[Trasmatta]

Yeah, I keep seeing the "well, Trump won!" argument anytime somebody suggests that a certain person wouldn't win an election. But that ignores Trump's unique characteristics that allowed him to gain a significant and loyal following.

I feel like Zuckerberg trying to run would be a Mike Bloomberg situation. Remember when that happened?

[vb6sp6]

1) Bloomberg doesn't control facebook

2) Bloomberg ran as a democrat

Imagine a world where you get your news from Fox News and then go to a conservative controlled facebook. He would be unstoppable.

[adjkant]

Zuckerberg couldn't run as anything but a democrat either. Cambridge Analytica and the like ensured that, but his beliefs (as far as he has shown any) are leaning democrat with libertarian tendencies at best. His lack of moral spine is compatible with both parties (not equating said parties to be clear).

[pstuart]

Trump's unique characteristics were antithetical to the role of POTUS. Now cult leader, on the other hand...

[dang]

Please don't take HN threads into partisan flamewar. It leads nowhere good, as manifested below.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23407848 also, because that was an even worse step.

[war1025]

The only thing about Trump that is antithetical to the role of POTUS, at least in the coastal elite / media sense, is that he ran as a Republican.

[dang]

Please don't take HN threads further into partisan flamewar. It leads nowhere good, as manifested below.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[pstuart]

You see, this is why discussing politics here gets a bad rap. You are operating in a partisan manner and effectively trolling now.

If you were actually interested in dialog, I would go to the effort of gathering evidence of members of the GOP trashing him before he attained power, as well as multiple prominent republicans who today are aghast at what he's done and is continuing to do.

I'm against political parties (Washington warned us way back when), and I associate with the party that you clearly don't belong to. My association is made under duress, in that I have to pick one in order for my voice to be heard.

I can have civil and adult conversations about the merits and failures of both parties and of individuals within them.

I'm guessing that might be a challenge for you so I won't bother trying. Let me know otherwise.

[dang]

Personal attacks will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong another commenter is or you feel they are. Maybe you don't owe your political opponents better, or don't feel you do; but you definitely owe this community better if you're posting to it. This kind of thing leads to its destruction, so please don't.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[pstuart]

@dang, I'm sorry that wasn't my intent and I was doing my damndest to stick to facts. I don't see these people as opponents and I'm not trying to "win", only to try to find some sort of mutual understanding.

This is a third rail I'll never touch here again, but I'd like to point out a couple of things for closure.

* What has been happening in the last 3+ years is not normal, and much of the population is terrified by what is happening and what is likely to happen. I am one of those people

* Politics operates in two realms: policy and theater. I've normally no interest in the latter but it has taken center stage.

* United we stand, and divided we fall. I believe that there are active efforts to promote division and my hope is for unity. And division that occurred here was counter to my goals (but I should have known better).

* Many of my fellow citizens also believe that the GOP has become a cult, centered around the topic of discussion. Most people think that cults are not a good thing.

I could go on and on, but I won't because it will fall on deaf ears.

Thank you for helping to keep this forum as wonderful as it is, and once more, I'm sorry to have cause any problems.

edit: the "deaf years" was about those that I was trying to have a discussion.

[dang]

I believe you! Also, I don't think it's necessarily best to treat these things as a third rail, since the only way we're going to learn as a community to stay within the functional range on hard topics is by practice.

I feel like I should explain something about moderation. There's a sense in which a lot of this is fairly mechanical. When I post a reply like I did upthread, I'm reacting to statements like "you are [...] effectively trolling now", "If you were actually interested in dialog", and so on. Such things can be removed without changing your views or compromising your argument. It's also in your interest to do so, since you're trying to stick to facts and your intention is to find mutual understanding.

The reason why we have to moderate on that fairly mechanical level is that these things have mechanical effects on discussion threads. When they're present in a discussion, it's impossible for people to see past that layer and give genuine attention to what the other party is saying, let alone find mutual understanding. This aspect of moderation is rather superficial because these dynamics are superficial. They're critically important, though, because if we can't take care of that layer, we'll remain stuck there—or actually degenerate into worse.

(That's not the only aspect of moderation, fortunately, but it's a common one.)

[war1025]

> I'm guessing that might be a challenge for you so I won't bother trying. Let me know otherwise.

I was with you up until this ass-hattery.

Experience has taught me that any moderate / conservative opinion is going to get downvoted through the floor no matter how well you back it up. It's easier to just burn karma with short comments.

> I would go to the effort of gathering evidence of members of the GOP trashing him before he attained power

Yes. It's well known. Established politicians despise Trump. No contest there.

> I associate with the party that you clearly don't belong to

I identify as a "not-Democrat". It's true that I tend to vote Republican lately, but there is plenty that they do that I don't agree with. It's just that Democrats seem to do a more effective job of making me not want to vote for them. I may just go back to not voting in future elections.

Trump's main sin, besides being a member of the wrong party, is that he is the most transparent President in history. He has no qualms airing his dirty laundry and it drives people nuts.

But back to my original comment, the majority of the media is objectively left-leaning, which means they will see anything and everything Trump does in a negative light.

You can still glean useful information from their reporting, but I don't think anyone can pretend networks and individual reporters don't come pre-equipped with a heavy dose of bias.

Fox leans heavily right, no one disputes that. Somehow pointing out other outlets lean left has become controversial.

[pstuart]

> I was with you up until this ass-hattery.

Your dialog to that point came across as that of a Trump loyalist. I've learned that there's no point in engaging there, but it looks like you want to talk further, so here we go.

> Trump's main sin, besides being a member of the wrong party, is that he is the most transparent President in history. He has no qualms airing his dirty laundry and it drives people nuts.

Wow. I'll give this a try...

* Trump had 3 marriages and cheated in all of them (contrary to the "family values) the GOP espouses.

* Trump was involved with organized crime, including money laundering (and likely is to this date).

* Trump is a pathological liar

* Trump is a racist (actually ok in the GOP playbook)

* Trump is a failed businessman

* Trump is a sexist and sexual predator (he makes Bill Clinton look like a boy scout (which he most certainly is not))

* Trump is a fake Christian

* Trump is ill-informed, near illiterate, and unintelligent (but is effectively an idiot savant at playing the media like a fiddle).

* Trump didn't actually want to become president, it was a grift to start his own TrumpTV. He's still pursing that and will be shaping OAN into his personal platform.

I could go on and on, but you'll either deny or disregard these points.

To show you that I can acknowledge the failures from "my side", I'll posit that Hillary Clinton was certainly far from perfect:

* She wanted the office as a mark of achievement more than to serve the country

* She is a corporatist

* She is a war hawk

* She is the typical "finger in the wind" politician regarding her convictions.

She also had a literal industry devoted to demonizing her, but that's a different story.

I take in information based on its merit, not to bolster my ideology. I'm still waiting to hear one good thing about Trump. Your point about "transparency" is puzzling. He doesn't air his dirty laundry, he says wild shit that keeps the news cycle in turmoil.

Tell me about all of his dirty laundry that he has willingly aired, please.

[war1025]

> Tell me about all of his dirty laundry that he has willingly aired, please.

You just listed nine points.

> I'm still waiting to hear one good thing about Trump

He is pro American manufacturing. Honestly that by itself is enough for a lot of people.

Also this point you made gives many people great joy:

> he says wild shit that keeps the news cycle in turmoil

Regarding "transparency", everyone agrees he basically uses Twitter as a stream of consciousness diary. It bothers people that he puts as a part of the public record things that "should be kept quiet".

[mcculley]

What if one had the money to hire a bunch of people who understand why Trump one and had no moral code? Bloomberg had the money. He just wasn't enough of an asshole to appeal to the US voter.

[adjkant]

> He just wasn't enough of an asshole to appeal to the US voter.

Based on his marketing tactics I'm inclined to disagree there. IMO he also lacked the charisma that Zuckerberg would struggle with.

[setpatchaddress]

Let's be very clear. Bloomberg has a lot more charisma in public than Zuckerberg. And so does Hillary Clinton! That's not saying much! Any elected official above a certain level has some amount of charm.