[toomuchtodo]

My answer is to let people who want to hurt themselves politically and economically proceed after we have collectively attempted to prevent these outcomes. If they get their vote till death, and they don't want to change their vote to anything productive, there is no other choice (as mental models are rigid and tribalism pressures are strong). Good luck to them, effort is better spent on people who actually care and investment where it is valued.

> …or maybe they can just vote for the change they would like at the federal level like they just did.

This is the change they voted for. If it is harmful to them, that was their choice. As Jamie Dimon said, "Get over it." Vote better next time? If the forest votes for the axe after everyone told them not to, I have no compassion when the axe starts chopping.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Woodcutter_and_the_Trees

https://bsky.app/profile/briantylercohen.bsky.social/post/3l...

[kcplate]

> after we have collectively attempted to prevent these outcomes

Who is “we” and what did “we” do to prevent “what” outcome?

Seems to me if you can answer that question you might have a clue why the forest might chose the axe.

[toomuchtodo]

It sounds like, from your comments, that you believe understanding these people is going to enable change. In my opinion, I believe this is unlikely when you cannot appeal to irrational voters (who google "who pays tariffs" after their vote and the election concludes, who don't want Obamacare but love their ACA insurance, who want immigrants deported but don't understand that directly correlates to inflation [wage pressure and labor supply]). So why are we going to waste time trying to pander and appeal to them? What will that change? Protect vulnerable people worth protecting, good luck to the rest while we wait for a bunch of folks to age out (~2M/year 55+ voting cohort).

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/12/10-facts-...

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/11/13/what-trum...

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-polit...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/11/there-are-a-...

[kcplate]

You hope the forest accepts advice against the axe, but it doesn’t. The answer isn’t “let those dumb trees die off”. The answer should be “what about our message of peril is so easy to ignore” or “why don’t these trees respect our authority to advise them about the danger of the axes”.

You will always have an issue if you can’t communicate obvious peril in a way that is accepted or if you lack the respect and authority that prevents your advice being heard and accepted. That’s the problem, not the forest and trees.