[jazzyjackson]

Republicans won because Democrats sold out, and Americans feeling hurt by the powers that be would rather throw a wrench in the works (or a hand grenade in the case of Donald Trump) than keep voting Democrat

At least that's my interpretation

[consumer451]

I agree that the establishment Dems would rather risk a Trump, than a Sanders. The fact that any of them have the gall to show their faces after the last 20 years of meh/pure failure is astounding. Where is the project 2028 plan? Crickets.

I would also like to point out that everyone else fell for anti-woke (McCarthyism spelled differently), fReE SpEaCh!, and Haitians eating your pets. So yeah, it's 100% the Dems' fault cause Genocide Joe!

The sooner we all admit that we are all easily programmed meat machines, myself included, the sooner we can move beyond the current insanity.

We all got played. Let's all admit it together. Is that really too much to ask?

[everdrive]

One feature of this problem that I don't see people address is that there are plenty of very real issues, which people really care about, which get really terrible treatment on both sides. One side exaggerates the problem, the other side downplays the problem, and neither are correct. Crime rates in cities would be one issue that fits this nicely. I don't really care if crime is better than it was in the 70s if I have deal with burglary, home invasion, and many other problems. On the other hand, cities have dealt with high crime problems in the past, and the answer has never been to bring in the military. (closest thing here would probably be the LA riots which were a specific constrained event rather than just prolonged high crime.) Civil liberties and federalism are incredibly important, and bulldozing those because crime is too high is insane.

Neither side wants to really admit the others' point out of fear it would weaken their argument. Combine this with our crazy modern partizan hatred (ie, a fixation on how much you hate the other side, but very very little care to how your side is acting) and you have debates which don't go in a productive direction whatsoever. ie, we should admit that crime is a problem and prescribe real solutions. Baltimore is actually a great example here and their murder rates has dropped off a cliff. They improved some social programs, and also actually just started arresting people and keeping them in jail. (https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/baltimore-homicide-rate-...) This is another case where one side would want to point out the social programs while the other side would want to point out the arrests. But boy I just don't even care when the crime rate is dropping. And crucially of course, they didn't use the military to do it.

[bigbadfeline]

> The sooner we all admit that we are all easily programmed meat machines

All is big word and needs to be used properly, like - we are not all the same.

> the sooner we can move beyond the current insanity.

To where? Historically it's been, meet the new insanity the same as the old insanity.

> We all got played. Let's all admit it together. Is that really too much to ask?

Before, after or without an admission, those who did get played together with those who didn't, would be entitled to ask "And then what?"

[consumer451]

> we are not all the same.

I beg to differ. Far from claiming "both sides" or some similar malarkey: yet we are all humans, we all have our triggers, we are all easily fooled. This is as close to enlightenment as I will ever get.

If we cannot even admit this commonality, then we will continue to be divided and concurred by certifiable idiots.

[bigbadfeline]

> If we cannot even admit this commonality, then we will continue to be divided and concurred by certifiable idiots.

To continue my thought, we aren't all the same because:

1. Some can admit that they've been played, some can't.

2. Some think that fooling is easy to do, others are aware of the amount of effort and money thrown into it.

3. Some understand that people are different, some don't and hope for an imaginary uniform response.

> Far from claiming "both sides" or some similar malarkey

The question is, can the evidence for that be ignored as "malarkey" without careful investigation? Is there any rational basis for such an approach?

Outwardly, the two sides are not the same, they act according to different and rather rigid programs. However, before counting the number of bugs in each and assessing their scope, we can't claim that the sides are materially different.

[consumer451]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I have been spending a lot of time thinking about this. I have personal opinions/biases on all of this, and it seems to be the issue of our time.

There was a quote from a Montenegrin political blog-spammer back in 2015-2016 that has been stuck in my mind ever since. He lived in this village full of other nerds, and they made money by getting clicks based on political posts aimed at the USA, as that was where the adsense money was best. The village had a crazy amount of nice cars, and that brought international journalist interest. In an interview, the guy said "The Trump people are great, they will literally believe anything. The Sanders people are annoying, because they always want sources." Don't shoot the messenger, that was the reporting.

Back then, I was not very charitable on the topic. Later, I saw this happen in my own family. Even later, on the other side, I saw "genocide Joe" people on the left, under utterly insane banners like "trans jihad." I then became more charitable towards all people who had fallen under the spell of propaganda.

The right in the USA is objectively entirely off the rails, 100% vibes, no sources. Every single talking point turns out to be a lie after you do 5 seconds of research. But the voters believe that they are protecting their families, maybe they are fed shit like "Haitians are eating your pets," but they are being played by assholes appealing to their misguided protective instincts.

But, even young trans Americans can get talked into thinking that they support "jihad" by some Twitch streamer, and not vote at all...? That's the kind of anti-self interest voting pattern that I had always only assigned to to right! Except in the Genocide Joe/Trans Jihad case, it's far worse!

Well, that's when I affirmed my belief that we are all easily programmed meat machines, across the board. Some more easily than others, some for noble reasons (based on my beliefs), and many more for dark reasons... but man, I am going to try to bring us all back together every chance I get. I won't get everyone, I might not get anyone, but even getting a single person to stop and think is worth a thousand typed comments.

[balamatom]

>But, even young trans Americans can get talked into thinking that they support "jihad" by some Twitch streamer, and not vote at all...?

The point wasn't to convince young trans Americans to jihad instead of vote.

The entire point all along, was to convince you, the vooter, how thit is exactly what's going on.

And thus, that you've cracked the code correctly; you've outsmarted that damn television set and all it stands for!

Then, you are expected to realize, under your own initiative, that you're on a life mission to "bring us all back together" (i.e. another jihad).

And indeed, that's great for us. Just not for yall.

Viva Montenegro.

[bigbadfeline]

> but they are being played by assholes appealing to their misguided protective instincts.

Underestimating "protective instincts" is the political kiss of death.

And it doesn't matter in the slightest if they're misguided or not.