Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
You were respectably drifting away from your elitism in the first two paragraphs.

Then the last paragraph shows you have a long way to go.

> If you put someone in a voting booth who isn't interested by news, who do they vote for? I mean, Trump has a lot of surface-level qualities - he's a tall, confident white man who's a successful boss of business and an anti-establishment outsider - and maybe that's enough to capture this demographic.

I live in a rural working class region. I have beers with these guys all the time. They're my best friends and I'm the odd coder guy that works from home.

They do not care about the surface level qualities, besides the fact that he's hilarious. They might not read articles but they listen to podcasts a lot on their commutes at 4AM in the morning.

They don't want war with Russia, they're pissed about the COVID stuff, and they aren't happy with the price of gas.

They don't care that he's tall.

> I live in a rural working class region. I have beers with these guys all the time. They're my best friends and I'm the odd coder guy that works from home.

This is what America needs more of — people from different worlds just having beers together, and realizing that we’re all normal people trying to get by.

Do you know of anyone who can articulate a compelling case of why Trump would make a good president? I’m left-leaning but I want to understand where others are coming from.

I tried to make one earlier. I also consider myself left-leaning.

1. Don't want war with Russia. Trump's presidency was relatively low-war. He's also expressed a great desire to end the Ukraine conflict. If the Donbas and Crimea is the price of avoiding Nuclear war, I'm on board. The moment that switched me to deciding on Trump was when Dick Cheney endorsed Kamala.

2. Protecting kids. I don't think kids can consent to medical gender transition. It amounts to state sanctioned child abuse. I have kids. Once you're 18 go ahead do what you want.

3. Illegal immigration. I lived in South America for 4 years. My wife is Colombian, we just moved back to the States. Legally. It was a long and arduous process to come in legally. That should be made easier (something Musk at least has espoused) and coming in illegally should be made harder. I know quite a few illegal immigrants and they are being abused by the urban elite to build their summer homes. They're not living a better life and they're stuck here.

4. Federal bureaucracy. The federal bureaucracy has become a parasite on our progress. Just look at what's happening with SpaceX. This ties in with the immigration thing. The problems we have with immigration are actually that the lazy and corrupt bureaucracy takes years to process something that should take 2 hours. (and does! even in "third world" countries like Colombia)

5. Trust. Everyone who hates Trump likes to talk about how much he makes stuff up. But he's authentic. Meaning he rarely reads from a script. He talks off the cuff. He's not controlled. I'm tired of having politicians that basically hate half the country and think we're dumb because we don't like to listen to their corpo-bureaucrat speeches

> Donbas and Crimea is the price of avoiding Nuclear war

On the contrary, the risk of nuclear war increases when Putin gets Donbas and Crimea. Because what he wants next will be even more valuable to nations with nukes.

Appeasing sounds great but at some point you run out of other people's countries.

I don't understand this perspective.

Russia is gettin North Korean troops to fight for them because they are losing so bad, but Russia is also an aggressive superpower hell-bent on invading even more countries with far better defenses than Ukraine.

This isn't accounting for Russia's disastrous demographics problem. The biggest reason they are moving so slowly is because they can build new artillery, but are demographically forced to do everything they can to minimize casualties.

It also isn't accounting for Russia trying to get a permanent peace deal 2 months into the conflict. That's not the behavior of a country bent on conquest.

Finally, I can't take people seriously when they are basically asserting that Russia believed they could take over all of Eastern Europe with just ~200,000 troops. When Ukraine changed from regime toppling to an actual war, Russia was caught with their pants down. They had to hire Wagner and draft prisoners to buy time to start pushing soldiers through training. If they'd been planning some large invasion campaign, they would have started serious troop training a handful of years prior and have millions of already-trained troops.

It also isn't accounting for Russia trying to get a permanent peace deal 2 months into the conflict. That's not the behavior of a country bent on conquest.

When invading powers think they've prevailed and have their prey over their knee, and attempt to seal their conquest with a treaty -- they always call it a "peace deal".

You knew that, right?

> I don't understand this perspective.

It's because it's not based on fact. These people (rightly so) hate Putin. But just because you hate Putin does not mean he is capable or intending to be Hitler.

Same actually goes for Trump actually. Just because you don't like the guy doesn't mean he's literally Hitler.

The Neville Chamberlain comparison has been used to involve us in every major war since WWII and literally all of them turned out to be total disasters.

It's like Charlie Brown and the football.

One could argue there have been no major war since WWII and the belief in the futility of appeasement is exactly the reason.
Leave us alone Neocon Lucy, America will resist the urge to kick your warmongering football.
Putin himself is already tired of the war. He just doesn't see a way out where he can save the face. He wanted it to be a 3 day campaign, remember? I have doubts Putin is eager to start Ukraine War 2.0
Russia wants a few years of respite, ideally without sanctions and with the Ukraine military stripped to the studs, so that its own military can regroup and finish the job in a few years. Once that happens, the rest of Eastern Europe will be next and the Ukrainians will be first in the meat wave attacks, just like their compatriots from Eastern Donbass in 2022 (it has been occupied by Russia since 2014 and by now the towns there are nearly void of male population).
> the rest of Eastern Europe will be next

Do you have any evidence of these plans?

loading story #42068995
Russian conquest wars in the last 30 years: Chechnya 1994–1996 and 1999–2009, Georgia 2008 (Abkhazia and South Ossetia) & Ukraine (2014 - today).

If Putin ever gets tired of war, he seems to quicky recover and start again.

{"deleted":true,"id":42066504,"parent":42066442,"time":1730916374,"type":"comment"}
We let it go with two land parts in Georgia. Then he attacked Ukraine. Now, if we let it go with land parts Putin will attack again.
What do they care about, then? I have no connection with people like you're describing, so anything you can say would be interesting to hear. My understanding is based on the news is the economy, and gun control.
It seems you didn't read my comment?

> They don't want war with Russia, they're pissed about the COVID stuff, and they aren't happy with the price of gas.

loading story #42061257
> they're pissed about the COVID stuff

Pretty much the entire reason I stopped being a loyal democrat. It’s hard to call the other team a bunch of fadcists when your own party set up hotlines to dime out your neighbors for having a picnic in their backyard. Or close your kids school for two years. Or destroy your community by shutting everything down (except protests, but only for certain topics). Or threatening your job unless you take a medical procedure. Etc…

And let’s not forget the massive economic damage caused by all that. This election is basically the result of democrats absolutely horrible covid policies.

You, me and millions of other Americans. Just that there are few of us in spaces like Hacker News or the New York Times.
loading story #42067592
I didn't intend for my post to be about rural vs urban, or smart vs dumb. The point I was trying to make was that some people just aren't interested, no matter their background. You can find these people everywhere, which might explain why Trump gained in almost every county this election, even urban ones.

It's a spectrum of course. The friends you describe sound like they fall somewhere in the middle of caring about politics vs not. My point of discussion is on the people at the low end, as these are likely to swing. People past a certain threshold of attachment have had their votes locked in for years.

No, my friends don't care about politics except that some of them went to vote.

If you went to vote you obviously care about politics at least a little. The idea Trump won because people don't care about politics but then went and voted for him is inherently self contradictory.

That they're simply "attached" to him because he's tall or whatever is obviously elitist and it's exactly this mentality that repulses the people who voted for him, ie the majority of the country.

Not wanting gas to be expensive, without knowing literally anything about why gas might cost more, is about as surface level as you can get.

What happened with covid? Trump was a complete clown, but they still support him? Sounds again, very, very surface level.

You say they don't care about his height, or his gender maybe, or his race, but if he were a short female minority, that would 100% affect their opinion, even if they didn't understand it or wouldn't admit it. Very surface level no?

You're just taking every policy position and asserting it's surface-level.

We're now 8 years in of the elitists calling anyone who disagrees with them stupid, shallow, and racist.

You have learned nothing.

I agree, except we're more like 80 years into elites calling everyone else stupid.

Your first sentence is based, if you can't see how following a couple of simple talking points like "herp derp gas is to spensive" isn't anything but surface level, you're actually stupid, because I'm telling you, there is a shitload more to gas than it coming out of the pump at a price someone wants it to be. You can't just vote for cheaper gas, trump isn't an oil well.

I understand you think everyone who voted for Trump is stupid. But it's simply not true.

Also price of gas isn't the only things I mentioned. You hilariously omitted war with Russia, and all the other plausible reasons one might vote for Trump, like making illegal immigration harder than legal immigration, reducing bureaucracy, wanting to cut red tape to go to Mars, lower taxes.

You could assert all these things are somehow superficial, but that doesn't make it true.

I didn't say that at all, I was responding to a commenter talking about their particular friends, who they claimed weren't voting on shallow premises, when the examples they provided were absolutely as shallow as they were trying to claim they weren't.

You went off topic and started defending all trump voters.

I don’t understand the war part.

It does seem like Russia will continue to push west once they take Ukraine. At this point it seems like this is almost inevitable without US support.

We have a lot of Ukrainian people in Canada and they are mortified by this event. To them, US support was a lifeline. Some friends were literally crying over this turn of events because they’re terrified for their family back home.

If Russia takes Ukraine and is emboldened to continue west, how will this impact the USA? Will you want to remain uninvolved and isolated? Does it really seem safe to allow this to continue?

Or do you think nothing much will happen and this hand wringing is unnecessary? Or perhaps that Russia won’t move further west, or it’s fine that they might?

It strikes me that a lot of Trump’s policy is that of a remarkably uninformed person who struggles to connect dots and anticipate the results of these actions.

Russia invaded Ukraine with ~170,000 troops. When it turned into an actual war instead of a quick regime change, they had to hire Wagner and draft prisoners until they could train up troops to send.

Do you seriously think Russia was going to be able to attack another country if they took over Ukraine? 170,000 wouldn't even be enough to actually hold on to Ukraine (in Kosovo, we needed 1 soldier for every 34 people to preserve peace, that would be over 1 million Russian soldiers in Ukraine to occupy it).

This assertion simply doesn't make any sense to me.

> Or do you think nothing much will happen and this hand wringing is unnecessary?

This. The Neville Chamberlain comparison has been used to involve us in every major war since WWII and literally all of them turned out to be total disasters.

Epstein said it of trump, he is good at real estate and otherwise a complete moron. He said he can't think ahead what might happen with any issue, and if you've been watching him, that should be pretty obvious.

That's why this is so dangerous, he's a con man, and everyone supporting him has bought into the con, because I never see any trump supporter posting a clause that says they will stop supporting him the moment he crosses line x, they just support literally anything he does or will do.