Preferences

Conflating the people in charge with Republicans as a whole, and writing them collectively off, is a disservice to society and by extension, yourself.

The tl;dr of the current conundrum is that we have two corrupt political parties, and a system that's so rigged that it's nearly impossible to elect someone outside of them. Modern society's problems are complex to reason about and nearly intractable to solve. The people in power are not capable of even trying to reason about, let alone solve them.

I grew up in Nevada. Most of the people I grew up with are lowercase-L libertatian: they believe the government exists to arbitrate between the conflicting rights of individuals; that it should be as small as possible and let them do what they like unless they're harming someone else. Because of the aforementioned duopoly, these people tend to count as Republicans (in the style of Reagan). (This is true generally - the more geographically isolated a place is, the more it skews libertarian. The more urban, the more it skews liberal.)

The national Republican party was weak after Bush and got taken over by the Trump personality cult. The people I grew up with don't believe in instituting tariffs and arresting immigrants; yet if you force them to choose an R or D label, most of them are still going to count as R.

The world is a nuanced place. If you ignore that nuance and force everyone you're willing to converse with to pass your litmus test, you end up with two tribes ostriching themselves into bubbles of partisan-approved groupthink. That begets more yelling, less mutual understanding, and makes it even harder to solve problems. All of this empowers the extremists who control the major parties to continue making the world a worse place in service of their own power.

Yes, everything about politics sucks, and the people in charge are unfathomably awful. But if you refuse to share ideas with people you might disagree with, you're contributing to making that even more true.


Trying to call the democrats corrupt on the same level of the trump administration is fucking rich.

It's like saying that both antarctica and oregon are 'cold'. Fucking stop already.

> Conflating the people in charge with Republicans as a whole, and writing them collectively off

Maybe not "as a whole" but the majority of Republicans voted for this so at least those need to be written off. The rest have an opportunity to claim that they oppose the takeover by the personality cult. A great way to do it is to change their voter registration to anything else.

At this point, ever Republican has absolutely opted in to the current leader and platform.

The problem is that, while I agree with more or less everything you say here - "writing off" approximately half the population is not going to work. You can't do that in a democracy, if only because that approximately-half actually have rather a lot of collective power. If they didn't, it wouldn't be much of a democracy.

My argument here isn't moral. It's that this class of strategy simply cannot be effective. I'm not claiming a better one, only that it's on all of us to look.

> voted for this so at least those need to be written off.

Are you willing to write off so many people? That is what the "fascists" want. Division is a core technique of erasing liberty

> Are you willing to write off so many people? That is what the "fascists" want. Division is a core technique of erasing liberty

He told them what he wanted to do, over and over and over again. Now that he's doing what he told them he was going to do (again over and over and over again) they want some respect for their objections? They voted for him knowing what he was going to do. Exactly what is there about these fucking morons that I shouldn't write off?

I'm not sure what to tell you, I can't envision myself having a productive conversation with someone who, with sound mind, supports the person responsible for the Mar a Lago documents, January 6, and the Epstein cover up.

> Division is a core technique of erasing liberty

Seems like embracing a self-coup is also a core technique of erasing liberty? Maybe both of these statements are so broad that they are meaningless.

What about the people who just voted against a party infrastructure that 1) insisted that a vegetable was sharp as a tack, 2) that you can't have a primary no matter how much you want it, 3) that the guy who won in 2016 is definitely working for Russia, and 4) is probably just as involved in the Epstein situation as the red team?

You chose your lesser of 2 evils, and others chose theirs. There is no acceptable choice in American presidential politics.

You're trying to "both sides" here, but the problem is your talking points are fabricated and were never real. They're propaganda.

1. Biden was old and everyone knew it. He still got shit done. The idea that everyone thought he was great and fine is not true. That's what Republicans claimed people thought.

2. Primaries are not an official part of the election process. They are a party matter. The whole weird Republican meltdown over it is not based in fact or history.

3. Russia did interfere with the 2016 elections. There's a whole congressional report on it, by a majority Republican committee. [0]

4. I don't even know what this means. If someone did crimes, they should be held responsible. The idea that we don't want that is, frankly propaganda.

[0] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/...

in what world is kamala harris as involved with epstein as epsteins best friend trump? she probably would have actually released the epstein files with only the victims names redacted. trump, as well, one of epsteins best friends in the whole world, who may have also had him assasinated, aint gonna be the guy to release all those files about himself. democrats have proved time and time again that they will turn on each other in an instant to prove morality while republicans all drop their morals the moment it affects their hierarchical power. wed still have some great democrat senators from the metoo era if that werent the case.

-----

i think people pick by name recognition rather than by lesser evil. if folks think trump is less evil than harris, theyre probably far beyond any conversation i could have. as south park puts it, not even satan wants to have sex with him.

I mean, exactly. If they live in a reality where Jan 6 is less evil than an incumbent president getting the automatic nomination, it's going to be hard to have a productive conversation.

If, in their minds, Harris and Trump are somehow equally implicated in the Epstein scandal, all I can say is "lol, have a good one".

> yet if you force them to choose an R or D label, most of them are still going to count as R.

this is to say they have a glowing endorsement of the trump agenda of authoritarian intervention in both social and economic issues. they could have stayed home, or voted for democrats who were pushing a more traditional conservative policy.

they also could have voted for local politicians who are against trump policies, but the local republicans are lockstep with trump too.

you need to reevaluate what the people in your community believe in. they mught say theyre libertarians, but their actions say theyre very favourable to criminal dictators. if they werent, they would have acted dofferently in elections, and the votes speak louder than words

There's a way to show you don't agree with your head of state, it's called protesting.
The Republican leaders could have removed Trump from office after Jan 6.

All those traditional conservatives and "lowercase-L libertatians" could speak up now, and do something about the ongoing fascist takeover, but they are not. American democracy is probably doomed, we will find out in 2026 whether we can have fair mid-term elections.

The whole party is corrupt. Lindsey Graham was loudly anti-Trump until Trump won, and now he's just as loudly a Trump sycophant. The establishment cares about its own power more than it cares about doing what's right. (That indictment is true of both parties, but I'm specifically talking about Republicans here.)

I'm not defending people who voted for Trump. I'm saying if your response is "then I'm going to pretend you don't exist," this is only going to get worse.

Normal people need to be able to work together to find common ground for us to have anything resembling a healthy society.

It makes me sad that Hacker News, the place that emphasizes thoughtful curiosity in its post/comment guidelines, has lately often devolved into an echochamber indistinguishable from Reddit when anything remotely political comes up. Anything more nuanced then "Trump is evil and Republicans are stupid" gets downvoted, which is a microcosm of the whole problem that put them in power.

Why waste your time on unserious people? If Graham and Vance are going to flip from never Trump to sycophants, why listen to their press conferences? If the normal guy at the bar was talking about how great it'll be when Trump releases the client list and suddenly decides Epstein was a nothingburger, do you think you are going to change his reality? Hint: he never cared about "the pedos", it was just motivated reasoning.

It is time 60% of the country decided to stop wasting effort on people who do not participate honestly.

And please stop with the "oh no, Reddit" garbage.

"If there’s a Nazi at the table and ten other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with eleven Nazis"

This item has no comments currently.

Keyboard Shortcuts

Story Lists

j
Next story
k
Previous story
Shift+j
Last story
Shift+k
First story
o Enter
Go to story URL
c
Go to comments
u
Go to author

Navigation

Shift+t
Go to top stories
Shift+n
Go to new stories
Shift+b
Go to best stories
Shift+a
Go to Ask HN
Shift+s
Go to Show HN

Miscellaneous

?
Show this modal