No Stupid Questions

It's simple. Bigotry and greed. Trump plays to people's fears that "others" will soon have the same rights they do while also assuring his rich handlers that he will make them richer. He's convinced the poor to cut off their nose to spite their face.

Conservatism is a mental illness, it can't be defeated with logic and reasoning

Lowered the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% (lowest in history).

Obvious tax cuts for the rich.

That's all his financiers hear.

Constantly attacks marginalized groups.

That's all his voters hear.

Everything else goes in one ear and out the other, muddied up with enough "whataboutism" and "both sides" rhetoric from the financiers to keep the voters from actually considering alternative options.

1. if you are rich and souless

2. if you are a moron. I am tired of people saying trumptards are "misguided" or some bullshit like that. If you voted for him in 2016, sure, you could have been misled. But after his trainwreck of a presidential run, if you vote for him, you are just stupid. Straight up a dumbfuck.

You're in a media bubble. It feels like there's no way anyone could see it differently. The people who disagree with you are also in a media bubble and don't understand how you could believe what you do.

For everything you said they

• don't believe happened
• think it was a deep state plot
• believe it's good actually and believing anything else means you want to kill babies or destroy the economy
• have never heard of it

Reality may have a leftist bias but most people don't live in reality. Most people live in a reality constructed by corporate media. Social media is largely derivative of it.

I remember the summer of 2016, when I was playing Pokemon Go in the parks and people I had never talked to and that lived nearby were playing it next to me. We were all celebrating when we caught a pokemon when we were after, and comparing which ones we'd caught with each other.

At the time I thought...who would buy Trump's conman routine? Who actually thinks that the country is in a terrible enough place that we need to elect this person who seems to actively hate the country and seemed to want to set the entire thing on fire?

I left my Californian home and went back to my original state to visit my family. We went to several different areas of the state in fall of 2016 because my wife was from a rural area and I originally grew up in a slightly more suburban area. I saw the signs in the yards, I saw the discontent, and I saw how people did not seem to be reacting the same way to his craziness. I saw how casually they would put on his rants in the background while talking about other issues. I saw how some of them were amused by his antics. It had been a couple of years since I had last been back and it once again struck me how much worse the area appeared to be from the last time I was there. I was in a rural area when the "Access Hollywood" tape dropped. People seemed to visibly shrink at even the mention of the news. I thought he was done for, and that this was a bridge too far for his supporters to cross. That people would vote third party, or not vote at all. I did not get the sense that my thoughts were shared by those around me.

When I came back to California, people were talking about the debates. It was sunny and nice out, and people would talk about the projects they had going on in their houses, or they'd talk about work related affairs. People were sometimes amused by Trump's antics, but everyone uniformly thought it was impossible for him to win the election. Having seen what I had seen in the weeks prior, I was no longer one of these people. "They'll never let him win", one of my co-workers said. I was stunned....who are "they"? Does the rest of the country actually believe this?

It turns out quite a few of them did. Many people thought there was just simply no way that Trump would win, because either the system was already rigged against him and would not allow him to win, or because the country was just not in dire enough straits to elect such a madman (as I once thought).

Hindsight is 20/20 but when I thought it was bizarre that he was even a viable candidate at one point in 2016, and I saw the decaying state where I grew up, I thought "if he wins the election, then we are in a much worse state as a country than I thought". And we undoubtedly are.

Of course he won, but the reason that I have this somewhat rambling response to this question is that the answer to "why is he still in the race?" ultimately comes down to the overall state of this country.

He is in this race because this is where we are as a country: barely able to imagine a possible future that is brighter than the present, because we are still caught up in degenerative non-sense that keeps us thinking that our broken down towns, and our poor social bonds are caused by some horde of "others" instead of their true causes: our ever-widening wealth inequality, our ever-decaying moral responsibilities to each other, and our national instinct to absolve ourselves of our responsibilities by claiming that not only is it correct to be forever self-serving, but that even the idea of altruism is a lie.

I live in Taiwan and met a guy yesterday who is moving to Taiwan because Austin is a "liberal hell hole".

When pressed on any issues about Trump, his answer was that Biden is worse than Trump. When I asked about Harris, he just mentioned she will just copy Biden.

The funny thing is that Taiwan is by far more liberal and more progressive than Austin Texas. He seemed to like the universal healthcare and the many social services. He didn't mind the high corporate taxes companies have to pay.

My assessment is that he is only basing his vote on vibes and feels alone. Judging from the conversation, he is more of a Bernie supporter.

Is there any possible way you'd ever vote Republican? If not, remember that there are people like that on the opposite side. You're always going to have single issue voters. A huge example is anti abortion advocates voting Republican. If someone genuinely believes abortion is murdering a baby they aren't going to care how good a candidate looks in a debate.

He's still in it for the fascist coup.

Trump was elected in 2016 because he got on twitter and was a birther dickhead.

Democrats ran Hillary and that was just a bridge too far for some Americans.

Democrats ran an old white man in 2020 and won.

2024 Democrats are running a black woman. Is that a bridge too far for Middle Amerikkka?

Money

The american people do not own the elections like people think. It is big bucks to run an election and very very few politicians are supported financially by the people. Trump grifts sure but he's paid by people because he'll get the most votes, they think.

Trump's ego and desire for self preservation (throwing a sitting president in prison never happened) is unmatched in US politics. And don't forget, there is still a lot of new gerrymandering shit that is going on that will still swing in his favor no matter how demented he gets.

My take:

Americans are either republican or democrat.

If you're a republican then you're going to vote for your guy. They see everything he does as just bullshit and bluster. "He says things to rile up the lefties but that's just his brand." They see the legal issues as politically motivated, or "maybe he's a bit dirty, but all politicians are".

I think it really is that simple. The vast majority of the population is not making a decision of whom to vote for based on their research regarding each party's policies. They will just always vote the way they've always voted.

Seriously, how the f*** is this guy still in the race?

Some very deep pockets.

People want to say it's just racism, but we have to stop ignoring how much of this is happening because of obscenely wealthy media moguls who don't give a damn about the future of the country and are only worried about ratings, and holy shit, Trump brings in ratings. The crazy fucks who vote for him are deeply influenced by this media, like Trump, they believe everything they see on TV.

It May Not Be Good for America, but It’s Damn Good for CBS

-Leslie Moonves, CBS CEO in 2016, on Trump

I worked in local television news from 2000-2010ish. I watched it spin out of control during the Bush years. I remember the President of Dinsey-ABC (waaaaaaaay prior to Disney+) claiming she would nail a TV to her child's dorm room wall since her child had expressed she didn't need a TV because she had a laptop.

“You’re going to have a television if I have to nail it to your wall,” she told her daughter, according to comments she made at a Reuters event this week. “You have to have one.”

-Anne Sweeney, President of Disney-ABC in 2009

These fucking dinosaurs did fuck nothing for twenty fucking years while the internet ate their lunch. The only idea they ever had was doubling down on insane shit to grab views. They never once considered becoming a better source of news or providing any kind of real local value to communities.

It's the money, especially the money in traditional radio and television media, that is propping him up. He's truly the last gasp of a dying generation, desperate to keep control over people who are way more informed than ever before and the only tool they have in their toolchest to fight that is misinformation and disinformation.

The same deep pockets that were able to kick Joe Biden off the ticket. They didn't give a fuck when people like you and I said Biden was too old, but once the folks with the money started talking about it being an issue, Biden got curbed.

Unlike Biden, conservatives are in a cult and losing Trump would lose their voters. They're attached at the hip and they can't dump him in the same way without essentially just admitting they will lose hard this year.

It's all that side has. Who else would run in his place? Nobody comes close to that sort of name recognition. The Republicans are betting on a culture war to win and who wages that war more than trump?

1. Polls are unreliable and the press will always make it “horse race” because not to do so means foregoing revenue.
2. Nearly all the major media outlets are owned by people who have said they’ll vote Trump.

In other words … follow the money.

A cult of fanatics who worship him due to his ability to let them display their complete lack of empathy as well as their extremely racist and misogynistic views.

Everybody will answer "greed, racism, idiocy, and bigotry" or some such rubbish, because morally and overall psychologically, that's the most comfortable answer.

The real thing is somewhat complex, and most people won't buy it.

Of course, part of it is those things, but there's way more going on here, some of it is cultural dynamics, some of it conscious intent. Those specifics are the symptoms, not the disease (though they may be diseases in their own rite).

• structural weaknesses in the US government, which was barely meant to handle the complexity millions of people, much less tens or hundreds of millions of people. I.e., bandwidth issues. As more people push their views and goals into the system, all of that needs to get governed or implemented somehow. But there is no cohesive operating principle that guides US (and even other western) culture. There is no razor - not even material necessity (staying in-budget, or managing debt effectively) is accepted. There is no means to trim implementation that all parties will be happy with, so things don't get trimmed. They get crammed in, the laws (in the sense of legal structure, not crime) are consequentially self-conflicting, improbable, or impossible to fulfill. This leads to an intrinsically unstable environment, ripe for (and rife with, by all parties) abuse. What you are seeing is, in part, the breakdown of the rule of law. This breakdown can be allayed, to some degree, with authoritarian means, but that only goes so far, even if that authority has a willingness and capability to work with the people as a whole - which none of the active authorities do, anyways, except maybe Bernie, and he's been written off by the authorities because he can't work with them well, and they also have valid concerns that must be addressed. But, in any case, whether centralized or not, this breakdown is to be expected, because the rule of law, unless supplemented with common principle, becomes.. well.. legalistic, and rife with abuse.

• governance that doesn't match underlying principles: we have no conscious least common denominator. People often point to distinct nations and say things like "see? they are doing X right!", but that nation has a cohesive culture, and isn't dealing with anywhere near the level of cultural complexity that any melting-pot nations are dealing with. What is enforceable must be agreed upon by common culture - or you must sacrifice the reality (though not necessarily the pretense) of diversity, and enforce your way. But that has obvious flaws. Instead, it is better, in my opinion, to enforce sovereignty, which is intrinsically what all the different cultures want, anyways, except that they also want to take control of everyone - which they don't get to do in a system with sovereignty as a basis, except by people ascribing to that culture. What you are seeing, is in part, a breakdown of unity due to a lack of agreement about what can be universally enforced. I.e., the system implemented does not address underlying cultural commonalities.

• the need to incorporate raw power and personal responsibility into the governing body. Bending the rules, breaking the rules with impunity, changing the rules, explicit and implicit coercion are all possible, and as such, the existing system or ruling party must be able to address these things, and incorporate them where needed, for the larger good of upholding the spirit of the law. This relates to the breakdown of the rule of law, but is more primal: you know raw power must be met with raw power. That power can be of a different form, but it must be effective.

• unconscious cognition of complex truths: or, in some senses, the "vote of no confidence". People understand, or are at least impacted, by the above issues. They have instinctive reactions against external control, and for good reason, as individual sovereignty is the source of a solid collective. But in any case, many people are aware there is a problem, don't see a solution, and are see no option but to let things burn. This may not even be a conscious choice, but simply an overall feeling - and thus, more powerful and deeply-rooted.

• genuine mockery and rejection of opposing views. Nobody gets each other, unconsciously, and everyone else treats others outside their worldview like shit, and pretends that doesn't matter. A lot of the left separated from the "Christian" right due to this - only to turn around and do the same thing to the center and right, feeling just as justified in doing so. But it creates real alienation and aggravates the already deep wounds and rifts that exist. One's personal actions, thoughts, and feelings may not seem to matter, but they resound loudly in the whole - and making personal change does, too. For those who are genuinely growing and facing their hearts and minds - my respect.

All of these contribute to Trump's rising and staying power. Of course, he's just riding a wave of unconscious thought, and if it weren't him, it'd be someone else. But people like to fixate on a face.

The actual thing we're trying to do (integrate diversity into a cohesive whole) requires genuine acceptance and support of differing world views (including non-scientific or non-Christian ones - why do I have to say this?). That means that your group, your ideology, must make room for the people who are "wrong", and wish to live their lives wrongly in abhorrent wrongness - though they never gain the right to enforce participation in their culture, above and beyond what is a natural requisite by birth, upbringing, or other dependency.

That is, each person and organization has a sovereign right to rule their own life and the lives of their dependents as they see fit, but does not have the right to force others to use their system, nor to prevent others from abandoning their system and starting their own or joining another. This integrates the very opposite of federation (well, not in the Lemmy sense, which is actually confederation, but that's a no-no-word because some people thought that confederation did give them the right to force others through slavery - but it doesn't).

But Sovereignty Culture isn't simply confederacy, like Lemmy is, but it heads towards the same things. That which can be federal is only that which we fundamentally agree on. The federal must not be used as a means of furthering ideologies, but as a means of resolving disputes between differing ideologies. It can have as much power as the people grant it, and no more - else it loses the people. By making sovereignty a keystone of culture and governance, we intrinsically grant and naturally enforce rights of others, but without placing a burden on others (except the burden of self governance, which you already have, and can't avoid).

Brainwashing most simply.

Edit: I found the image that I was thinking of when I posted this...

The GOP's desperation for relevancy in a world where literally every problem can be blamed on Republicans

probably the same drive that will make him a candidate in the 2028 election. 😁🙂

​

(this posted 06:01 UTC (2:01 AM EDT), 13 September 2024)

If you can believe it, Trump supporters will accept the Ohio immigrant pet eating story as true.

Somehow media is pitching the "moderate position" as halfway between anywhere within the normal range of political positions and the crazy positions.

the only reasonable answer, is literally fascism and a deluded right wing in america.

See my previous comment on another thread for additional context if you please.