Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Americans elected trump not just one time. They did it twice.

They all knew who he was by the end of the first mandate yet they still elected him again.

Why wouldn’t they find another « trump like » when trump goes away ? Vance or someone else, the list is long.

I see no reason for things to change and that’s if the USA doesn’t become an autocracy in the meantime. Trump already did so much in a year, that’s fascinating. He just need to boil the frog a bit longer but everything is in place.





Exactly. Trump is just a symptom. If he disappeared tomorrow, the people who elected him are still here, and they still want the same things: Belligerence, Cruelty, Isolationism, and lots of other terrible things. When Trump is no longer in the picture, they'll find a new candidate who offers this.

Well, the isolationism is dubious. Trump and his followers (with a few exceptions, granted) seem happy to throw isolationism to the wind as soon as there's a chance of wielding power over a defeated enemy.

For sure. Isolationism is a far distant third when it comes to what they value. They just want someone who is belligerent and promises to grief people they don't like. Any ol' candidate who fits that pattern can be next in line.

You don't have to convince every Trump voter. The margin who swung from Biden to Trump and elected Trump aren't all those things. They just don't want what the Dems were selling in 2024, specifically: the dems' adopted ideology surrounding gender, plus using race and gender to pick who gets jobs and into schools, rather than merit. If they removed just those two planks from the DNC platform, (1) Harris would have never been nominated, and (2) Trump couldn't have won.

I think immigration was the killer for Dems in 2024.

This is the logic of running to the middle. And yet moderate candidates do poorly these days.

Worth noting who gives this advice and to whom.


Who was the moderate candidate? We had Trump and a candidate who wanted to continue the open borders policy and racial quota system in hiring and university admissions.

Moderate/smoderate. There was an insane choice, which people chose to vote to the detriment of most, and a sane candidate, which people rejected due to misinformation and bigotry.

>misinformation and bigotry

Please don't keep repeating this, this is why Democrats lost. Being out of touch.


No, they lost because much of the population is bigoted and did fall for misinformation. People started sharing the nonsense about Haitians eating cats and dogs, they fell for the transpanic ads...and many were still not comfortable with a woman in charge. Misinformation and bigotry, and it's not out of touch to recognize that.

The problem is with the people more than the party, and fighting that so we can actually progress the country out of the dark ages is an uphill battle.


No, it seriously was not that. We didn't refuse to vote for Harris because of the idiotic cats nonsense. It was in large part her and the whole DNC's explicit embrace of DEI (note: "i don't like DEI" isn't anti-minority. Plenty of minorities also want to get jobs and admitted to schools because they qualify for and earn those things and not as a free handout because of their skin).

Not 20 years ago, like 90% of Americans would have agreed that it's insane to use racial quotas and different standards of qualification for different groups. Today, the 20% or so who disagree with me on that have dragged the DNC into this unpopular position, abandoning a lot of their previous voters. This has consequences.


And for that you threw the entire country away? Based on mostly fear and misunderstanding? There was another user I saw on here who defended voting for T because, despite apparently having always voted D in the past, he "could not look his white teenage sons in the eye and tell them he voted for people that would make them the enemy" - what absolute nonsense.

DEI may have gone too far in some areas, but that would largely be corporations trying to cash in, not anything planned by the possible Harris administration, and nothing demonstrable by the Biden administration.


DEI went too far the second it violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which explicitly bans all discrimination based on race in hiring. It doesn't matter if Biden or Harris or any other democrat leader didn't explicitly initiate any of these policies. Their failure to prosecute for these obvious (and sometimes even publicly bragged about by the companies) violations of civil rights law that is supposed to protect me is more than enough to lose any chance of getting my vote. I am willing to watch quite a lot of things burn if the alternative is a racist regime against me.

The fact that you are white and claiming to be a victim of racism because minorities are getting more opportunities is laughable, but also absolutely means you were part of the problem.

The only way for the US is to progress is to eliminate the electoral college so views such as yours count for as little as they should.


Yeah you're right, I'm gonna be a big problem for you because I'm going to keep voting for Republicans no matter how much I hate some of the stuff they do. And the more cruelty towards progressives the better because I have nothing but contempt and malice for the people who want to institute racism against.

> Yeah you're right, I'm gonna be a big problem for you because I'm going to keep voting for Republicans no matter how much I hate some of the stuff they do.

You obviously don't hate it that much lol, you clearly want white people to keep the unfair advantages they have had for most of modern history.

They wrote a book about people with you views: 'White Fragility' - you should check it out.

> And the more cruelty towards progressives the better because I have nothing but contempt and malice for the people who want to institute racism against.

Giving oppressed people equal opportunities isn't racism. We'll get rid of the EC eventually, and the votes of people like you simply won't matter.


Sure, go ahead and keep telling yourself that comforting myth that it was all because of lies and dirty tricks. But according to polls the general public, even during the chaos today, supports the Republicans over the Democrats on most of the major political issues: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/poll-americans-trust-rep...

It was absolutely due to lies and dirty tricks at least in part - I'm sure I can find objective analysis of people who said they voted because they believed various lies and disinformation if you like?

But, let's say you're right to an extent, that's just incredibly depressing and shows that the problem ultimately lies with the people.


Listen, Trump won almost every single demographic. His numbers increased % wise among them vs 2016. To claim it was all lies, racism and sexism is just wrong.

Now you can claim that Trump is bad, we'd agree with you. We're saying it's VERY dangerous to state why people voted for him because it enables it to happen again!

DO not double down on the mistakes of the Harris campaign again and then put fingers in your ears and blame the voters for being misinformed, please.


> Listen, Trump won almost every single demographic. His numbers increased % wise among them vs 2016. To claim it was all lies, racism and sexism is just wrong.

I'm not claiming it was all that. For example, some people are single issue voters on abortion, so of course they are going to vote R. But a lot of people bought into the trans panic ads, the xenophobia, etc.

> DO not double down on the mistakes of the Harris campaign again and then put fingers in your ears and blame the voters for being misinformed, please.

The voters were misinformed, though. Without a doubt the last election showed the people are much more of a problem than any party.


I don't know what to say then, just calling others misinformed isn't going to change anything.

Better luck next time then?


With the way the current administration is screwing things up, I don't think we'll need luck. Besides, with no cult leader to blindly follow, things will be drastically different.

> They just don't want what the Dems were selling in 2024, specifically: the dems' adopted ideology surrounding gender, plus using race and gender to pick who gets jobs and into schools, rather than merit.

Except that, none of this is true. Democrats did not run on such policy at all. They heavily tried to appeal to center.

Republicans run on culture war. And won, because it literally did not mattered what democratic party run on - republican lies won. And they will win again with the same tactic.


I don't think we conceptually live in the same universe if you think those things about the democratic 2024 messaging. I just don't understand how you and your opposing commenters can have any meaningful discussion if you're so wildly differing in interpretation of such a public topic.

It is simple, what "opposing commenters" are talking about, is what REPUBLICANS said that democrats are saying. You know, what Trump, Vance and the rest of Fox news were accusing democrats of. I would note that these are not exactly notorious truth tellers.

The person I responded to likely never listened to or cared about what democratic politicians are saying.


But you could say the same thing the other way, that's the point. I.e. you're not listening to what Republicans are actually saying but rather what "Democrats" are saying the republicans are saying.

Even your response is oblivious to the point, and you're doubling-down on "only the other side (Republicans) is liars, my side aren't liars" as a way to address the fundamentally different realities you and them seem to occupy.


I am saying what republicans are saying and were saying. You are either not listening to them or just lying about what they said.

> I.e. you're not listening to what Republicans are actually saying but rather what "Democrats" are saying the republicans are saying.

You can do that, but you would be lying.

> you're doubling-down on "only the other side (Republicans) is liars, my side aren't liars"

Yes, republicans lie more. That includes situation around the two murders in Minnesota. That includes claims that European NATO members never helped USA.

> as a way to address the fundamentally different realities you and them seem to occupy.

There is one reality and one "side" is lying about it a lot. Starting to lie the same way as they do wont solve the problem, it will make it worst.


[flagged]


This is what you were told the Democrats ran on, not what they ran on. You got all your information from partisans who lied about the other party.

>This is what you were told the Democrats ran on

It's straight from the horses mouth mate. Plenty of dems were on social media vocal how the issue is many white men.

Here:

  Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN)  "I would say our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country. And so if fear was the driving force of policies to keep America safe, Americans safe inside of this country, we should be profiling, monitoring and creating policies to fight the radicalization of white men."

  Krysten Matthews (D-SC, U.S. Senate candidate)  "Treat [white people] like sht... I mean, that's the only way we're gonna get concessions out of them... It's like that white woman in that movie 'The Help,' you know, she nice as hell to them white people, but she a btch to that girl."

  Adina Weaver (Housing official appointed by NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani, D)  Described homeownership as "a weapon of white supremacy masquerading as 'wealth building public policy'" and called for political action to "impoverish the white middle class."
Good thing the internet never forgets.

None of those people were running for president, and none of that is part of the Democrat party platform.


Point to where she blamed straight white men for all social economic issues in the country (OP's words), or where a similar phrase exists in the Democrat party platform, and I'll take back my comment. There are a small handful of wacky politicians who are indeed on this "straight white man" kick, but it's not even remotely a position accepted by the broader party.



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

Search: