[adjejmxbdjdn]

I simply don’t understand how American voters are fine with being robbed blind.

Many countries have far more corrupt administrations than the current U.S. one, but even in the most degenerate ones none of them are as open about it.

And it’s not just a political thing.

Consider how the Chinese owned Smithfield’s is polluting lakes and land all over the Midwest with their highly intensive (and incredibly cruel) pig farming that is causing high cancer and mortality rates for the people living there, and yet the locals tend to support whatever Smithfield wants.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Most voters aren't fine with it.

https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker

[philistine]

Donald Trump was re-elected because too many voters who voted against him the last two times stayed home. That they don't approve, yet did not go vote, is the textbook definition of fine with it. America does not have a wellspring of anti-Trump voters just waiting to be awakened.

America is Trump.

[insane_dreamer]

> Many countries have far more corrupt administrations than the current U.S. one

not sure that "many" applies anymore; we're almost up there with DRC and Zimbabwe at this point

[skybrian]

Americans aren’t “fine with it.” Trump’s approval ratings are very low.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/trump-approval-stays...

[cosmicgadget]

Which is weird because this is pretty much what they voted/abstained for. I think we have to trust the ballot box more than opinion polls.

[rurp]

It's a two party system in a big complicated country. Voting for a candidate you dislike and often disagree with is the norm. People vote against opposing candidates as much as they vote for something, especially in recent years.

In the particular case of trump, the less one knows about politics and governing the more likely they are to support him. The US is full of people who don't care much about how government actually works, which is not an unreasonable position for the most part, but can get hijacked by an effective conman.

[Tadpole9181]

> which is not an unreasonable position for the most part

I would argue it actually is unreasonable, and these people should be ashamed that their apathy is the direct cause of the suffering of millions.

[datsci_est_2015]

> I think we have to trust the ballot box more than opinion polls.

I think voting trends are a pretty poor signal of voter values, but a much stronger signal of voter “alignment”, especially in first-past-the-post systems.

[cosmicgadget]

Certainly there is very little granularity in both election outcomes and yea/nay approval rating.

That said, if people voted based on values or alignment for a candidate that said he would overturn civil service reform and conduct the bigliest deportation campaign in history, it'd be silly to think they'd reject the outcomes they voted for.

[datsci_est_2015]

I think one of Trump’s greatest sleight-of-hands was convincing nearly every red triber that he represented their interests specifically, which is the ultimate goal of a populist. He was simultaneously a free market hero, while also highly protectionist. He was fair and sophisticated, while also highly retributive and humble. He became representative of their values, no matter what they were. I even still see it when talking to people who lean red - they’ll forgive Trump for nearly everything except what they view as being the important thing, which is a reflection of their own politics rather than Trump’s.

I mean, up until the election he was denying that he even knew what Project 2025 was, and now he’s bragging about how much from the document he’s accomplished.

Trump’s win was not a policy win, it was a culture war win.

[cosmicgadget]

No doubt, policy was completely absent in his campaign. His normal shtick does deal a lot in outcomes that are backed into policylike promises, "[literally anything] will make us/you the richest person/country in history, probably ever".

And you point out the single-issue voters that the GOP has farmed for decades. The culture war was there but since he protrays himself as elite, he couldn't do the blue collar charade. Instead it was a really half-assed demonization of trans athletes and, of course, immigrants.

The thing I think has to be mentioned is that he seems to have manipulated people's need to feel like they are on a team that is winning. I think that's why you see the cult of personality stuff like flags and tattoos - he's more of a college football team than an administrator.

[skybrian]

They didn't vote for a war with Iran.

[Tadpole9181]

You're right, at the time he was obsessively talking about starting a war with Greenland and Canada. That's much better.

[stevehawk]

yes they did. and they voted for another trade war. they're amazingly dependable for voting against their own self interests.

[cosmicgadget]

Sure they did. They voted for the guy who airstriked an Iranian general in his first term. You might have caught the rampant social media commentary about how people were certain they'd be drafted soon. Of course, we didn't follow up with an invasion but it's a clear acknowledgement that acts of war are absolutely on the table.

His relationship with Netanyahu didn't start Jan 2025, nor did the eventual showdown over nuclear weapons precipitated by our withdrawal from the arms treaty.

I know that is a lot of thinking to ask of his voters so here's an easy one - it's very obvious when the dude is lying. Anyone hearing him talk about being the president of peace should have instantly known it was no different from claiming we'd all soon be rich beyond our imagination. Or that covid would be over in a week. Or that any election he lost was 'stolen'. Anytime he describes himself as being the "most/greatest anything in history". Whenever someone asks a critical question and he freaks out (sadly for Trump voters, Joe Rogan isn't capable of this).

[skybrian]

Many Americans didn't vote for Trump at all, so to the extent this is true, it still can't be accurately summarized as "American voters are fine with being robbed blind." Maybe some still are, but they don't speak for everyone.

[cosmicgadget]

Huh? When were we talking about Americans who voted against him?

[hedora]

I don’t get it either. I think it is a combination of the two party system, and short attention span / tribalism.

Look at the California primaries. In every race I can name, the right wing (like funded by the same people as Trump levels of right wing) and the republican token candidate are advancing to the general election.

We have open primaries, so, in theory, there could be a corporate democrat vs. a populist/progressive democrat in the general elections.

I say “token” republicans because they are clearly sending the B team. One ran on “too many dogs get to vote” and another (who advanced) on a transphobic platform.

Typical breakdowns of California primaries in Silicon Valley, translated to European norms: 5% left, 15-25% center left, 30-35 moderate to hard right, 35-40 right wing nationalist.

In the general, the first three categories will collapse, and the moderate to hard right democrat that gets elected will claim they have a mandate from the voters.

Edit: The narrative dominating the news cycle is Trump’s claim the elections are rigged because the results were so far to the left. I guess he wants two republicans facing off in every general election race, despite the state being overwhelmingly blue.

Also, on ballot initiatives, the state overwhelmingly votes left, not moderate right, so, when presented with an actual policy decision, they vote completely differently than they do when given a choice of candidates.

[stevenwoo]

There’s one bright spot, the Los Angeles mayoral race eliminated the MAGA candidate so it’s a corporate Dem versus more left Dem.

[superloika]

It's because the massess are cattle themselves.

[swed420]

'The Century of the Self' really drives this point.

https://thoughtmaybe.com/the-century-of-the-self

Then corporate social media took things to the next level.