alt Hacker NewsYeah, no, it actually is mature enough.
I hate divisive language like this, but Trump's only major concrete "policy" (if you can call it that) during his 2024 campaign was that he was going to somehow lower grocery prices by instituting tariffs, so basically "I'm going to lower prices by raising prices".
That kind of idiotic quasi-doublespeak should have been a disqualifier for anyone with at least a two-digit IQ, but apparently it's not. The only scenarios that I can see for this:
1) People actually believed the idiotic notion that "other countries" pay the tariffs.
This is so idiotic because even if that were true, which it's not, those costs would still be ruled into the price. "No such thing as a free lunch" is very literally the first thing I learned in high school economics.
If people are that stupid then they can be blamed for their idiotic decisions to vote for a despot.
2) They didn't believe in the tariff rhetoric, and wanted to vote for Trump based on a nebulous "personality".
This is stupid. If you really are voting for people because you think you'd "like to have a beer with them", then you should be blamed when bad things happen from that idiotic decision.
----
Kamala wasn't a great candidate, but I really hate this sort of "both sides"-ing people do to try and engage in apologetics for people's ridiculous decision to vote for the guy who, as far as I can tell, has literally no expertise in anything.
Replies
Average IQ in US hovers around 100. It means half of population is lower, from what I've found online it seems like a standard bell curve distribution.
You can't talk about higher concepts with people on the low part of the scale, I mean come on we are adults and experienced this in our lives 1000x over. It can easily end up insulting to them or make them feel (even more) sidelined. trump's campaign aimed very effectively in that below-100 crowd, for the second time. Easy to understand statements even if completely incorrect, appeal to negative emotions instead of rational facts.
At the end, everybody knew what kind of POS they are dealing with and everybody voted accordingly. Talks about strong/weak candidate are beyond useless and pathetic excuse and attempt to shift blame - even if you have a choice between strong leader hitler and weaker freedom-liking candidate its ridiculous to state 'but the other person was weak so I went against all my moral values'. If one actually has them - maybe thats core of the issue, many people like to pretend but deep inside are not that nice or caring.
All the tariffs were stupid, Trump is mostly stupid and completely corrupt, but voters felt a justifiable need to punish the Democrats for a presidency where they were gaslit every day. Inflation? What inflation? And the economy is great, actually! Biden’s mind is sharp as a tack! etc. That’s before you get into culture war social issues topics, where the Democrats were miles away from the average non-blue-haired voter. And not only that, Dems ran another campaign with a tone of “Everyone who disagrees with me is an evil and/or stupid bigot” - H. Clinton’s winning strategy.
I was glad to see Harris lose, as I thought losing to Trump would sufficiently humiliate all those responsible for pushing the asinine platform and unlikeable candidate on us into changing their ways. Sadly, Dems still learned absolutely nothing and changed nothing. “A perfect campaign.”
> People actually believed the idiotic notion that "other countries" pay the tariffs.
Many believed this, think about how many Americans do not understand the Progressive Tax system. I believe it has been intentional for many years to keep up some of these misunderstanding of basic governance.