I'm a little bewildered by this sort of prediction. How will you update your priors in 2028 when this doesn't happen? What will be the excuse for why this didn't happen?
This is just taken wildly out of context. And that’s coming from me, who can’t stand DJT. You’re literally fishing for a retort that doesn’t even make sense.
I am having a heard time reading his exact words and understanding them to mean something else. When he says to 'my beautiful Christians' that in four years you won't have to vote again, what is he trying to say? What is the missing context?
> "in four years, you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good, you're not gonna have to vote."
One can reasonably interpret that as meaning that in the next 4 years, Trump and his party are going to fix the country so much and so well that Christians won't have to go out to vote next time.
Not only is that the most reasonable interpretation of the words, it's the one he explicitly gave when asked [0]. The only way to arrive at the alternate interpretation is to be coming from a place where you already assume Trump is a threat to democracy.
I think there are reasons to have arrived at that place (Jan 6th), but this quote is not evidence for it unless wildly misinterpreted.
> where you already assume Trump is a threat to democracy
You know, the people who see him as a threat to democracy are not just putting words in his mouth. Maybe they just listen to what he says, and believe him. Is that unreasonable?
The only people arguing it was misinterpreted are people who support him. Not by providing any context that actually supports it meaning something different.
How about the innumerable times he claimed the election was rigged despite lacking any evidence to support it? Does denying that free and fair elections exist not count pretty specifically as being a threat to democracy?
I totally get that he has an artful way of making alarming statements over and over, but doing it with just a hint of humor, so that his supporters can claim it was all just a joke. In your view, at what point do we get to take a politician at their word?
> The only people arguing it was misinterpreted are people who support him.
Bullshit. I'm as anti-Trump as they come, but I don't let that blind me to reality. What he meant is obvious to anyone who isn't already looking for proof of their preconceived ideas.
I'm not even arguing that he's not a major threat to democracy—I think he is! I disagree that that quote is useful as evidence of that fact, and I disagree with the tactic that the left intentionally adopted of twisting the truth to make a point. People saw through that tactic and it contributed to Trump's victory.
The facts about Trump are scary enough, there was no need to twist his words.
What you are doing has a name these days, they call it sanewashing. Had Harris or Biden said anything even close to trumps comments the maga crowd would have yelled bloody murder, but somehow for trump everything is excusable and can be explained away.
So the most favorable interpretation of his words is that his supporters are delusional? What is their interpretation of "fix the country"? Because if it does not involve changing the constitution (a very tall order) then every single thing he does can be undone with the same effort by the next democratic president. Surely these people know that, right? How could they possibly believe that he will magically "fix the country" so they don't have to vote any more, unless they anticipate that he means something permanent?
I’m not trying to be flippant, that’s genuinely the answer to your question. Trump is literally being dramatic and funny by putting it like that. And you’re taking the bait and missing the joke.
I know I sound like the enemy and I dislike including this paragraph: But keep in mind, I can’t stand Donald Trump and didn’t vote for him.
Come on. We all know Trump effing talks weird, that's just part of his weird personality that no one likes. I don't like it, think it's confusing and winding around requiring much mental parsing to understand even for normal stories/sentences. But to take this tiny little sentence as definitive proof of some giant plan that's coming to end democracy is just... mental gymnastics in search of meaning for a narrative that they've already decided it means.
Here is the Full quote so everyone can see it. He even explains in the end what he means.
> "And again, Christians: Get out and vote! Just this time. You won't have to do it anymore! Four more years, you know what? It'll be fixed, it'll be fine, you won't have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians, I love you Christians, I'm not Christian, I love you, get out, you gotta get and vote. In four years you don't have to vote again, we'll have it fixed so good you're not gonna have to vote."
I'm just listening to his words and assuming he means what he says. He is either insulting his followers, or he is telling them he will "fix" the country in such a way that they won't have to vote any more. You can interpret this to mean he will try to subvert the electoral result again, or you can interpret it to mean that he plans to make some kind of permanent change so that christian voters will no longer be required to vote to achieve their goals.
> I'm just listening to his words and assuming he means what he says.
That's not how language works. There's a whole field of linguistics called pragmatics that is about how context contributes to meaning [0].
You're taking a few seconds of his words, joining them to all of your priors, and interpreting them in that context.
His original listeners were taking his words in the context of the whole speech, joining them to their priors, and interpreting them in that context.
It's entirely expected that your interpretation would be different than theirs given that disconnect, and the most reliable way to interpret meaning is to look at who the audience was and how they would have interpreted it, because the speaker chose their words for that context, not for yours.
> It’s true, because we have to get the vote out. Christians are not known as a big voting group, they don’t vote. And I’m explaining that to them. You never vote. This time, vote. I’ll straighten out the country, you won’t have to vote any more, I won’t need your vote any more, you can go back to not voting.
Basically "the country is screwed up right now because ${reasons}, if you get out and vote I'll fix it for you for good and you can go back to not voting again". It's more or less the same line that politicians say every election to try to motivate the less-likely-voters in their base, just said in Trump's classic meandering way and with explicit permission to vote only this once if you want.
So a couple untruths, and something ambiguous. Evangelicals have been a key voting bloc for years (I don't want to say Christians, because there are a huge number of Christian democrats too). If anything they're key to GOP success in the recent past.
But you kinda skipped past what I was asking. How and what do those voters think he was going to fix for good? And do they perceive themselves as being politically inactive except for just this once?
It sounds like you're just giving him a pass because hey, all politicians lie to get people to vote. At that point, why do we even care what a politician says, whether we agree with them or not?
I'm a "supporter" and I know exactly what he means. Means he'll fix all the voting shenanigans so that illegals can't vote and so that democrats can't "rig" and stack the election like last time. See? Not so much a hateful whistle as it is understanding your supporters, what's important to them, and appealing to that with your own words.
It does not even matter than there was no rigging, no illegals voting, no shenanigans. The truth has never been an effective counter to rhetoric, I get that. But it's an entirely plausible explanation for what a supporter would think.
But after yesterday, maybe we will all agree together than the elections are rigged? ;-). You guys can't put that genie back in the bottle. Everyone thinks it's totally cool until the other side uses it right back.
the missing context is that the Christian groups he was speaking to typically have low turn out/don't often come out to vote. He's asking them to please come out to vote, it's important this time. It's exactly the same rhetoric democrats use "this is the most important election, you really need to vote this time, this time it really matters"
On February 27th-the Reichstag in Berlin was set on fire. 4 weeks before, Hitler was appointed to chancellor. Hitler placed an urgency regulation to ban all political activities. He destroyed democracy in one month. Trump can now do it one day.
he is definitely signaling something, whether it will come true or not is another question.
That was the line the news media took for the first year or two - "we can't read his mind, so we can't call it a lie!" It's a mistake not to at least credit his own words and the logical conclusions they result in.
As many times as people deliberately twist his words to mean something different than he meant?
I despise Trump, but it's really disheartening to see how the elite doesn't realize that they actually lost the election in part because they lost credibility by fighting dirty. The ends do not justify the means, and the means were deliberate distortions, out of context quotes, and politically-motivated prosecutions.
I held my nose and voted KH because I think Trump actually managed to be even worse, but I can hardly fault other voters for deciding that the Democrats had it coming to them after all the intentional distortions.
How is it twisting words when the context is Trump refusing to say he will accept the results of the election every time he's asked, "joking" about staying more than two terms, and actually trying to overthrow the Republic on Jan 6th?
That will never happen because there are too many other power-hungry people in the GOP who are not going to just let Trump sit in the White House indefinitely, if for no other reason.
He's 78. I think there would be plenty of people willing to enable him to sit on his throne indefinitely because they know that's really only ten years or so at best. And then, once he's gotten it warmed up and did the hard job of making it the norm, they get to take his place.
That is the same kind of thing people have been saying since the day he rode the escalator down. Ten years later, why does this argument still get made? Trump has power for one reason, and one reason only -- because enough voters love him. Many people on the conservative side loathe him and want nothing more than to see him gone, but they kiss his ass and fawn over him anyway, because why? The voters love him, and hate anyone who does not kiss the ring. Over and over and over this plays out.
If Trump wants to stay in office after this term is finished, all that matters are what the voters think. The supreme court will likely side with him and find an interpretation of the constitution that makes it work. But even if they don't, so what? The court doesn't have an army. Even if they did, if the voters want a king, that is what they will get. The republic is a reflection of our collective will and we can destroy it if we so choose.
I'm a citizen of a country where the authoritarian leader captured the state and mostly destroyed democracy.
So we managed to find out whether he was a danger to democracy or not (he was). What sucks, is that when it is proved, then there is already too late to do anything about it (because by definition you can not send them away in an election).
So my 2 cents: if there are any signs that someone is a risk to democracy, it is better be safe than sorry, and just choose a different candidate. Everything else can be corrected in the next election, but not this.
> if there are any signs that someone is a risk to democracy
All due respect, I'm curious as to what these signs actually are for Trump. Everything I've seen and heard has been horrifyingly taken out of context -- "dictator on day one" and "you won't need to vote in four years" and "he'll prosecute his political enemies", or exaggerated past the point of recognition, like "he tried to steal an election" or "he wants to put journalists in jail".
Under the Biden administration, we have seen actual criminal charges against Trump. Not theoretical, not threats, not innuendo, but actual criminal charges for trivial administrative offenses. We have seen extensive media collaboration with the administration (and the opposition when Trump was in office) in an attempt to distort Trump's words to portray him as being dangerous.
I do not agree that the US, under Harris or Trump, is at any risk of becoming an authoritarian nation. The "signs" here from both sides are all imaginary trivial things and political rhetoric. But if the watchword is "any signs" then I've got to say that I don't see how you can vote for anyone but Trump.
My forlorn hope is that people who think that Trump represents a threat of authoritarian backsliding can, in four years, revisit their assumptions and realize that the markers they have chosen to represent that threat are all wrong. They're just incorrect. Update your priors.
The most important sign is that he already tried to keep the power when he lost last time. And he still does not accept that he lost.
This alone is more than enough reason to never vote for him.
He literally attempted a coup, it's pretty amazing people are still trying to act like this is exaggeration or unreasonable.
It's not guaranteed, no, and I sincerely doubt we are going to see Trump literally cancel elections, but it's a very reasonable assumption that they are going to do what they've said they'll do and tried to do: install judges that will swing things their ways, suppress voters who don't support them, punish anyone who opposes them, inspire and promote political violence against anyone who opposes them, and gerrymander as much as possible. That's enough to functionally end US democracy if they do it well.
That's not some wild prediction or unlikely outcome, it's the logical continuation of their previous actions. Someone attempting something they tried before isn't unexpected. He actively tried to subvert democracy and the public have rewarded him, why would he not?
The USA uses a gerrymandered, two-party, first-past-the-post system with electoral college to boot. I for one would stop short from calling that a system that accurately reflects the will of the populace.
> I sincerely doubt we are going to see Trump literally cancel elections
The logical path here is for red states to cancel elections and appoint electors to send in January 2029. The feds cannot do it themselves, but they do not need to.
The elections clause of the constitution does not apply to presidential elections, and all the constitution says about that is that the states may choose how to appoint electors, as long as it all happens on the same day.
It's a fact he attempted a coup, the evidence is in the public record, the Trump–Raffensperger phone call was literally recorded and we have it. He was calling around everyone certifying the results pressuring them not to do so, and asking people to "find votes" for him. The mob storming the capital was a part of the whole, not the coup in its entirety, focusing on it as though it was the whole thing is absurdly misleading.
> If you have listened to the call or read the transcript and come away thinking "wow, Trump really tried to rig the election" then I don't know what to tell you. It's just plainly obvious that he did not do that, and I struggle to even comprehend how that could be a reasonable conclusion.
This is probably just sea-lioning, but I went back to re-read that transcript on the chance that this was an earnest comment and my previous view was colored.
There is no other way to read this transcript than Trump trying to strong-arm them into refusing to certify the election results. He says "find me this number of votes" multiple times, and the direct context was "you're facing criminal charges for this if you don't do as I am saying".
Here's a few of the relevant snippets, with context, for anyone reading this far:
----
> Trump: But I won’t … this is never … this is … We have some incredible talent said they’ve never seen anything … Now the problem is they need more time for the big numbers. But they’re very substantial numbers. But I think you’re going to find that they — by the way, a little information, I think you’re going to find that they are shredding ballots because they have to get rid of the ballots because the ballots are unsigned. The ballots are corrupt, and they’re brand new and they don’t have a seal and there’s the whole thing with the ballots. But the ballots are corrupt.
And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can’t let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.
> Trump: No, but this was. That’s OK. But I got like 78 percent in the military. These ballots were all for … They didn’t tell me overseas. Could be overseas too, but I get votes overseas too, Ryan, you know in all fairness. No they came in, a large batch came in and it was, quote, 100 percent for Biden. And that is criminal. You know, that’s criminal. OK. That’s another criminal, that’s another of the many criminal events, many criminal events here.
Oh, I don’t know, look Brad. I got to get … I have to find 12,000 votes and I have them times a lot. And therefore, I won the state. That’s before we go to the next step, which is in the process of right now. You know, and I watched you this morning and you said, uh, well, there was no criminality.
But I mean, all of this stuff is very dangerous stuff. When you talk about no criminality, I think it’s very dangerous for you to say that.
I guess there's just a disconnect here. Threatening someone with legal action for breaking the law is basically okay in my mind. Trump thought that there were unsigned ballots that were counted that were being destroyed, and that Raffensperger was either aware of it or was ignoring it or was just not doing the due diligence necessary to prevent it. He wanted to provoke Raffenperger to action by reminding him that he faces criminal liability for looking the other way.
If you are starting from the position of "Trump knows he does not have the votes and wants to cheat" then you can read this as extortion. I don't think you have to even go so far as to call Trump a saint -- he wasn't saying "you have to hunt down and prosecute all of these people for all of these things" so much as "just hunt down the people enough to get the 11,780 votes".
Or to put it another way -- in a call with Raffensperger with his attorney on the line, probably being recorded, what is it exactly that you think could have happened here? Even if Raffensperger wanted to cheat? In a state that was already being carefully watched? What possible course of action would have made sense here?
The only course of action that would have made sense was if Raffensperger could uncover widespread fraud of one of the forms that Trump described. Then exposing that fraud and showing that more than 11,780 votes were compromised would have been a huge deal. But people would have looked at those ballots. They would have listened to this phone call.
No reasonable person would believe this, it's the equivalent of believing that when someone asked their associate to make another person "sleep with the fishes" they were talking about an aquarium trip. It's just obviously not true.
Even if he hadn't been president with access to actually legal paths to investigate and address these things (and a responsibility to act ethically with the power he had where even the appearance of corruption is harmful), even if he had any evidence of actual fraud, even if he hadn't already organised a set of fake electors before the claimed "fraud" happened, even if you didn't have four people who have plead guilty to conspiring on this, even if he hadn't then refused to act when a violent mob stormed the capital on his behalf after he worked them up, even if half of his closest allies from his first term (including his vice president) weren't actively telling you this was his intent and plan, no reasonable person hears him leaning on the guy to just find the exact number of votes he needs to win and threatening him and thinks this was all above board.
You have to intentionally take his statements in ways no person actually would, and intentionally ignore all the damning context and evidence. It's not credible in the slightest.
Attempting it and failing doesn't mean he didn't attempt it. He actively tried to stop the results being certified, he tried to get people to fraudulently invent votes for him. We have the Trump–Raffensperger call on tape, the evidence is right there, it's an indisputable fact by anyone who cares about reality.
And no, I wouldn't be wrong, because it's a fact he did try to do that, and even if they did—for whatever reason—decide not to try it again, that doesn't change it being what any reasonable person should assume they will do.
>The problem is will you admit you were dead wrong and potentially spewing propaganda if democracy survives Trump’s second term?
The answer to this question is the same as the answer to "what if climate change is a hoax", and that is that I would love to be wrong and would gladly admit it rather than live under a dictator or on a dying planet
... And then you have Trump refusing to say he would accept the results of the election every time he's asked, "joking" about staying more than two terms, calling bog standard politicians "internal enemies", wishing total obedience from generals and dreaming of using the military to crack down on civilians...
Brown shirts are just civil disobedience in your book?
Will you update your priors after searching a bit more how Republicans have already done huge efforts to eliminate parts of the voting population, between gerrymandering, voter rolls purges, putting polling stations in inaccessible places, counting prison population in the electoral weighting of districts...
It's insane, exactly the same slippery slope fallacy as "the left want to make your kids gay", people completely lost their mind on both side of the spectrum
On February 27th-the Reichstag in Berlin was set on fire. 4 weeks before, Hitler was appointed to chancellor. Hitler placed an urgency regulation to ban all political activities. He destroyed democracy in one month. Trump can now do it one day.
he is definitely signaling something, whether it will come true or not is another question.
> It’s true, because we have to get the vote out. Christians are not known as a big voting group, they don’t vote. And I’m explaining that to them. You never vote. This time, vote. I’ll straighten out the country, you won’t have to vote any more, I won’t need your vote any more, you can go back to not voting.
It was stupid phrasing and might have been a Freudian slip, but his explanation also makes sense. "The country is on the brink of {insert terrible fears here}, but we'll fix it up this term and you won't have to worry about it for a while." The man isn't known for his well-thought-out speeches, his entire schtick is speaking off the cuff, and most voters don't hold that against him.
So even when the Christians don't vote in 4 years, they still get the things they want?
What do the people who are voting get?
I'd guess they get a government that via the Supreme court, gerrymandering, voter suppression, cowed media, doesn't represent their democratic interests.
Which is a bad thing.
There's abortion votes that passed the other day at state levels that will not be put into practice because Republicans don't want to.
TLDR: In different context, but same feeling: "I need to vaccinate yourself when you are around me, but when you are no longer, I don't care". I dunno. That doesn't sound very presidential tbh...
That's not what they said. "Measured and rational speaking" is usually terrible marketing. It barely works on college-educated adults and certainly doesn't work on the mass market.
The example they gave is Trump in a garbage truck, but that's just one way in which Trump made himself enormously appealing to the non-elite.
Worse, they don't see that a near-majority of the country is actively put off by someone speaking like a rich, educated liberal.
The #1 exercise Democratic politicians should do over the next 4 years is to spend hours and hours and hours actually listening to working-class people in flyover country and trying to really understand them. They just don't get it yet.
Presumably the person you’re replying to knows these things? Try and respond to the best interpretation of a comment instead of assuming they’re an idiot.
What's the "best interpretation" of a non-sequitur look like, to you?
A specific example for this particular comment would be ideal, as even their reply doesn't illuminate the value of mentioning Obama despite referring to it and attempting to justify it.
Obama is a Democrat. Neither Biden, nor Harris, nor AOC pushed for Medicare for all when it was probably the easiest and most helpful time to do so; during a pandemic.
I brought up Obama's actions because it was just the ongoing legacy of neoliberalism that started under Clinton. They thought they would win elections by "going to the middle", and this is what happened.
Obama was also campaigning for Harris.
The Democrats are now the part of war and corporations and I was just done with it all.
Sure they were. Biden actively sought to pass bipartisan immigration legislation. Trump blocked it because it would hurt his chances at reelection. Neither Trump nor Vance denied this during the debates(they had multiple opportunities to do so).
We are not divided though. He overwhelmingly won the popular vote. Sure there is an opposition, but the truth is that the majority of American voters agree with Trump (currently winning by margins of 5 million according to NYT).
Yes, there's still work to be done, but the real inflamers of the nation are the mainstream media. Luckily they're slowly going away, and uniting figures like Musk, Rogan, etc are taking their place.
Also, he overwhelmingly wins with hispanic men (55-45). He is walking away with hispanics overall in many swing states. Black men are now 25% in his favor. Basically every single minority margin has shifted towards president trump (Including women). At this rate he will succesfully unite the country in a few more years as the remaining stragglers come over to see common sense.
Hey dude, you may be overdosing on those pills you’re taking when you start saying things like Musk is a uniter. The red ones are fine, just limit it to one or two, okay?
I remember when he pushed the lie that Pelosi's husband was attacked by his gay lover. Or when he pushed the lie that Democrats are stuffing voting boxes with illegal immigrants'votes, or that brown people are replacing white people.
Such a uniter, that South African emerald mine owner.
We have never been more divided. Neither side can even agree on definitions or facts.
I'm glad the great uniters of Musk and Rogan can take the reins in delivering high-quality information to our nation. Maybe in a few years, we will all agree on which conspiracy theories we should all believe.
> Maybe in a few years, we will all agree on which conspiracy theories we should all believe.
One man's conspiracist is another man's freedom fighters. You can't honestly tell me that mainstream outlets were free of conspiracies the last few years? Remember Russia?
Don't be coy, please enlighten us as to what this conspiracy is involving Russia that you think the MSM peddled, and what evidence you have that disproves the narrative.
The Steele dossier, which purported to contain evidence of the Trump camapign's links with Russia, turned out to actually be a Russian plant. That's what I'm talking about. People still peddle its contents as if they're anything other than fake news. That's a major problem. Same with Trump's 'very fine people' comment. You can accuse Rogan of spreading misinformation until the cows come home, but the mainstream media has also peddled its own share.
How many have you been doxxed for or impeached for or censored from spreading. as far as I'm aware, all your conspiracy theories have been promulgated by everyone and allowed to spread everywhere. I think that's the major difference. You should create your list. Twitter/X is a great way to spread such information to the public at large! No one will censor you. You are free :)
I haven't heard any mention of the dossier in years, other than as an artifact of the past. A quick search, and I can't find sources trying to claim its truth (or evidence of smoke, for which there might be a fire) in years.
I certainly didn't mention Rogan—I'm aware of his existence, but I've actually never heard him speak nor seen any transcripts of anything he's said. But trying to minimize the flood of absolute obvious shit that comes from right-wing outlets by choosing to point to Rogan specifically is a bit telling.
Anyone and everyone should be called out for lies they manufacture or spread. This includes lies on the left, lest you think I'm granting one side a pass.
See, we can't even agree on a starting point. Instead of admitting Rogan and Elon pedaling in absolutely insane conspiracy theories, you pull out your whataboutisms and think we are back on a level playing field. We aren't.
I remember when trump tried very hard to weaponize the justice department against his "enemies" (https://www.justsecurity.org/98703/chronology-trump-justice-...) but people stood up to him and refused, or just delayed acting as long as possible. Trump was very much "handled" by people all levels of government who tried their best to clean up after him, distract him away from his crazy plans, or obstruct him. Even in the the military. In the beginning it was the so-called "axis of adults" that kept things sane.
That's all changed since he's spent a considerable amount of time removing anyone who disagrees with him, threatening those who would dare to, installing people who will do what he wants including the judges who have granted him total immunity which he didn't have before. I think we can expect things this time to be very different.
Did you even listen to the video clip in the article?
> It’s true, because we have to get the vote out. Christians are not known as a big voting group, they don’t vote. And I’m explaining that to them. You never vote. This time, vote. I’ll straighten out the country, you won’t have to vote any more, I won’t need your vote any more, you can go back to not voting.
I hate Trump as much as anyone, but deliberately misconstruing every word he says is part of what cost Democrats the election. People saw through it.
I think that given the context that he illegally tried to retain power after losing in 2020 that many people infer something into his words about reducing the need to vote
People don't like being told "here is what was said, here is what was MEANT because you're not educated enough and can't possibly understand" did Harris zero favors.
I'm not sure in what respects you are disagreeing with me on, since I didn't mention anyone's level of education or intelligence -- I didn't mention anything about the people who interpret the statement in a benign way at all.
I added my thoughts on why people would take that statement and infer some other meaning than his literal words, since those words are said as part of a broader context. This says nothing about the people who didn't do so.
So, you starting a comment with "No" but then not addressing any point I made is confusing to me.
No, what cost them the election was the fact that Kamala ran a campaign of "I'm actually just a republican so you can vote for me". She dumped any sort of policy or position that'd scare away the mythical disaffected trump voter. She paraded around Liz Cheney FFS. WTF likes the Cheneys?
> She dumped any sort of policy or position that'd scare away the mythical disaffected trump voter
We just saw a national rejection of progressive politicians. To the extent she screwed up, it was in having a numpty VP instead of Shapiro and declining to be more specific on policies that would offend the left wing of the base. We’ll probably see a midterm backlash, however, so the message isn’t “everyone tack right.”
The only leftwing policy she adopted was abortion. Otherwise, she ran on being tough on the border, upholding the 2nd amendment, and being an awesome cop. Her platform silently dumped policies like the death penalty.
One was conciliation on Gaza, an issue inflamed by the protests and that was material in Pennsylvania, the tipping-point state she lost in. She also wasn’t “tough on the border” in any specific way—Trump channeled that anger effectively.
Another was student loan modifications. This transferred wealth from non-college taxpayers to college graduates.
How would that work in our system. The election are distrusted and open by law. Trump is an authoritarian who will test the system but the system will hold.
Ah, the self-proclaimed mass media critics! Everyone else is somehow badly influenced by the nasty mass media but they see right through it with their superior intellect. They don't need correspondents and professionals to actually go where something is happening, they know the truth intuitively, perhaps even a priori.
It's not about superior intellect, it's about incentive structures
Looking at how the incentive structures are laid out, it's clear there's no incentive to be honest to normal people. They need the advertising dollars to exist, and we are suppose to trust big pharma's enormous advertising budget doesn't impact the business decisions at media companies? That's just big pharma, who else is playing the game?
There's no medical test to diagnose depression, all you can do is observe behavior and talk about it
Seeing bad behavior and lies over and over, decade after decade erodes trust and reveals the kind of people they are, if it was some radical group with no real power there would be less concern, but they have a tremendous amount of money and influence
Fox News is by a huge margin the most popular news outlet. Throw in the New York Post (huge presence on the internet) and the WSJ, and conservative media is the mainstream media at this point.
They also shilled for Trump relentlessly, without pretense. But that's beside the point. The left should accept that they no longer represent the aspirations and priorities of the mainstream or even of ethnic minorities, and the right should stop with the underdog charade. They've swapped sides. Of course, neither side will make that admission anytime soon.
Most right winners are listening to podcasts at this point, I don't think Joe Rogan's incentives are as equally bad when comparing to an industry that manufactured the opium epidemic or ones that constantly lie
You can defend the ministry of truth as much as you want. There has been too much deception in recent years, people simply stop believing it. The meda were always there to steer "democracies", they even outright admit it by saying they are an integral part of the democratic process. People start to see through this deception.
You're right. The media has been corrupted. It's only logical, over time the media is corrupted as an outgrowth of the Pareto principle applied to politics. Eventually all political systems are corrupted because those with power use their advantage to accrue more power in a self-reinforcing cycle. The media, as an obvious lever of power, is subject to this, just as are regulatory agencies, congresspeople, social media sites, etc. I don't understand how such an intelligent userbase can be so willfully blind and naive. What began to open my eyes was the pandemic and the Ukraine war. Not that the establishment positions were necessarily wrong, but I felt the manipulation was easy to sense.
Meh, you can watch MSNBC or Fox for quite different messages. Of course, the fascists are not complaining about the media because there is actually something wrong but to justify the eventual censorship.
Given that this is a repeat of 2016, it wont wear off and they wont be ashamed. Yeah the crowd that touts itself as highly intelligent and techno-savvy apparently cant learn simple lessons.
The way I see it is that Trump’s policies, if acted upon, will have a delayed effect. I see it as a major event contributing to the rebirth of authoritarianism in the 21st century. I think selfishly doing Trump’s America for four years by pumping money into oil production, cutting back on contributions to global stability, and creating distrust in alliances could have disastrous consequences over the next couple of decades. I believe the current structure of techno-feudalism will only become more concrete with the erosion of science and education. Whether there are immediate consequences to this leadership or not, I’m very pessimistic for the future.
What are some other perspectives or predictions regarding how things will go under this current Trump admin; namely foreign policy, global stability, and school system reform?
Part of the reason why Harris lost is because this line about democracy ending if Trump wins is about all she could offer as a reason to vote for her, and the average voter doesn't believe it. I guess now we'll all get to see if the dire warnings were at all founded in reality, but it was a critical mistake to turn up the rhetoric so hot and not realize that it made the moderate voters take her less seriously.
It was just a bad strategy in every way: it reduced their odds of winning the election, and if they were right it won't matter because there will be no election. If they were wrong, then they burned a whole bunch of credibility pushing what turned out to be a conspiracy theory.
And if both parties are conspiracy theory parties, the moderate voter can't use that as a razor.
So many reasons to vote for her and you remember only the democracy ending part?
Also, the moderate voter would not take her seriously because of her saying that? Did you wipe out your memory about what happened when he lost not so very long ago?
To me this all feels like a far fetched tv drama became reality. It goes beyond any human understanding.
I want my taxes go down and want illigal migration to end as well! I want illegal drugs and illegal weapons and all wars to disappear as well. I want everything to be great and florishing for all Americans and the world. Still I would never vote for Trump because he just shouts he will 'fix' it, as if he would be some kind of Messias with some magic powers, without explaining realistically how that it can even work. A lot of people seem to believe it just because they 'want to believe' or maybe because he says it in such monotonic (hypnotising maybe?) way.
Ironically, the Democrats had a much more comprehensive policy position of course. But what matters to voters is what they _perceive_ and "what will you do for me". It's a propaganda war, and not yet clear to me whether we should blame the party or "the media" for losing it.
The 13 Keys to the White House model finally failed. I don't think it's because of the subjective keys, but rather the objective keys don't match what people actually believe about the world. Again, Democrats lost the marketing battle somehow.
That's a fair point. I guess Democrats should have focused more on the "real policy" aspects of Project 2025 (besides abortion?) rather than the "completely reorganize the Executive" (implement fascism) parts.
Of course, Trump did distance himself from Project 2025, right? He clearly didn't like sharing the spotlight. How do we get to a situation where a candidate disavows knowledge of their presumptive policy paper, yet all the voters still believe that's his policy? Seems like an even more absurd example having your cake and eating it too.
An underappreciated reason why Harris lost is that Democrats tried to switch candidates just a few months before the election. I'm not on one side or the other, but when I heard that Lorraine Jobs was pushing for a different candidate last July, I thought to myself, this is the dumbest idea I've ever seen. Indeed, it was.
The whole artifical limitations on discourse and topics is a poisoned chalice the democrats seem not to be able to let go of, no matter how much depends on it. Ad to that a aristocratic inability to even perceive problems and a getting high on their own supply of virtue signaling and you get a recipe for disaster.
According to the exit polling, voters most concerned about democracy voted Trump.
My guess is that the worries on democracy have nothing to do with regular Americans getting riled up when their candidate lost (jan 6), and more to do with the entire political machine coming down on Trump after his loss in an attempt to take his wealth and imprison him in politically motivated lawsuits with made up charges.
Compared to Trump the Democrats are amateurs at messaging who seem to have no clue how to talk to the average Joe or Jane. Instead of using the Jan 6 riot to attack Trump's "law and order" image, they choose to frame it in terms of "democracy".
"Law and order" was clearly a dog-whistle for 'treating suspects and minorities badly will make you feel safer' from the start . As evidenced by the blazing hypocrisy in a fucking felon running on "law and order" from a straightforward interpretation.
Given the generally high regard that the US has for service people - military, police, emergency services etc - it always puzzled me that Trump was never held to account (in a political, rather than legal sense) for the harm caused.
Is there a reason why this has been glossed over? I thought that would surely be a red line for many of his supporters.
Given the complete discrepancy in voter turnout for dems in 2020 v 2024, I think the core claim of the J6ers, namely that there was fraud that affected the 2020 election, is becoming more and more likely. Especially since the only person to be killed on that day was a regular American (no cops were killed), I think, based on the voting, that most people see it as justified. I mean they just elected the guy who lost with huge margins in the popular vote
If you want to know what Trump really believed about the 2020 election rather than what he wanted his supporters to think, look at the allegations that he and his election lawyers were actually willing to present in court. Since there would have been legal consequences for making stuff up, the court filings were far less sensational than his public PR.
I don't know and don't really care. When I vote I don't rely only on evidence admissible in court. Most of the country does not follow politics as closely as some of the people here. We see what we see and vote on how that seems it will affect us.
I also like to keep my anti-tiger rock on me at all times. I don't really care that there's no evidence that it works. All I know is what I see, and I haven't seen any tigers.
Roseanne Boyland was arguably killed by the police that day as well. Her death was ruled an amphetamines overdose to cover this up, she had a prescription for ADHD.
I don't think it would hurt their credibility if they're wrong. It's not like they created that idea, they were just pointing out Trump's words and actions.
It wasnt just Harris but the entire media and entire democratic establishment fabricating claims of Trump doom.
The best thing Kamala could have done is to downplay that rhetoric and focus on issues. If she did that, I believe she wouldve won. But you can hardly blame her to go with the grain.
Nah, she was an utterly normal Obama era democrat, which is basically it same as an Obama era republican. She offered normal and reasonable level-headed leadership. Welcome to the FAFO era.
This is fiction, and we should not persist in describing politics in this term, since it doesnt help us see whats going on.
It does sound harsh, and it is. We (people on HN), tend to talk about both candidates as if it was some equal comparison.
However, this is adamantly not the case. Trump is not like any candidate America has voted for in living memmory. He is SO outside of bounds, that frankly we collectively fail to understand him, and have to substitute some "default republican" candidate in our minds to deal with it.
Even in your comment - "it was a critical mistake to turn up the rhetoric so hot", even you will agree that Trump is incredibly toxic and out there in his comments.
Yet, you will genuinely feel that Harris/dems turned up the rhetoric. Not just this, there are a million places where blame is placed at the feet of Dems, for things that Trump or the GOP has done.
Nothing the dems can do will make a difference, because the Republicans have the superior model. Republicans can focus entirely on psychology, without having to worry about being called out on it, because Trump is simply causing an overflow whenever anyone has to deal with him.
We all just end up "ignoring" whatever new incendiary thing he has done, and instead deal with the office/position of either "candidate" or "president", because those make sense.
The dire warnings are literally founded in documents that are going to be enacted, based on what people are actively building teams for and recruiting.
However, there is no measure of evidence, including action that has happened, that will move the needle. It simply wont, because its not what people care about.
Some group will go to Reddit, to console themselves, the other group will go to Fox and the Consvervative bubble to reassure themselves. They will be given the same info that sells, and then they will learn to ignore everything that causes cognitive dissonance.
the reason Harris lost is because the Democrats are soft on everything. Soft on immigration, soft on crime. Even though I dislike Trump, I wouldn't vote for Democrats ever.
Their “Trump is a dictator, literally Hitler, who will take away womens right to vote” didn’t work the first time in 2015/2016 and it didn’t work this time either. The U.S.A knows what a Trump presidency is like and they voted to have it again: it was that good.
Democrats got their chance the last 4 years and instead of making the lives of U.S. Citizens better, they made it much worse, and shoved social justice issues down their throats that they didn’t want.
I think your view is also largely hyperbole. It is a nice vote winning narrative to suggest that democrats did nothing but shove social justice issues down people's throats, but like you, I'm not American and I suspect that is just as much hyperbole as "Trump is literally Hitler".
You're part of the division of hate that you seem like you're raging against, using messaging like that.
It's literally a conspiracy theory, the question at hand is whether there really is a conspiracy.
My point is not that they're wrong and Trump won't successfully end democracy (I think the odds are low but non-zero), my point is that the strategy blew up in the DNC's faces and should have been identified as a terrible plan from the start.
Being a Cassandra is not a winning playbook. Being able to say "I told you so" is small comfort, and that's the package they chose when they decided to make themselves look crazy to the electorate. If they believed democracy to be in danger the correct move was to nominate an electable candidate last year, not wait until Biden turned out to be unelectable and then start screaming about the end of democracy.
Have you listened to Trump's recent speeches? In 2016 he was very articulate and persuasive in his own way, but in 2024 his brain is clearly on the way out.
It's not, but, you have to ask a question - if democrats believe this, and this is the correct messaging, why did they do practically nothing to prevent things like this from becoming a reality? Or even propose a plan going forward as to how to prevent this again? Nothing came of Jan 6, nothing came of any of this, no matter who won, and it was very obvious that the plan was just "well as long as we're in power we won't slide into authoritarianism," but even if it wasn't Trump, eventually someone else is going to come along and beat them and begin wherever Trump left off.
It's not very good messaging at its core. You can't say something is an existential crisis, and then spend 4 years doing absolutely nothing about that crisis other than to say "vote for me again so that won't happen this time."
They impeached him. Counter to Republican's rhetoric, the Democrats can't force the DOJ to press charges in a timely manner, but the DOJ eventually also pursued charges. So they attempted to fix this with:
1. Impeachment
2. Congressional Acts
3. Independent action from the Department of Justice
4. Individual states attempted to get him off their ballots for treason
How about you describe what they should have done?
This is like using a squirt gun in a forest fire. A meaningless change to a meaningless procedural "loophole" that had no chance of working whatsoever.
> why did they do practically nothing to prevent things like this from becoming a reality?
You mean like passing "The Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022"? That was literally written to support democracy and prevent another Jan 6.
Obviously you can't write legislation to stop Trump winning democratically while still supporting democracy.
Dems have at least shown they're the party of supporting real democracy.
> this line about democracy ending if Trump wins is about all she could offer as a reason to vote for her,
This is a lie.
> I guess now we'll all get to see if the dire warnings were at all founded in reality
So, if he was lying or telling the truth?
> If they were wrong, then they burned a whole bunch of credibility pushing what turned out to be a conspiracy theory.
No they didn't. Republicans run the same claims every election and they win off it.
> the moderate voter can't use that as a razor.
Any informed voter would now Kamala offered more then "this line about democracy ending." Anyone who thinks this was "all she could offer as a reason to vote for her," you are really just saying "I was not informed."
