Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
Parties basically switched sides this election. From 2008 to now: - Pro war party: Repubs -> Dems - Dick Cheney party: Repubs -> Dems - Elitist party: Repubs -> Dems - Working class party: Dems -> Repubs - Pro free speech party: Dems -> Repubs - Bigger spending party: Dems -> Repubs - Skeptical of large corps: Dems -> Repubs

There are some issues where they haven't switched (eg. abortion)

I think this could be correct if only look at what they say rather than what they do.

We'll see if Republicans in control are anti-war, anti-elite, pro free speech, pro-working class, anti-large-corps, etc.

I know where I'd place my bets on policies.

This is a good point, but when you compare to Kamala, she's even worse on this front.

Kamala never talks like just a normal person. My wife was telling me this this morning. You can't get through the facade. How on earth are you gonna know what she's really gonna do?

My wife was like- "I just don't see Trump being a warmonger, but Kamala, she very well could be."

And then you take into account what she has said and done (Cheney anyone?) and it's open shut case of who's less warlike.

> "I just don't see Trump being a warmonger, but Kamala, she very well could be."

It's not Trump that will be the "warmonger", it's the people he empowers. Trump is a shallow personality -- all he wants is attention, he does not have an ideology. For the boring part of actually enacting policy he defers to supplicants and this time around his supplicants are more unserious and self-interested than the first time around.

This is just basic 2nd order reasoning that it seems like so many people in this country lack.

All the Republicans who were against him being re-elected are the warhawk wing of the party. There is zero evidence of him being inclined to be a warmonger, and a lot of evidence (and history) to the contrary.
> all he wants is attention, he does not have an ideology

This is not demonstrably true. He's had a consistent ideology since the beginning- MAGA and now MAHA too.

I used to think Trump was shallow, for maybe a few months in 2015. The problem with that is if you think Trump is shallow, it means all the people who voted for him and love him are stupid. In fact, you implied you think this:

> This is just basic 2nd order reasoning that it seems like so many people in this country lack.

Your operating philosophy cannot be that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid.

Your point about supplicants can be equally applied to Kamala.

> Your operating philosophy cannot be that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid.

I don't think people are stupid. I think they don't think things through.

MAGA is not a coherent political policy. Project 2025 is at least soundly documented and is probably the set of policies we'll see out of this admin.

I googled MAHA and it doesn't seem like a thing beyond a boilerplate website and twitter account nobody follows and some videos from RFK. Again, not a policy, just a platitude like MAGA and an unserious one at that.

loading story #42062649
If you voted for him, possibly still not stupid. Love him? Definitely stupid.

> Your point about supplicants can be equally applied to Kamala.

Ah yes, the district attorney with a long political career is exactly same as the reality TV star.

loading story #42069374
> Kamala never talks like just a normal person.

And Trump does? He says absolutely insane things.

However, "normal people" don't run for president.

In an age of inauthenticity on social media, people are inherently drawn to someone who appears authentic. Trump comes across as a straight-shooter. People may not love everything he says, but they feel like they can trust him because he isn't hiding behind a mask.
{"deleted":true,"id":42067404,"parent":42061736,"time":1730919414,"type":"comment"}
Do you even notice yourself how you consistently refer to Harris as ”Kamala“, but Trump by his last name, and what that means in terms of respect towards the candidates?
The blame for why nobody says Donald goes to Walt Disney.
Uh, Trump barely talks at all.
Trump has many 3 hour long podcasts and routinely gives 3 hour long speeches, off the cuff.
His ramblings are borderline incomprehensible.
Might wanna brush up on your english listening skills then.
He does move his mouth a lot but I wouldn't call whatever sounds he produces "coherent speech"
You do realize almost every time he goes off the cuff Fox and co pretend it doesn’t happen or they immediately go into damage control if it spreads, right?
RE: "Skeptical of large corps" do you mean their voter base or their actions? Because I seriously doubt whoever is replacing Lina Khan is going to be more skeptical of large corporations
loading story #42060908
loading story #42063269
How are the repubs not pro-war?

They are pro-Israel and anti-Palestine.

They are pro-Russia and anti-Ukraine.

The republicans I know have pretty varying opinions on those two wars. One pretty common thread is that they don't want us involved though, regardless of which side of the wars they align with.
Then call them what they are, isolationists not anti war then. Carrying water for Russia's invasion of Ukraine; opposing aid for Ukraine is incompatible.
loading story #42061196
All of the Trump voters I know think we should obliterate Iran.
loading story #42062108
loading story #42061768
Ultimately those opinions will not matter. The president has full control of the State department and will align with the autocrats who stroke his ego: Putin and Netanyahu.

Expect the money to stop flowing to Ukraine, and to keep going to Israel, and try to divine a logic for that.

loading story #42061217
Trump is going to send more money and armaments to Israel and not one of them will object because he will abandon Ukraine and they’ll all hold that up as an amazing thing.
loading story #42062120
True they are pro-israel, but so is most of the dems. It's the one topic that actually gets bipartisan support.

repubs aren't pro russia. they are just anti-getting-involved in there.

As de-facto world police, inaction on the US' part is compliance.

Of course, it took what, 70, 80 years of US influence to weaken the European armies to the point where we're highly reliant on them for defense, deterrence, tech and material. The Crimea invasion should've been the catalyst for the massively increased spending and prioritization of the military in Europe, not the 2022 escalation. I hope for Ukraine's sake that Europe has been able to catch up and restart production of equipment and that they can supply it asap, because after Ukraine it'll be Moldavia and Georgia, which already have pro-russian separatist movements / areas. Poland has invested a ton in updating their military at least.

I hope the US doesn't have veto powers to stop article 5 from being enacted if it does come to that.

loading story #42069150
loading story #42066813
loading story #42063659
loading story #42062742
> It's the one topic that actually gets bipartisan support.

Gee I wonder why. Every single US senator takes AIPAC lobby money.

loading story #42064391
loading story #42066908
>repubs aren’t pro russia

They sure are for the right price.

loading story #42066989
Anecdotally, I’ve seen many republicans be anti-Israel and anti-Palestine, anti-Ukraine and anti-Russia. Their stance is pro-America.
They have managed to have themselves perceived as anti-war, which is an obvious untruth.
They are certainly more anti-war than the Dems right now
The GOP would rather the Ukraine war end (probably with Russia winning).
Boy what an over generalization.

Most are anti palestine because Hamas is a terrorist. Sorry I won’t support terrorism and support what Israel is doing.

I support Ukraine because I know what Russia needs Ukraine for.

Do I want to see people shooting? No because I’ve been to war and seen how ugly it is. Sometimes you have to defend yourself though.

I still voted for Trump.

> Sorry I won’t support terrorism and support what Israel is doing.

This just means you support State Terrorism instead of non-state terrorism.

> Sometimes you have to defend yourself though.

Unless you're Palestinian. In which case defending yourself isn't authorized. Just ask the West Bank residents being regularly killed by armed illegal settlers pre-October 7th how laying down their arms has worked out for them.

loading story #42063303
Arguably being pro-Israel is anti-war. Israel's current conflict is the direct result of several entities starting a war with her last October. Suggesting that Israel should not fight back is promoting the idea of war as a means of getting what one wants.
Ah yes nothing happened before last October right
loading story #42067305
Nah, Americans aren't that dumb. We send billions and billions to Israel every year, for what? Most Americans want to stop being a blank check for them to bomb whoever and then get mad, deplete their resources, and ask for more when they get attacked back
loading story #42067400
I don't buy that Repubs are the free speech party (or even that Dems were the free speech party). Republican complaints about free speech were almost entirely self-serving and never on principal.(this is not to say judges or other conservative thought leaders may not be pro-free speech) but for the political parties: commitment to free speech comes from the tension between the two parties. Give either of them too much power and free speech is out the window.

Also, pro war party is a weird thing to say. Repubs in 2000 wanted to be the aggressors. Defense to Ukraine has thus far been pretty bi-partisan.

> - Pro free speech party: Dems -> Repub

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/22/media/trump-strip-tv-station-...

loading story #42068052
{"deleted":true,"id":42071971,"parent":42060657,"time":1730940650,"type":"comment"}
>Skeptical of large corps They will surely get rid of Lina Khan almost instantly, who is one of the few people in a position of power who is actually poutting skepticism of large companies into action.

Granted, there is a good chance that she would be fired either way if Harris had won.

Dems are the only ones pushing antitrust. The Republicans taking over is dominated by CEOs of large companies. How could you possibly say its Reps that are skeptical of large corps not dems. Antitrust is probably gonna die now because of this outcome

Also, thinking that Republicans aren't just as, if not more, bought by the military industry complex is just sticking your head in the sand. The GOP is more adamant about funding Israel than Dems are

{"deleted":true,"id":42061872,"parent":42060657,"time":1730899292,"type":"comment"}
Bill Clinton didn't have major wars, but did have wars. Bush Jr had major wars and the dems fought like hell against that, but then Obama had a bunch of wars and kept one major war going. Trump didn't have new wars and insisted on ending the one major war (which didn't happen until Biden). Biden has a major war. Harris got the endorsement of the Cheneys and some Bushes.

There was no party switch. Both parties love the money flow that wards create.

Trump is not a party; he's the only one against the wars.

loading story #42070822
Name one, just one antiwar group that's pro Republican. They're all on the left, who was once again, excluded from participating.

The Democrats think that by going harder right, the Republicans would stop calling them Communist.

They don't realize the accusations are pulled out of thin air to begin with. The Democrats pushing harder right won't quiet the right wing bullshit machine.

loading story #42065971
Liz Cheney voted with the GOP for the four long Trump years, how is she not a Republican
loading story #42061499
loading story #42061373
I am honestly unsure why the characterization of Trump as anti-war overlooks his stated desire to "order the Department of Defense to make appropriate use of special forces, cyber warfare, and other covert and overt actions to inflict maximum damage on [Mexican] cartel leadership, infrastructure, and operations." Whether or not you think that's justified, it is a very clear statement of intent to use military force on foreign territory, at our discretion. And that's a quote from 2023.
I'm surprised more people hadn't noticed this switch during this campaign cycle. It seemed pretty clear to me, especially coming off the heals of a pandemic response that saw the democratic party flip so dramatically to blindly trusting big pharma and reaching for law & order as a pandemic response strategy.

The best explanation I heard recently was that Trump in 2016 made a play to pull working class Americans into the Republican party. The party basically clinched its teeth and looked the other way, knowing that they either accept the voters or risk a real problem. Since then the Republican party has largely embraced the working class while the Democratic party continues to favor more and more towards the rich voters and massive corporations, finishing off the full party flip.

loading story #42072064
loading story #42061537
> Pro war

I was surprised to see Trump not entertain much war during his last term but I don't agree. Both parties equally entertain war and I fear any Republican anti-war this time will be pro-Russia and further destabilize the world.

> Working class party

I think the voters see it that way and it's a real win for Republicans since they're the opposite and get away with it for who knows what reason

> Pro free speech

I've absolutely no idea how you came to this conclusion

> Skeptical of large corps

I'd love for that to be true but I bet they'll be just fine with any large corp that helps them remain in control.

And yes, the entire topic of religion has not only remained the same but perhaps gotten worse.

loading story #42062663
What?

Trump pulled out of the Iran deal, which pushed Iran to redevelop its nuclear program. Anti-war what?

Trump signed the abraham accords with Saudi/Israeli appeasement, which Israeli intelligence notes pushed Hamas to attack on oct 7 and launch this war. Anti-war what?

Trump withheld military aid from the Ukraine until Zelensky provided dirt on Joe Biden, which was critical for Ukraine's defense against Russia's aggression in Eastern Ukraine, leaving Ukraine weaker and invaded in full two years later, anti-war what?

Trump has threatened to jail his opponents and go after the press, free speech what?

Republicans have banned books, want to ban teachers and fire massive amounts of civil servants, free speech what?

Elitist party, Trump is literally a billionaire who is supported by other billionaires, some of whom he will put in his cabinet. His biggest two policy positions are tax cuts for big corps (elitist) and deportations of the lowest class of people in the US. But Dems are elitist?

I don't think there is much that they've switched on actually in the last election, other than Republicans convincing the working class that they're their party, something republicans have done on and off for many decades.

loading story #42068299
Trump doesn’t care about abortion at all, yet for some reason Dems think it‘ll be Handmaid‘s Tale. States can do what they want.
loading story #42061664
loading story #42062532