[delusional]

I think it's a framing from somebody outside the US. The current US administration didn't just happen. When you could no longer compete under the terms you yourself set. You decided to elect a nationalist leader that would flip the table.

It's a framing that doesn't let the American public distance themselves from their own elected officials. He is your president.

[JumpCrisscross]

> When you could no longer compete under the terms you yourself set. You decided to elect a nationalist leader that would flip the table

This is the mistake. This isn’t industrial strategy. It’s part messaging tantrum part pursuit of autarky.

America could have been winning, and in some domains it is, but that doesn’t matter because the political question is how those gains are divided inside America.

> a framing that doesn't let the American public distance themselves from their own elected officials

Nobody is doing that. The point is America is grabbing irrespective of whether it’s winning, and without any particular coherence.

[seanmcdirmid]

> You decided to elect a nationalist leader that would flip the table.

Most of us really didn't. Some of us, for the first time in our lives, made substantial personal campaign contributions to the other side because the nationalist leader looked really dangerous for US economics and international relations.

[palmotea]

> Some of us, for the first time in our lives, made substantial personal campaign contributions to the other side because the nationalist leader looked really dangerous for US economics and international relations.

It's too bad for those people that the other side they supported was so stupid they lost anyway.

I wrote that side some angry letters over the years. For a long time, there were strong signals they arrogantly thought that "nationalist leader [who] looked really dangerous" was actually an opportunity for them to win on an unpopular platform that appealed to their elites. They did some really stupid shit that undermined their credibility.

[seanmcdirmid]

It was never about "the democrats aren't perfect", I think we gave up a long time ago on politicians that would actually push things forward. Nope, it was more like here is the "status quo" (things don't get better but they don't get worse either) and here is "batsh*t crazy" (99% chance things get really bad). And I guess that's what many Trump supporters are going for: they know Trump is nuts, but they don't want to see the status quo stand. They want destruction while hoping that they will come out better for it.

[s1artibartfast]

I think this is the natural outcome mode of Anarcho-liberalism on the left versus populism on the right, as demonstrated in many countries around the world.

Turns out leftist anarcho-liberal movements mean they simultaneously fuel the right, but ultimately fail due to lack of organization and platform coherence.

[seanmcdirmid]

It’s weird because Trump emboldens the far left locally. Here in Seattle, we have some crazy city council members that can only get elected when Trump is President (it’s been drifting right since the end of Trump’s last term). Turns out leftist anarchy-liberal movements are fueled by rightist authoritarian-conservative movements as well. And some of us really want moderates running things, not extremists on either side.

[JumpCrisscross]

Extremist partisans fuelling each other is a sign of too much democracy. We’ve known this since the Athenians. The solution may be in slowing down the signal transmission between base population, elites and policy.

[voidfunc]

> He is your president.

I didn't vote for him. With the way our electoral college works I didn't really even have a voice in this election.

He's The President the people of PA, MI, and GA wanted tho.

So no, he's not "my President".

[kelipso]

Doesn't matter what you think or didn't do, he is still your President.

[delusional]

The electoral college is your system.

[voidfunc]

Was here before I was born, I didn't choose this system. I'm stuck with it.