have evidence that call is somehow not true, please share it.

I heard Trump say he has "a concept of a plan" on Healthcare 8 years after he told me he already had a plan. If he's got an ACA replacement, I'd love to see it. I don't understand why it has to be repealed before it can be replaced, usually we just pass new laws that supersede the old one, but whatever, I'll look at whatever you have.

I don't think you can provide evidence that he doesn't complain about everything he doesn't like, every rally comes with a list of grievances. But again, if you have evidence, I'll look at it with an open mind.

And even if you don't have evidence for those things, show me what evidence you DO have, I'll be happy to examine it. I even looked at the stuff Mike Lindell released. I'll always look at evidence, but I just can't do the whole "do your own research" thing any more.


> A lot of what you mentioned is either debunked or is fraught with misinformation

Why do you believe this?


What a great skipping-record case-in-point. I almost think this is satire.

> Have you considered the possibility his supporters know something you don't?

They literally considered that, it's a main point of the post you're replying to, they got answers that lacked actual details or hinged on hyperbole.

> A lot of what you mentioned is either debunked or is fraught with misinformation

See what I mean? "A lot" meaning what number of things? Either debunked or is fraught with misinformation? What does that even mean? Which things? Jan 6 is "debunked" or "fraught with misinformation" or both? Trump didn't release his health care plan, Trump called GA to find votes, Trump constantly complained about rigged elections. Those are sincere and unarguable facts. What are you speaking about in rebuttal?


> They literally considered that, it's a main point of the post you're replying to, they got answers that lacked actual details or hinged on hyperbole.

I appreciate that someone actually read my post. I'm not happy to say that's the usual reply I get from Trumpers, just an angry "you're wrong" and no discussion. I'm out of ideas on how to get them to engage in a conversation. I hate arguing. I really, really just want to understand their point of view but I just get yelled at.

And I'm NOT trying to denigrate anyone with that statement, it just feels like there's so much anger between Americans that it's hard to get someone to believe I'm sincere when I don't agree with them. It seems to immediately cause them to shut down and go into anger mode rather than just explaining to me why they feel I'm wrong.

He's got them convinced that people who disagree can't be trusted, and it fucking *hurts*.


explain how him saying for over two years that he would have a healthcare plan in some number of weeks (changed several times) is debunked or misinformation. Because we all watched it.

His supporters realize he is a blowhard and adjust accordingly. Shut down a TV network? Lock her up? It's BS. I don't like it much, but for him it's a rhetorical device.

By contrast when Biden calls me garbage, I'm pretty sure he means it.


First, Harris isn't Biden. Second, when Trump calls immigrants criminals, I'm pretty sure he means it. How many generations do you have to look back before you find an immigrant among someone you call friend or family? We are a nation of immigrants, a country less than 300 years old. And who does he mean when says immigrants? It never seems to be that nice German couple down the road who _look_ like the other European folk that happened to immigrate a few generations earlier.

I'll bite on this because I really don't understand it. I can understand why people relate to a lot of the messaging. For example, if you say that government institutions are broken because they're filled with waste and corruption, I think there's some truth to that and I can see the appeal of agreeing with that sentiment. There are many things that all politicians say are broken and they right.

Where it breaks down for me is when you move into the plan for fixing those problems. You can't just reduce the funding of government institutions and assume there's some motive to re-optimize for efficiency. That might work to some degree in the business world where there's a profit motive, but on the public side of things the people that are abusing the system for personal gain aren't going to optimize to provide services more efficiently. They're more likely to optimize for more personal gain as the expectation of failing institutions becomes normalized.

Eventually, I think you end up with government services and institutions that are even less efficient per dollar spent because the solution for trying to improve them doesn't seem to have any plans for accountability. So I think people are voting to effectively de-fund government services and institutions with the misguided promise of reduced tax burden and increased efficiency, but what they're going to get is equal spending, less services, and more people benefiting personally from the shift in policy, especially if services start using more private sector vendors.

For example, some of our education funding in Canada has been cut massively due to the perception of waste, which is true to a point when you look at administrative bloat, but the cuts always impact the front-line people providing services and miss the administrative layer where the waste is occurring. That makes the ratio of waste even higher and people are left wondering why nothing works.

I might be wrong, but I think all you're going to do with a broad mandate to "gut everything" is to create an opportunity for self-interested parties to usurp government funding for personal gain when the goal should be to increase accountability and efficiency.

Loosely related, a massive problem we have in Canada is that front-line workers have been completely eliminated from the decision making process. Everyone I know can look at things done in their workplace and identify mistakes and inefficiencies that are the result of administration that lacks real world experience. For example, they built a prison in the city where I live where they put (sewer) drains inside the cells. Every single prison guard that you'd ask would tell you that's a mistake because the prisoners can plug them and flood the cells. That's the result of arrogant administration thinking they know everything.

My last point is also part of the reason I think people voted for Trump. I wouldn't because I don't think his solutions are going to improve anything, but a lot of people believe the system is broken because they personally see mismanagement on a daily basis and it's done by the people getting paid the most.

So I get why the messaging is appealing, but I don't understand why people think some of the proposed solutions are going to work. Maybe someone can explain to me how having Musk "do what he did at Twitter" to public institutions is going to provide better services to the public.


interested, but I looked all through social media for that. Reddit, Tiktok, Instagram, Youtube, Twitter, Bluesky. Pretty much everything but Facebook.

I really couldn't find much reason. So many Trump supports were just interested in "salt mining" from Harris supporters. The few issues I could find were

- he'll fix inflation/the economy (he absolutely won't)

- he'll mass deport immigrants (not a sympathetic reasoning for me. Also mass deportations are expensive; see the above point)

- Racist remarks about Harris (that's not even worth talking about)

- "This is a response to identity politics" (to put it in the least racist/Sexist/transphobic way).

- Oddly enough, nothing on Gun control. Maybe I didn't look hard enough.

So there's maybe 2 legitimate reaosns (no matter how misguided I feel about them) and a lot of hate. And then dismissals of any worries from opponents. It was honestly tiring how many "but Trump doesn't support Project 2025" I've heard.

The most legitmate dismissals of Harris came from "she wasn't voted in". Which yes, I actually do agree with and did not support at all. But we're well past the point where general elections are "pick the least bad candidate". Some issues about Israel, but I'm not going to pretend that wasn't always a bipartisan issue up top and that both sides in government are walking on eggshells about that issue.

-----

So yeah, my experience trying to find some truth below the ocean of feelings came down to "There's nothing inspiring about trump except that he didn't fuck up like Harris". There's no platform, just chaos and hate.

Maybe there are some smart conservatives offline that have actual legitimate points, but I don't have access to that and I suspect many of their arguments are simply economical (they want tax cuts for them and will vote that way. Selfish, but a very honest and reasonable point in an individualistic society).

I'd love to hear otherwise, but I'm not convinced HN will be much different from the dozen other platforms I checked. It seems to be all "vibes". vibes in weird ways and very dangerous ways.


>Republicans push class divide so to keep their voter base uneducated and poor.

Dems almost exclusively Lord over academia as something so valuable that the people that do jobs that keep the lights on, water running, and the floors steady are tired of hearing how much knowledge they lack. They say this in the same breath as they accuse republicans of keeping the sacred university knowledge from trades workers


That is contrarian to democrats giving more support historically unions and putting laws in place to raise the wealth and social support of lower income citizens. Think of Medicare in 1965, Social Security and the National Labor Relations Act in 1935, and the Low-Income Housing Preservation and Residential Homeownership Act of 1990

The most recent example you're citing is from 34 years ago...

"Historian gives ‘Union Joe’ a higher grade than any president since FDR" https://www.govexec.com/management/2024/05/bidens-labor-repo...

That's one article that seemed a good summary, but there are a half dozen different things that could be cited as ways Biden has supported unions.


I'd disagree, after all a democracy is one vote per person. And it surely looks like they've voted against what you thought was the better choice.

In that sense, you have to have some pretence about why you disagree. You mentioned it was something along the lines of people thinking about a 'mighty dollar', but that seems conflationary.

Saying it's a nonsensical vote in a two party race is a bit off.


I suppose a democracy could elect a leader that promises to destroy it (hypothetically). The voters have no obligation to protect it.

Yes. In Scotland where we have devolution from the UK government, there is a party that wants to dissolve the parliament that campaigns to be elected to that parliament. Just democracy.

Because trans people. And immigrants pouring through the border. And abortion.

In other words: culture wars.


Ten million illegals allowed to enter in 3.5 years, plus God knows how many "asylum" seekers is more than about "cultural".

If you genuinely believe that number, you have fallen for the propaganda. Ten million people did not enter the country in such a short time. DHS estimates the _total_ unauthorized immigrant population at around 11 million as of 2022.

https://ohss.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/2024_0418_o...


Yup. He lied for months about forced operations in schools (seriously?!). And immigration is the lowest it's been since Biden took office after Trump botched the pandemic response and no one wanted to come here.

If Trump follows through on his promises, the US will be in bad shape.


> If Trump follows through on his promises, the US will be in bad shape.

Might be a good learning experience for the Red states.

One huge issue in the US politics is that the Red states are largely insulated from the consequences of their decisions by the Federal budget transfers. Nearly all deep Red states are net receivers of the Federal funds, especially when Medicare/SS are taken into account.

All that culture war nonsense, CHIPS act, and so on do not make any tangible difference for a voter in Alabama. All these amount to peanuts compared with the overall Federal spending.

Trump is poised to seriously change this.


> Might be a good learning experience for the Red states.

There's been plenty of opportunities to learn, facts don't matter apparently.


The most recent opportunity was 20 years ago when the housing market crashed. It did work, Democrats got 60 seats in the Senate.

Nothing since that time has really affected the Red states fiscally.


> Trump is poised to seriously change this.

Couldn't a Trump administration rework the distribution of funds so that states that voted for him got even more money, and states that didn't got none?


Red States are the biggest leaches off the federal government. Out of the top-10 states that take in more subsidies than they pay out in taxes, only 2 are blue states, 8 are red states! The Red States never learn because the social welfare programs from the Democrats coddle them ...

Bold of you to think the red states are capable of learning.

Everyone learns when they're punched in the face. The question is what less will be taught? So far he's been able to tell them everything is someone else's fault, but when he's in the driver's seat, who will he blame? And will they believe him?

Oh, they will. Culture wars only go so far when your wallet is _truly_ affected.

Wasn't that the alleged reason for continued escalations in Germany in the 40s?

Not really.

Hitler got entrenched in power because his economic policies _worked_ in 1930-s. They were broadly Keynesian: state spending to stimulate infrastructure (for the military) and manufacturing (also mostly military). This led to economic growth that people really felt in their wallets: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Economic_development...

And so it resulted in a huge upswing in Nazi support, enabling Hitler to stay in power. People really _loved_ him.

This doesn't work all that well backwards. If peoples' lives keep getting materially worse, it's hard to keep blaming it on "the others".


How do you reconcile "short sighted single issue greed for the mighty dollar" with "poor" and staying that way?

It's much more nuanced than people are giving credit. See my other comment below for a fuller analysis. I have some military Republican-leaning friends. To give credit where credit is due, Trump successfully switched the Republican party away from the being the party of expansionist war. This plus the economy (whether or not you agree with people's interpretation of the economy) swayed a lot of votes.

Ultimately, I think Trump won because a lot of key independent voters cast votes against the Democrats. It's a referendum on the way Democrats have been running campaigns for the past 20 years. See 2016 Democrat Primaries [1] where Hillary Clinton's campaign pulled some shady deals to get Bernie Sanders out of the race. Hopefully, we'll get a legitimate 3rd party one of these days to properly give a referendum on both leading parties. Doubtful, but one still has to dream.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_Party_presiden...


Elections are basically controlled by the media. They publish the news you consume, filtered through their editorial stance. They control the narrative. It’s all headlines, clickbait and eyeballs, only in this century it’s done algorithmically through social media too. You are never getting an unfiltered, unbiased opinion of the state of affairs, you are getting a carefully curated snapshot.

While there is still more nuance to it than that, there is still truth. In the UK, one of Rupert Murdoch’s papers The Sun likes to boast about their political influence on voters. “It’s The Sun what won it.” This is a bare faced statement that The Sun basically decides on their candidate of choice and voters go with that.

So it is when you depend on a so-called free press to give you the facts in nice, bite-sized form.


I honestly feel like the media was covering Harris quite a lot. Her message needed to be more than "he's a fascist" and while some might say, she had a stronger message than that, as an educated person who consumes news from all sides of the spectrum, I didn't see it.

Edit: In fact, some say she lost the election because of her performance directly in front of the news media on TV and whatnot.


Absolutely agree. Until we restore a proper and trusted free press, all political bets are off. Americans are living in isolated bubbles of information with little agreement on actual ground truth.

If this was the case then it seems that Harris would have won the race...the vast majority of the media I saw here in the US was going on and on about how Trump was a grave danger to democracy and in general just a terrible person and candidate. In regards to the media, I think this election shows that a large majority of the population simply does not believe them at all.

You don’t watch Fox News or listen to talk radio… it’s a nonstop drumbeat about how Kamala is a communist who will forcibly trans aborted prison babies. And “migrant crime” is up 10000000% and they’re lazy but also taking the jobs.

you're right I don't...but people that listen to that stuff were probably never going to vote for anyone other than Trump (anymore than listeners to MSNBC were going to stray from Harris). My primary sources are relatively centrist sources like WSJ and Economist as well as a variety of independent podcasts and the NYTimes. With a few exceptions on the podcast front all of these outlets were unabashedly anti-trump.

The media gets too much flack. Harris was more favorably covered in the media than trump was, but he still won.

Depends on what "the media" is. Fox News has been the most watched news channel for 22 years.

Do you argue that Trump was elected because the media supported him more than Harris? Although Fox News and X are fully pro-Trump, of course, my impression is that the majority of media did not support Trump. So, I find that media control thesis hard to believe.

Fox News has been the most watched news channel for 22 years.

Given how often the media would uncritically repeat upside-down nonsense like "Trump supporters say they're concerned with inflation" without any kind of analysis, yes, the overall media did tacitly support Trump.

I've no idea whether this was from the ownership class pulling strings to cut any real objective criticism of ZIRP corporate welfare, democrats uninterested in economics being blind to the fact that inflation actually has concrete causes, or from the writers having their brains steeped in things like racism-everywhere orthodoxy and thinking that referencing those narratives makes for a neutral objective article. But regardless of why, with friends like those...


When trump enables a war in the middle east that's bigger than the dems would have ever allowed, will you take that credit back and say it was a mistake to believe that republicans are no longer a war party?

They're both war parties, but the Democrats are actively courting Dick Cheney and his progeny[1]. We already know what Dick Cheney thinks of war in the Middle East - it's not something we have to wait to find out about.

[1] https://apnews.com/article/cheney-gonzales-harris-endorsemen...


Agreed. Republicans used to be the party of war. Trump substantially changed that as a perception within his voting base. Talk to active American military service men and women or veterans. Their attitude towards blindly trusting the government in new wars has substantially shifted. I don't think Trump actually caused the shift. I think he tapped into this growing sentiment and ramped it up to the point of significantly influencing the Republican voting base.

As for the left and Democrats, the shift is equally noticeable in public perception. But instead of the sentiment being "oorah let's go to war for American glory" it's instead being heavily influenced by emotional appeals. This was most evident in Democrats support of the Russia / Ukraine war on social media. Once the leaders of the Democrat party, including President Biden, saw the overwhelming public support, they implemented policies that ultimately led to the expansion of the war. Refer to Anthony Bilken's visit to Kyiv during early peace talks. And again, I'm not making a claim as to who's right or wrong. Just trying to provide some context on how public perception is being leveraged and manipulated on both sides.


It's not a matter of my personal belief. It's just the public perception. But public perception does play an important role when a government is actively trying to start a new war like when the US invaded Iraq.

You're not meaning the same thing by "pro war" or "anti war".

So long as the war in the middle east or Ukraine does not involve US soldiers on the ground, Trump can finance or equip one of the side - for the average voter in the US, there is no "war".

Maybe the the young men in the US were more concerned about the war in Russia escalating to a conflict that would involve US soldiers on the ground.

We know how Trump will behave with Putin (he will offer half of Ukraine on a plate in exchange for pinky promises.)

We can suspect that Trump will not move a finger when those promises are broken and the Baltics are invaded.

What is still a mystery is how Trump will deal with Iran - here, there is no clear policy that will please both Israël and Russia, so someone will have to give.


Both the Israel and Ukraine wars started under Biden. It's hotly debated how it would have all played out under Trump. An no, I'm not a Trump supporter. But context and public perception is important. And understanding how and what Trump did to radically shift the Republican party is important to future predictions and restoring balance. This is my primary claim as to why Harris lost. Democrats have drifted too far from the truth on the ground with large swaths of Americans. And yes, Republicans have done the same, but not to the same extent which is why they won. I hope the Democratic party can recalibrate and learn from the mistakes for next time.

I'm absolutely certain that if Trump was in the White House the full on invasion of Ukraine would not have been started. Not because he's some exceptional negotiator or because he brought peace, but because he was doing such a great job of undermining US influence that Russia would have been dumb to distract them from it. As soon as that stopped happening, they pulled the trigger on something they have been planning for quite a while. It's probable that now, Russia will try chomping as much as possible from Ukraine in the short term and then just sue for a respite of a couple of years until they deem the opportunity is ripe to finish what they started.

I'm absolutely certain that if Trump was in the White House the full on invasion of Ukraine would not have been started. Not because he's some exceptional negotiator or because he brought peace, but because he was doing such a great job of undermining US influence that Russia would have been dumb to distract them from it.

It's one thing to speculate that this is what would have happened, call it one's "gut feeling" or "character read" or even "reasoned speculation", and leave it go at that.

But to be "absolutely certain" about a pure hypothetical like this (concerning a war that dumb and irrational for Putin to start, in any case) seems, well -- quite strange.

It's also unlikely, given that one of the key drivers for Putin's decision to launch the full-scale invasion was likely (not proven of course, but by any analysis it does seem highly likely) Trump's isolation stance in Afghanistan, and blatant backstabbing of the local Afghan government. This surely emboldened Putin, convincing him that a new era of disdain for interventionism had take hold on the US side -- and that he could most likely go in and have his way with Ukraine, with no significant consequences of any kind.


Both the Israel and Ukraine wars started under Biden

Did Biden "start" the Israel-Hamas war? Or even do anything to conceivably precipitate it?

Since the answer is "no" -- why does this count as a war "started under Biden"?


Yeah the "no new wars" talking point doesn't make sense. Trump's solution for peace is to just give into Russian demands and let them take over every previously soviet-union country. And let's not forget all the drama that came out of Trump moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem which sparked even more tension between the Palestinians and Israel. Also the talks he had with Taliban behind the Afghani Government's back which is why we had to pull out like we did.

The reason is that Trump was giving Russia everything they wanted without the need for a war. Why invade Ukraine for resources when you can just call up Trump and say "make Ukraine give me resources"?

And Israel invades Gaza every year, under every president. It's just that in 2023, someone decided they had the propaganda power to make it seem like a new thing and that it was Biden's fault.


Trump didn't do that, the US becoming the largest oil producer did. If you want names then George Mitchell, Harold Hamm, Bush and Obama. And those last two did a great deal in making war very unpopular across the aisle. Maybe Clinton would have put a few more regulations than Obama, but I'm not sold.

> To give credit where credit is due, Trump successfully switched the Republican party away from the being the party of expansionist war.

That's mainly because Trump is a Russian asset and it's in Putin's best interests to manipulate the US to yield and capitulate to his demands to betray allies. So under the bullshit excuse of being isolationist and pro-peace, you'll see Trump ultimately ensure Ukraine ceases to exist, NATO is dismantled, and war ravages through eastern and western Europe.


I don't think we agree.

Trump likes to win. I have a feeling he wants to "win" over Putin. The man is shallow, it isn't rocket science.


When people feel unhappy with the way things are currently going, they vote for the other guy.

I think it's really that simple in a lot of cases. There are of course many other layers and nuances, but I think trying to dig into the specific policies, rhetoric, and character of each candidate can miss the forest for the trees.

I could be wrong but I don't think 72 million people went out and voted for Trump because they carefully compared both candidates and decided that they preferred Trump on all of the key issues, or because they like or approve of Trump as a person, character, or candidate.

In fact his approval and favorability polling is still below 50%.

People held their nose or stuck their head in the sand on the parts of him they find unfavorable, and pressed the button for "change things" because they don't like how things are currently going, real or perceived.

Just like they did in 2020 when they felt like things weren't going well and voted to switch things up.

People who follow politics a lot more know that "let's try the other guy" comes along with a lot of other baggage and issues and policy, but that's a lot to think about and try to parse through in a world full of people yelling opinions, and I think a lot of people just look past them.


>Republicans push class divide so to keep their voter base uneducated and poor.

And you claim the democrats didn't push class divide by basically deriding and ignoring a huge part of the American population that supports Trump or might vote for him? Note that he made massive gains with latinos and even with the frican American community. That says a lot about who felt which party was ignoring them and pushing its own sort of class divide with rhetoric that didn0t take many of the things these people really give a damn about into account.

Pray tell too, what exactly are the specific interests you think they voted against? And how were the democrats addressing them?

After such a high popular vote in his favor, saying in effect that he won only because those who voted for him are a bunch of ignorant fools is exactly the sort of foolish tendency that made his opponents lose.


Groceries and housing are unaffordable, and any voter who complained about the issue to the incumbent party were ignored, or were outright told their experience with high prices wasn't real (which is called gaslighting). So people went with the alternative, who acknowledged their issue and provided very bad, very stupid solutions, but solutions nonetheless. This is the exact same situation that happened in 2016 on the issue of jobs being sent overseas (remember when out of work coal miners were told to "learn to code"?). Really, this outcome was very easy to predict.

> Groceries and housing are unaffordable, and any voter who complained about the issue to the incumbent party were ignored, or were outright told their experience with high prices wasn't real (which is called gaslighting).

Almost every single Harris ad I saw was about how groceries and housing was too expensive. Two of the 3 pillars of her campaign were about price-gouging on staple goods and increasing access to home purchase. How was the issue not acknowledged?


> I don't understand any other way they vote someone in who has demonstrated time and again he'll work against their own interests.

Isn’t it possible that the educated elite are incorrectly perceiving what is in the interests of the “uneducated and poor”?

Perhaps it’s possible they have a different utility function and set of preferences than the elites perceive?

It’s aways funny when the left who claim to “save democracy” go from 0-60 in a split second toward totalitarianism when they have decided the masses simply aren’t educated enough and don’t know what they need.

As a final point, since this is HN, would you mind sharing some examples of what Trump has done or policies he has that are “against their own interests”?


Here I'll bite:

Didn't fill existing positions for monitoring pandemic diseases arising in China that were put in place by Bush then strengthened by Obama, allowing for a slower response to what would become covid[1].

Huge corporate tax cuts that lead to stock buy backs, which enriched the wealthy while doing little to nothing below (buying stocks back and raising stock value generally does not help the average/low income individual beyond maybe their 401k).[2]

[1]https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/how-whi...

[2] For just the tax information later, there are plenty of articles about stock buybacks at that time if you don't trust the org. https://itep.org/one-legacy-of-the-trump-tax-law-big-tax-bre...


0-60 in a split second toward totalitarianism? Care to give an example of that, or just throwing stuff against the wall?

I'll give a policy example against the average person's interests -- his 20% tarrifs across the board will cause approximately 20% inflation and a trade war that will ruin our export markets just like it did the first time. Trump brags about giving billions to farmers because he had to after his policies decimated their markets.


Agreed on the tariffs. It's a significant concern if all the tariffs get implemented. However, I doubt it will happen due to political opposition from both Republicans and Democrats as well as legal concerns.

The US president has limited authority to unilaterally implement tariffs. He would have to claim national security concerns or retaliation to unfair trade practices from other countries. Trump previously imposed tariffs on China due to (well documenented) unfair trade practices. Biden then extended the China tariffs. But Trump would be legally challenged and most certainly lose if he claimed unfair trade practices by every country on earth.

Here's a good video explaining the problems with tariffs. They have lots of unpredictable long term outcomes and are hard to remove once implemented. Apparently there's still a chicken and truck tax on trade between US and Europe that dates back to WWII.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-eHOSq3oqI


The comment I replied to has an undertone that the masses don’t know how to evaluate what is in their interests. I can guarantee terms like “failure of democracy” will start being used by democrats if they haven’t been already today. All totalitarianism is horrible and it comes from both right and left sides, however the left is very often the source of it, and the logic to justify that is often much like the comment I was responding too - “for their own good”.

Regarding tariffs this is a complex issue and he has said repeatedly that it’s a negotiation tool. The records reflects that in he expanded US overseas market access with heavy handed negotiations. Most countries are much more protectionist than the US.

Industrial farming with massive soybean exports to China, who can’t even produce 50% of the calories their population needs domestically, is again a very complicated topic.

China is not in good shape and Trump’s first term was a clear inflection point in their trajectory.


> China is not in good shape and Trump’s first term was a clear inflection point in their trajectory.

So you believe it had nothing to do with a global pandemic and propping up their real estate markets until they popped?


No I never said that but Trump’s policies were certainly also a factor.

I think their own failed fiscal policy and the pandemic had so much more to do with it than anything Trump did it's not even comparable. I guess we will see how he and his policies do over next 4 years.

Which part of the republican plan is in the best interests of the uneducated and poor?


Except even that isn't in the best interest of anyone. Immigrants increase the health of the economy, even for the working class.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/immigrants-contribute-greatly-...

https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/north-american-century/b...


It's possible for immigrants to both increase the health of the economy in the medium to long term and to cause localized economic pain in the short term. For those living paycheque to paycheque it's the short term that matters because they don't have the luxury to wait for the longer term effects to play out.

I say this kindly, you must have never worked a labor-intensive job and watched your friends(co-workers) get laid off for cheaper labor.

I would say it was the part where Elon Musk was giving out a million dollars a day . . .

Closing border, halting illegal immigration, mass deportations - these are massively net positive for US citizens who are uneducated and poor. Migrates are competing with them for jobs, housing, social services, all resources.

Lowering taxes especially payroll and corporate and overtime taxes has a massive benefit to them. Lower income tax rates are actually very high once it’s understood that any tax or regulatory cost that is a head tax is a tax on them - “employer taxes” is a fairy tale economically, all taxes are on the employees if they aren’t paid if you are fired, if they are still paid then they are on investors/shareholders/capital and those are also negative for growth and employment.

Ending forever wars will allow shifting of budget priorities. A reduction of just 10-15% of defense and intelligence budgets and cutting funding to Israel and Ukraine can pay for childcare for every child in the US easily.

The list goes on …

Better question is what policies did Harris propose that help the uneducated and poor?


> Closing border, halting illegal immigration, mass deportations - these are massively net positive for US citizens who are uneducated and poor. Migrates are competing with them for jobs, housing, social services, all resources.

If that was really the case how come you just elected the very same guy who killed the border deal?

> Ending forever wars will allow shifting of budget priorities. A reduction of just 10-15% of defense and intelligence budgets and cutting funding to Israel and Ukraine can pay for childcare for every child in the US easily.

There is no "funding to Israel and Ukraine". For Ukraine there's transfer of outdated weapon systems reaching the end of life and already obsolete, which in turn is creating jobs in the US to restock and replenish the US's arsenal. If anything, you're seeing money go into the US defense industry which ends up being the US's take on welfare and social security program with all the pork programs.

Whoever fooled you into believing people are handing over cash to Ukraine, fooled you very well.


The border deal provided amnesty that is clearly NOT in the interests of uneducated and poor citizens.

> The border deal provided amnesty that is clearly NOT in the interests of uneducated and poor citizens.

You should inform yourself about the bipartisan border bill that Trump killed at the last moment. The "amnesty" thing only exists as a propaganda talking point. The bill tightened up requirements for asylum and imposed automatic deportation rules.


There is a link in this thread that I'll never find that refutes your point. It quotes the bill even.

> can pay for childcare for every child in the US easily.

It can also pay for unicorns and rainbows, what makes you believe "paying for childcare" has ever been a part of Trump/Republican agenda?


how poor is poor then? 44k is at 12% for taxes.

Immigration is a net good. Even if there's now suddenly a bunch of unskilled labor vacancies, what makes you think American workers even want those jobs in the first place? What makes you think those companies can afford American workers? People aren't out of a job because some immigrant took theirs. We know this through hard data, not vibes.

We don't need to cut foreign military aid to fund childcare in the US. Reforming entitlements would get us there with more leeway and without ripping the rug out from under our allies.

Lowering taxes is a good thing, and that's about the only area you would find me in agreement upon.


This is what a lot of us here on HN see. The site guidelines say no snark and our comments get flagged but this whole snark is ignored and elevated.

Maybe it won't be a snakes ate my face moment. Trump is hardly an unknown. People voted for 2016-2020. That's what they want. No snark needed


I don't get the focus on Republican votes, when a major issue is the lack of Democratic votes.

As someone who leans quite left (and voted 3rd party in a deep-blue state), I can completely understand why many traditional Democratic voters didn't turn out (and why many Republicans despise the Democrats enough to presumably vote against their interests as you pose).

The largest issue for me is that I cannot support genocide. The "I'm speaking" (to protesters) was repulsive. The culture of "if you don't get on board it's your fault if democracy dies" attitude of the Democratic party was just as fascist sounding to my ears as anything they claimed the Republicans have in store for the future. I personally can't fathom how any person that aligns with my view of the world would basically take the stance of "genocide doesn't matter, toe the line". For me personally, two parties that aggressively support continue apartheid conditions and genocide are both against my interest so profoundly that where they differ on issues is irrelevant.

Furthermore the Democratic party has increasingly come to represent a very anti-democratic institution. Biden was promised us as a one-term president to get things patched over while new leadership was established. Then the fact that he was clearly increasingly incompetent was hidden until it was embarrassingly too late. But oddly, it was not too late for a primary, where Democrats could choose a candidate, but we didn't get that. And yet, when mentioning any issues with the mass murder of children you are told to "shut up and get in line".

Finally, Biden didn't deliver on any of the meaningful promises he made. Nothing happened to improve abortion issues while he was president, his track record on climate was just as meaningless and awful as any Republican, children still sat in US detention centers separated from their parents, corporate interests still take precedence over the rights of workers just as much as with any Republican.

While I am nervous about another Trump term, I fail to see how the world was so much brighter under Biden. The Democrats have become the party of "shut up and do as we say because we know better" with no objective improvements in the issues I care about when they are in office, which is impossible for me to get behind.


I'm sorry you feel that way but not voting for Harris is a vote for Trump, and now we have a guy that is worse for Palestinians than Harris ever would be.

That's precisely the logic that allows these atrocities to happen, and frankly anyone supporting this type of thinking is supporting genocide.

The idea that one particular party is owed my alliance no matter what atrocities they support is fundamentally authoritarian which in-itself is a principle I do not abide by.

Given your logic, all is permissible so long as we have one party we can point to and say "they're worse". Which is what leads to as situations where both parties continually move away from the interest of the people. I have far more respect for people who deny there is a genocide, as opposed to those that see it and actively choose to ignore it.

Also what is "would be"? Harris and Biden have been presiding over and supporting the current genocide. I have a hard time imagining it being truly worse during a Trump administration. At the very least mainstream Democrats can allow themselves to oppose genocide now that it no longer interferes with the aims of their party.

It continues to boggle my mind that liberal Democratic will endorse and support genocide without a moment's hesitation or reflection.


> I have a hard time imagining it being truly worse during a Trump administration

Trump's encouragement to 'let Israel finish the job' seems worse.


Yes it will be worse (even though it's already worse), but the people who excuse a genocide will suffer too. Perhaps when it's Trump the red line wouldn't be so blurry anymore for these folks.

> One of the "chapters" in my presentation was about traceroute, and it more or less said "Don't use it, because you don't know how, and almost nobody you'll talk to does either, so try your best to ignore them." This is not just my opinion, it's backed up by people much more experienced than me. For a good summary I highly recommend this presentation.

I'm being pedantic but this paragraph was bizarre to read. You are basically telling us we or anyone we know won't know enough about traceroute not to use it but you and many people you know do know enough. It is presumptuous but also inconsistent. Are there people who know, or not?


I'm impressed but I'm also surprised to see the robot stop and appear to think. I would have thought the computing and sensors wouldn't take so long to form decisions.

I wouldn't be surprised if the slowest part of the system is the API call to a legacy warehouse management system that takes several seconds to respond to get the next bin to target.

It's required to pause and give the parts 20 Seconds to Comply!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1uR-OFLGCE


I love it too. I just wish it was also available on Android mobile.

I can see why the developer doesn't bother: the UI would need to be very different. SmartTube is meant for use on TVs, not on touchscreens, so it has no touch UI at all and is designed for use with a remote control. There's some other apps that basically do the same thing, but on Android mobile, such as ReVanced I think.

ReVanced is patched up original Youtube (which has among other things the benefits of not showing ads), but the equivalent to SmartTube would be NewPipe, which is a new YouTube replacement app.

It would not - NewPipe and its derivatives don't support Youtube accounts unlike SmartTube. With SmartTube (and Revanced, on Android mobiles) you can sign into Youtube and use your playlists, likes, comments etc.

Ok I did not know that.

I need to check, but I don't think I signed in my SmartTube, I don't see a good reason for it.


Revanced is a pain in the ass to install.

I use Revanced Extended on Android mobile. It took about ten minutes to set up the first time and has worked flawlessly since.

I just want to say that, without having read the article yet, on the surface, that title is absolutely hilarious.


I read your article and am now fully indoctrinated to your noble cause. I propose an official chant. "Death to LF!"


Could this be used to get a time edge in trading? I'm not an expert, just thinking out loud. I remember hearing about firms laying wire in a certain way because getting a microsecond jump on changing rates could be everything for them.


I'm also no expert, but from reading around the subject a little (Flash Boys by Michael Lewis was pretty cool, also Jane Street's podcast has some fantastic information)... no. I doubt you'd be on a public cloud if low-latency trading is what you're doing.


Aren't the HFT boxes usually stock exchange colocations? Each trader gets a rack (or multiple racks depending on size) in the exchange's datacenter, every rack has the same cable length to the switch, etc.


I made the switch 3 years ago and haven't looked back. Fuck Chrome.


Psychology is the study of the brain at its highest abstraction when we know very little about it at any level. If you believe in determinism then psychology is just voodoo bullshit. Everything should be able to eventually be explained by a pathology, physical processes. With each new scientific breakthrough psychology becomes more and more obsolete and irrelevant. How many counselors have already been replaced by a prescription to antidepressants?


I feel like that's saying weather forecasting is voodoo bullshit because it's all quantum mechanics deep down


What is a rain cloud?

Now what is consciousness?


This was very enlightening for me on the subject of immutability.


Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: