alt Hacker News>a turd sandwich and a giant douche
Ah yes, the famous conservative talking point of "well yeah, my side is bad, but your side is just as bad".
From a pure performance standard across economy and quality of life, its pretty clear that Democratic policies always end up as net positive, while conservative policies may seem good in the short term but allways end up bad long term. But to see this you have to understand politics, and understand the effects aren't always immediate. However, the situation this time around is way simpler.
Basically in 2016, you could be excused for voting for Trump. Things were going well enough that mattered, Hilary was not the best candidate, and maybe a little mix up needed to happen. In 2020, if you voted for Trump, you are absolutely clueless about politics and have no idea what is actually good for the country, but at least its all political reasons.
In 2024, it wasn't about politics - it was a choice between either allowing a convicted felon who tried to overthrow US government (with Supreme Courts saying he did nothing wrong mind you) back into a position of power, or not. As it turns out 7/10 people who either voted for trump or didn't vote are ok with the rich and elite getting away with what they want.
So generally when people act surprised about anything that happens in regards to Einstein or any other things that Trump will do, like interfere with elections and possibly go for third term, just remember that those people don't actually care. This is what they want.
Replies
> conservative talking point
The problem with your accusation is that I am a long ways from conservative, and what I said is a pop culture reference straight from South Park.
> In 2024, it wasn't about politics
It wasn't? The dems took a candidate so weak in charisma [0] that she lost her first primary to another candidate also historically weak in charisma (Biden) who himself tried multiple times to run for president and only won in 2020 because he barely edged out the most historically unpopular president in memory. The cherry on top was that she didn't have to win a single primary to become the nominee, and her party had just spent months insisting that the guy at the helm, who promised to be a one term president, was losing his already unfortunately weak ability to speak clearly before realizing how badly he was going to lose to Trump and just gifting the nomination to his VP. What a shit show.
As a long time democrat I remain astounded at how horridly incompetent the leadership is and the lengths to which rank-and-file supporters will go to make excuses for them. Followed closely by the insistence of democratic voters to focus on narrow cultural priorities that resonate with a small number of people and don't move the needle at all for like 80% of the population. What on God's green earth happened to being, you know, progressive? What about labor, or healthcare, or affordable groceries, housing, etc?
[0] yes, charisma isn't the ideal requirement for a presidential candidate, but failure to recognize that this is basically how all presidents win election just means you are going to lose more often.
Plus, we still have people insisting that Kamala lost because she was a woman. No, she won because she sucks as a political candidate. Hillary had precisely the same issue. There are strong women who communicate well who would perform much better, but they have thus far decided to avoid the circus.
> From a pure performance standard across economy and quality of life, its pretty clear that Democratic policies always end up as net positive,
All one has to do is point at San Francisco as this us provably false. Dems have been in charge their for decades and it's arguably not working.