> It will mean missed payrolls and rent payments and everything in between: chaos for everything from universities to non-profit charities
I'm all for reigning in government spending and our unprecedented deficit, but not sure throwing a stick of dynamite into the grant office is the best approach.
Which is something many americans should've realized before re-electing a chaos monkey with a heart of stone.
It looks like the majority of voting Americans don't care about anything as long as they get to own the other side.
In many ways, Americana seem to be voting for the country to devolve into anarchy.
> It looks like the majority of voting Americans don't care about anything as long as they get to own the other side.
I think that's overstating the case. There's a political duopoly, both parties are obviously, blatantly corrupt, and many voters on both sides plug their noses and choose what they believe to be the lesser evil. They might or might not be empirically wrong in their beliefs, but don't mistake voting for enthusiasm.
And "the majority" of voting Americans is technically 49.8%. With 63.9% turnout, that's only 31.8% of eligible voters.
> There's a political duopoly, both parties are obviously, blatantly corrupt, and many voters on both sides plug their noses and choose what they believe to be the lesser evil.
Even if both parties are obviously, blatantly corrupt to about the same extent there is still large variation among individual politicians in both parties.
P.J. O'Rourke, a well known conservative author and journalist, said it well in 2016 when he announced this:
> I have a little announcement to make ... I'm voting for Hillary. I am endorsing Hillary.
> I am endorsing Hillary, and all her lies and all her empty promises. It's the second-worst thing that can happen to this country, but she's way behind in second place.
> She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters.
People don't want "normal parameters" though. The normal parameters may have worked well for P.J. O'Rourke, a rich and famous dude, but they haven't been working well for normal people. For better or worse, they want to shake things up.
People do want a kind of chaos agent. Just look at all of the love for Luigi Mangione. Is Mangione the right chaos agent? Rationally speaking, no. Is Trump? Rationally speaking, no. But the desire for fundamental change is palpable.
Those who pearl-clutch the "norms" will continue to lose, and continue to be perplexed about why they lose.
> People do want a kind of chaos agent.
Evidence is that they don't.
They send the same reps and senators back over and over and over.
If they truly wanted a chaos agent, they should be turning over all the offices.
They wanted Trump--specifically.
> They send the same reps and senators back over and over and over.
> If they truly wanted a chaos agent, they should be turning over all the offices.
I'm primarily talking about the swing voters, who can swing elections only when they're close. Large groups of partisans also exist who vote Democrat or Republican no matter what, no matter the candidate, so it doesn't really matter to them whether the candidate is a chaos agent or not. And of course the House of Representatives is heavily gerrymandered precisely to avoid close elections.
Moreover, an individual member of Congress, 1 out of 100 in the Senate, 1 out of 535 in the House, doesn't have much power to change things. Their primary function is to support the President's agenda. That's why people focus more on the Presidential race, because the President makes a lot more of a difference than a member of Congress.
In any case, though, Congress does tend to change hands according to how the public feels about the President, especially the House, the entirety of which is up for election every 2 years.
Those people have a severe lack of imagination, because they fail to see how much worse they can make it for themselves.
> Those people have a severe lack of imagination, because they fail to see how much worse they can make it for themselves.
It's interesting that in this entire thread following my original comment, not one comment has defended Democrats by describing how they do good things and significantly help the public. Talk about a severe lack of imagination.
That the choice is always phrased in terms of harm reduction just proves my point about the duopoly and corruption. Why are better things never possible?
I'll name one: affordable care act
Discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42865354
> "I never thought the leopard would eat MY face" sobs man who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party.
One of the all time great tweets. People might well want a chaos agent on their TV, because politics has become wrestling. They absolutely will not like it when the chaos comes back to them, which they have assumed it won't. Look at how many people were complaining about the price of eggs before the election; now watch how the US responds to avian flu with a nonfunctional federal government.
> now watch how the US responds to avian flu with a nonfunctional federal government.
What makes you think we had a "functional" federal government before the election?
You appear to be ignoring how both Democrats and Republicans have consistently, completely failed to function for the public they're supposed to serve, for many decades. When the people are desperate, they make desperate choices. There's a reason that Biden was extremely unpopular at the end of his term. Don't ignore that.
> You appear to be ignoring how both Democrats and Republicans have consistently, completely failed to function for the public they're supposed to serve, for many decades.
False equivalence or just false.
By many measures the Democratic Party is still an ordinary political party that tries to enact particular policies to address particular problems based on facts and a cost-benefit analysis. The ACA is one example. The IRA is another. There are many. While in power they diligently seek to pass legislation addressing priorities they ran for office on. You may disagree with these priorities, but the majorities who elected them do agree with them. And in fact, typically a majority of Americans, including many who vote against Democrats, also agree with these priorities.
The Republicans also run on platforms but are much less successful at converting their positions into legislation, largely because their coalition contains a fractious contingent that is motivated by attention more than policy goals, but also because in the event they get cold feet: they realize in the event that repealing the enormously popular policy they ran against would have enormous blowback for them. Repealing Roe is one example. The repeated attempts to repeal the ACA is another.
What you're reacting to, I think, is the failure to pass policy due to checks and balances -- you need both houses of the legislature, the executive, and, increasingly, agreement of the courts. But even if the policy passed, nearly 50% of the populace would think they had been failed by its passage.
I hope you and I don't have to learn how functional the government was before the Republicans broke it. The avian flu is a great test case. International trade is another. Here's hoping the mass layoffs Trump intended to set into motion and the collapse of state and local governments due to sudden budget shocks doesn't set off another Great Depression. That would be another interesting test case. What happens when ram the ship of state into a granite cliff?
Obama did run on PPACA.
https://web.archive.org/web/20081114051543/https://barackoba...
> The ACA is one example. The IRA is another. There are many. While in power they diligently seek to pass legislation addressing priorities they ran for office on.
The IRA?
The ACA was more or less Romneycare, a Republican idea, but ironically passed with zero Republican votes. The ACA was a permanent government subsidy to the very health insurance companies that people hated and continue to hate, as evidenced by the recent celebration over the murder of a health insurance CEO. The ACA has not resulted in universal health care. It has not ended medical debt and bankruptcy. It has not ended the practice of claim denial. It has not controlled health insurance premium costs, which have surpassed the inflation rate despite bad inflation in recent years.
In any case, the question of the extent to which candidates keep their promises is not particularly interesting, because even their policy proposals are contolled by their campaign donors. Fundamental changes in the system are rarely on the table. The disparity of wealth in the US has continued to grow unabated over the past 50 years, through Democratic and Republican presidencies.
> they realize in the event that repealing the enormously popular policy they ran against would have enormous blowback for them. Repealing Roe is one example.
Um, they succeeded at that. Roe was overturned by Supreme Court justices appointed by Republican presidents.
Inflation Reduction Act.
> The ACA was more or less Romneycare, a Republican idea, but ironically passed with zero Republican votes...
I agree with much of what you say, but the ACA is popular. Its popularity is growing. Passing the ACA was a matter of getting half a loaf rather than none. It was an attempt to do something. The rest is just goalpost moving. You set out an extreme position: "completely failed to function for the public they're supposed to serve, for many decades". They passed the ACA. The ACA is popular, has brought the cost of healthcare down, brought health coverage to millions of people, etc., etc. I wouldn't have preferred this system, but it obviously is not a complete failure.
> In any case, the question of the extent to which candidates keep their promises is not particularly interesting, because even their policy proposals are controlled by their campaign donors. Fundamental changes in the system are rarely on the table. The disparity of wealth in the US has continued to grow unabated over the past 50 years, through Democratic and Republican presidencies.
Sure, and this sucks, but "the Democrats are as bad as a Republicans" is a recipe for cynicism and resignation, not revolution.
> Roe was overturned by Supreme Court justices appointed by Republican presidents.
I pointed this out precisely because they did succeed at it. They succeeded at it and then struggled in the next two elections, and arguably the third as well. In every national election this year around the world the ruling party was thrown out. This is the first time since ... well, since the chart I got this fact from begins, that no election was one by an incumbent party:
https://jabberwocking.com/bad-economies-only-recently-starte...
That Harris came as close as she did actually shows that the headwinds against the Republicans have continued.
My point was that when they take the power they have won and attempt to enact their policy positions they start losing. This was an example of that.
> the ACA is popular.
It's more popular than nothing, of course. I wouldn't trade it for nothing either.
> Its popularity is growing.
This is somewhat misleading. Over the years, its polling has gone up and down within a range. https://news.gallup.com/poll/654101/health-coverage-governme...
> Passing the ACA was a matter of getting half a loaf rather than none. It was an attempt to do something.
This is the kind of Sophie's Choice I hate. Single-payer health care was proposed in the US in the 1970s but was killed by Jimmy Carter, inspiring Ted Kennedy to primary challenge him. We could have had it, and still could have it.
Polling doesn't tell the whole story, because single-payer was taken off the table for decades. It wasn't part of the public debate, because hardly any political leaders advocated for it, not even Democrats. Bernie Sanders, a socialist, almost single-handedly resuscitated single-payer. Regardless of the polling, single-payer is demonstrably superior, as shown by nearly every developed country in the world besides the United States. The reason we don't have it is massive corruption, the health care industry buying off opposition. Buying Democrats as well as Republicans.
> "the Democrats are as bad as a Republicans"
I didn't say that. I said they're both corrupt.
> They succeeded at it and then struggled in the next two elections, and arguably the third as well.
Third? What third? Dobbs was decided in 2022. To say that Republicans "struggled" seems like an overstatement. Perhaps they won fewer seats in Congress than they could have, but they still took control of the House in 2022, adding the Senate and Presidency in 2024. If only Democrats experienced such a "struggle".
> My point was that when they take the power they have won and attempt to enact their policy positions they start losing. This was an example of that.
Republicans gained full control of the federal government a mere two years after Dobbs. That's winning, not losing.
These types of conservatives have been strongly rejected by voters since 2016. PJ ORourke has no influence in conservative circles today.
In 2016, normal parameters would be to increase military and intelligence gathering spending and start a war somewhere in order to establish democracy and reduce oil prices. Things could have been much worse than a US that had conflicts inwards rather than outwards.
And in 2025 and onwards, they're getting both?
> There's a political duopoly, both parties are obviously, blatantly corrupt
Are you KIDDING? You’re talking about overstating, following with a huge understatement.
Trump sells fucking bibles to schools. Trump launched a shitcoin right before his inauguration. Trump took 1 million dollars per CEO for his inauguration. The corruption scales are off the charts with Trump. You can’t talk about "the lesser of 2 evils" when one of them is a literal wannabe dictator / mafia boss / cult leader. Come on.
Popular vote disagrees with this.
Popular vote disagrees with the temperature at which water boils.
No it doesn’t. Popular vote just thinks these are good qualities for their president. One of the failures of democracy is letting people vote themselves into an autocracy, and forgetting that democracy must not become the tyranny of a majority.
And apparently this is what Electoral College was supposed to prevent.
No, that's not true at all. The EC was to prevent the interests of more populous states from governing the less populous states.
That's what "tyranny of the majority" is, you're agreeing with them.
No. The EC was meant specifically to mitigate the tyranny of big states over small states, not to thwart a broad coalition of people across the states.
You didn't actually dispute my claim. I notice that you offered no defense whatsoever of Democrats, or other Republicans for that matter.
I wasn't trying to argue about who exactly is the lesser of evils. As I said, the voters might be wrong about who that is. My point was merely that not everyone who voted for Trump, or voted for Harris (or Biden or Clinton), was enthusiastic about their choice. Not everyone was trying to "own the other side". In fact, many people vote primarily based on their beliefs about their personal economic prospects. As a famous 1992 campaign slogan said, it's "the economy, stupid".
It's ridiculous whataboutism to "both sides" here.
The president ran on a platform of brazen corruption and retribution against political foes, and he's following through.
Democrats doing insider trading and other low stakes small ball shit really should not be mentioned in the same conversation.
> Democrats doing insider trading and other low stakes small ball shit
Er, plus supporting genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and repression of peaceful protest of the same with our tax dollars. Not what I would call "low stakes small ball shit", and not something I will ever overlook or forget.
Democrats had four years to find a strong candidate to beat Trump, or to find a way to hold him accountable. It didn't seem to me like they even tried very hard to do that.
Even after all their 'mistakes', if that's what they were, they could still have handily won the election simply by promising to enforce an arms embargo. They had lots of polling showing this fact very clearly. Over 30% of 2020 Biden voters in battleground states said the lack of an arms embargo would probably affect their vote!
You - and every 2024 Dem voter - might ask yourselves why Democrats would rather hand the Presidency to Trump than stop supplying the bombs killing Palestinians.
Not sure I understand here. Are you suggesting that the new president will cut off arms to Israel? That makes absolutely no sense.
I don’t know why so many people fall into this line of thinking. Supporting genocide is bad. If a person draws a line at supporting genocide, they likely won’t appreciate the difference between Democrats who support genocide while pretending to be sad about it or Republicans who support it with a smile. Genocide is happening regardless of which person they vote for so they decided not to vote or throw away the vote on a third party. It’s really not complicated.
If the Democratic Party leadership were capable of learning, they would ask themselves what they could have done differently to turn out the folks who stayed home. Instead they will blame the left, put their head in the sand and run the same losing strategy next election expecting different results. The fact that democrats are our best defense against authoritarianism means this country is pretty much toast.
The president who achieved a cease fire in the first month, while the previous administration seemingly didn't try?
Also the same person who thinks all the Palestinians in Gaza should go to Jordan or Egypt.
> “The Biden administration isn’t just giving a green light for ethnic cleansing — it’s bankrolling it,” said DAWN executive director Sarah Leah Whitson. “Gaslighting Americans into facilitating long-held Israeli plans to depopulate Gaza under the cover of ‘humanitarian aid’ is a cruel and grotesque hoax.”
https://truthout.org/articles/rights-groups-say-bidens-israe...
That article is well over a year old, while Trump made his comments this week.
Correct. A year ago, Joe Biden supported ethnic cleansing, and now Trump supports it.
... And? What is the point you're trying to make here - that there's a 12 month statute of limitations on openly advocating for ethnic cleansing?
> A year ago, Joe Biden supported ethnic cleansing, and now Trump supports it.
How many residents of Gaza ended up in Egypt or Jordan? I rememeber that kerfuffle and basically Egypt and Jordan said absolutely not, and it didn't happen. Trump is a loudmouth, so it's unlikely that he'll follow through on this (fortunately) but personally I count the chances of him doing something like this much, much higher than I did for the other US party (both of whom's policy on Gaza/Palestine has been really bad).
Previous administration tried hard. Sadly the Israeli PM decided he'd rather wait to see who won the next US election before seriously negotiating.
> Previous administration tried hard.
* Four UN ceasefire vetoes said otherwise.
* Over 100 weapons shipments, including 2,000 lb unguided bombs, said otherwise.
* Using the power of the government to smear peaceful student protesters spoke mountains.
* Biden's repetition of debunked mass rape lies painted a pretty clear picture.
* Constant gaslighting from Blinken, Patel and Miller re Israeli atrocities such as Hind Rajab or the Al Nasr babies said otherwise.
* A firm commitment from Kamala that there would be no arms embargo, "no matter what", said otherwise with crystal clarity.
I find the rewriting of history on this topic deeply disturbing.
His own side was calling him "Genocide Joe" because of his enthusiasm for arming the Israelis. What are you talking about?
> *His own side* was calling him "Genocide Joe"
Source on that?
Reddit? Twitter? Mastodon? Facebook?
You can Google the term and find articles referencing it, and a quick search on any social media platform will show usage as well. You can even find it used on HN. You can buy "Genocide Joe" merch on Amazon. People called him that to his face[0].
[0] https://www.c-span.org/clip/campaign-2024/genocide-joe-yelle...
I'm asking specifically about the "his own side"
"Kristin Welker, NBC’s moderator, noted to Ms Ocasio-Cortez during their interview that some activists on her party’s progressive left flank have started using the derisive moniker “Genocide Joe” for the US president." https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-polit...
Unfortunately, you appear to be missing the point. You're focusing on personal corruption, when the main issue is policy corruption. The fundamental corruption of our privately funded political system is that politicians mostly do what their wealthy campaign donors want them to do, and what their wealthy campaign donors want is mainly to rig the system in their favor. This is not "low stakes small ball". It affects everyone. In our system, the voters are mere tools for acquiring power; the power is rarely exercised in their favor. That's why people become disillusioned, and yes, it is "both sides".
If a politician happened to enrich themselves while simultaneously helping the public, then shrug, I can live with that. But the latter part, the most important part, isn't happening.
I think it's time you provided some examples.
Every time the republican party does something we do not like, it is both sides are the same. However, when democrats or even progressives not related to democrats do something wrong, it is "liberals are bad and awful".
There is no equivalent of Trump or JD Vance on the democratic side.
I think that many of them genuinely want the chaos and destruction. Unrelated to that, they see this as a rational money saving measure. If you look at intentional harm and destruction that saves nothing but only harms, Trump voters love it too.
> I'm all for reigning in government spending and our unprecedented deficit,
My bold prediction: the deficit will continue to grow at record levels.
Not for a long time. We'll keep firing economists in charge until the reported deficit is satisfactory.
This is what happens when an entire nation votes for a pure agent of chaos who has a highly questionable moral code and is easily proven a liar over and over again if he speak for more than 2 minutes. Now only check and balances in the US government can hold back the worst of it. I would have loved to have a new government auditing/ROI office open up and start review departments, instead they started using a sledgehammer to fix the leaks in the plumbing.
An “entire nation” didn’t vote for him. He won less than a third of eligible voters.
He does not have the mandate from the electorate that he claims, so let’s stop acting like he does.
I recall the steve jobs method of figuring out if people are good employees... He tells their coworkers "I heard so-and-so is shit", and if the person is loudly defended, he might be ok. If not, he might not be that good.
Maybe this is a way of doing the same thing. If people defend funding something strongly, it might deserve it, and if not...
More tax cuts for the rich sure won’t help either