This is the part that blows my mind consistently. The number of people screaming “WHY would ANYONE vote for him?!” and then not even considering trying to find out is a true bummer.

We know why. They are ignorant, don't care, or duped. There is no reason to vote for a person morally bankrupt and doesn't have any reasonable solutions to problems. A person with felonies can't even be on a Jury in this country, and people elected him President after his attempt to overthrow the government? I would struggle to hire him to mow my grass let alone run the country. This whole "You need to talk to us" is ridiculous as the positions.

I'll give it a shot, just maybe to help one person understand.

They voted for him because 15+ years of government + federal reserve policy has led to massive bubbles in all US capital assets while impoverishing a wide swath of the population. The people who voted for Trump are those who've "lost" in the giant crypto+stock Ponzi scheme.

The reason people on the winning side of this have such a hard time seeing it is that, en masse, they've turned away from any semblance of traditional valuation measures for capital assets. I assume they've done this because it's too emotionally uncomfortable to consider the notion that their entire wealth isn't because they're geniuses but because of deranged government policy.

And somehow Trump is going to reign this in? Him? How? Did you see both crypto markets and stock "ponzi" scheme reaction to his election? If this is their reasoning, it is flawed, to avoid using terms that are much less charitable. It feels that this kind of justification is trying to fit a narrative to the deed that makes no sense, somehow justify it.

I personally think it's a culture war thing that caused this. And it is probably going to get worse.

Of course he won't. But, see, no one will. Both parties are equally culpable here. People are just doing protest votes at this point. What are they even supposed to do? No one can even buy a house. The only actual solution is to put interest rates up to 8% and trigger a revaluation and a recession, but the odds of that are zero, no matter who is president.

Isn't Trump the pro-"crypto Ponzi scheme" (as you called it) candidate? Asset prices of both crypto and stocks seem to think so.

Yep. It's ironic and shitty, but people just did a protest vote. They aren't looking at the specific proposals. They don't care anymore. You're absolutely right, but honestly both parties are completely in on the Ponzi scheme. So it probably doesn't matter.

Not only pro but going to put your tax dollars in:

>US Senator Lummis reaffirms Bitcoin will be become a national reserve asset following Trump's victory

Read my other comments. It's a protest vote. They don't care what his actual policies are. No one is willing to pop the economic bubble, so voters are just going to burn the whole thing down.

I'd bet a dollar this is 100% incorrect, and that cryptobros voted overwhelming for Trump/Vance/Thiel/Musk.

It's probably split. But it doesn't matter. The important question is who the people who have lost in the lottery voted for, not who the winners voted for.

> They are ignorant, don't care, or duped.

That's what a lot of Trump voters believe about people who don't like him. He used to generally have good public opinion (prior to his ascendance in 2015). A lot of people believe that his bad press is primarily due to intentional smear campaigns and lawfare by the powers that be.

In that sense, for many people, a vote for Trump is like apes in /r/stonks buying and holding GME. It's less about what they want in a positive sense, and more about what they don't want: namely extreme leftism and the current ruling class in Washington, the media, billionaires, and everyone else who attended the WEF in Davos -- all the folks who care nothing for the average Joe.

He may not fix it, they may not even expect him to be able to, but voting for him is a way to have a voice. At least he really upsets all those powerful people! And he did get some stuff conservatives liked done in his first term.

They didn't want the rich guy, so they voted the rich guy in? I think you need to work on your argument.

It's not the riches per se that they take issue with. In fact, they admire and celebrate rich people who got there by hard work, luck, and good business (just like apes in /r/stonks celebrate how rich DFV got on GME options). What they take issue with is how certain powerful people use their riches and power in ways that benefit only themselves and hurt everyone else (who isn't rich) -- particularly the power establishment in Washington, New York, and Silicon Valley.

To give one specific example, private equity firms have been buying out small local businesses on a massive scale (like veterinary clinics), jacking up the prices, paying the workers less, and giving customers a worse experience.

That's not the sort of thing they perceive Trump to be doing with his riches and power. In fact, I don't see any way Trump is messing with the macroeconomy in his own business practices (do you know of any?).

Trump has a reputation for not paying his debts [1], and for stiffing the little people that have worked for him [2]

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/aa383026-ac12-4d39-b6ee-075c2a248...

[2] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dozens-of-lawsuits-accuse-t...

That's not the macroeconomy.

That's not like Bill Gates buying up 275000 acres of farmland. That's not like World Economic Forum people in Davos scheming to eliminate ownership from common people across the world.

There's such a wide gulf between Trump and these sorts of people.

Besides, the examples you gave would come across as something a legacy media smear campaign dug up and misrepresented.

And what about the various court cases that require evidence? Are those made up too?

I didn't say the charges weren't true, or that they were made up.

Just that whatever he did as a businessman, it didn't threaten or negatively affect the entire US economy.

Not trying? It was all the media did for like 2017 through 2018. “Venture safari-style among the rural or flyover-state-suburban white“ was practically its own genre, and it was everywhere. You couldn’t turn on NPR without hearing a devout rural white Christian relate how they prayed on it then held their nose and voted for the unrepentant sinner because of abortion. It’s why Vance’s weird, insulting book was embraced by the Left(!) as “real talk” from an actual member of the group they were trying to understand.

> voted for the unrepentant sinner

Kind of a silly point you're making, considering that Kamala's views and most Christian denominations are completely irreconcilable. Not that she has ever repented for anything - or even admitted to any mistakes of any kind.

This is the kind of thing the people they interviewed were saying.

[edit] I mean it was my shorthand for “I know he’s a serial adulterer, and his business dealings are shady, and he says some really awful things… but I prayed on it and…” which is closer to a direct quote of things I heard multiple times. Other demographics had other reasons but that was a common one from the pro-life set.

To be fair, most Christian denominations establish inflexibility at the outset by claiming to be a worldview that is "true", "unerring", or similar attribute, despite lacking any epistemological introspection -- meaning of the 5,000 or so different denominations in the world, at least 4,999 are sorely disappointed that not only do they not reconcile to each other, they also don't reconcile to reality.

Whereas a person can review an idea, try it on like a coat, see how it fits, and then keep or discard if it's found amenable and improving to their views of the world.

Vice President Harris' opponent also professes and acts on a worldview wildly deviant from most, if not all, Christian denominations.

Well, objectively, only one religion can be true if any religion is true, just as the existence of gravity is irreconcilable with the existence of no gravity; but go on. We haven't grown up as a nation and collectively decided which one it is yet, but I have preferences. Not that preferences even matter - if I'm falling off a building, my preference for there to be no gravity won't make a difference.

At most one. Kinda. Does depend on the beliefs, which are by convention basically unrestricted. Also how we’re defining “true” could easily admit partial truth for a whole bunch that might be incompatible if any were entirely true.

Oh, a big whopping plurality hits the "Nones" just fine. As it is not a religion, it avoids the plaguing morass of inchoate morality claims justifying a grift altogether.

> plaguing morass of inchoate morality claims justifying a grift altogether

And claims like this are why you lost this election, will never win elections, or win anyone over to your side.

> And claims like this are why you lost this election, will never win elections, or win anyone over to your side.

Interesting!

1. I didn't run for an office

2. I am a political independent

3. I am not a political party in a first-past-the-post-system defined by the reverberations of the 3/5th compromise.

I'm genuinely curious why you paint more than half the nation (though not half the presidential 2024 voters) with a broad brush of negative antithesis regarding a relatively different claim ("Nones" exercise morality individually, rather than externalizing their moral decision making to an inchoate morass of morality-derived alleged religious authorities).

> I'm genuinely curious why you paint more than half the nation (though not half the 2024 voters) with a broad brush of negative antithesis.

Simple. The only lesson people who despise Trump have learned, and are learning, is that they didn't call Trump supporters every brand of -ists enough. Huge surprise, this generates broad negative anthesis and it's well deserved, as well as completely backfiring. The name calling is useless now.

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1854242284952519158

Oh, I think I get your point, you want people to simply ignore folks that gleefully transgress social norms and exercise sexism, racism, and other bigotries against people who, by your definition, are mentally ill and thus a worthy target of mockery and conduct unbecoming christianity's moral standards, or by most normal people, are guilty of being women, of being men, of being gay, of being lesbian, of being queer, of being trans, of being of light pigment, of being educated, of being uneducated, of being homeless, of actually being mentally ill, of being disabled, of being children, of being elderly, of being generally unwanted by a heaving horde of hate.

Do you believe the same for people who violate religious taboos?

Regardless of the answer, we're far afield of the original discussion, and I'll not pursue this thread further.

Though, I do empathize -- it must be highly embarrassing to have racism, sexism, and other bigotries noted as being offensive to people in public. Triumphalism, often a result of religious fervor, masks that in an echo chamber, so social media can be jarring for folks in such a situation.

---

PS

>> If that's not sexist, I don't know what is.

This fact is quite apparent that you don't know what sexism, and somehow think it applies in a situation where a trans fem wants to be in a situation more protective than forcing a locker room share with her sexual assignment at birth. What your assumed resolution, coached carefully by pollsters no doubt before being coached through formal and informal propaganda channels, actually is is transgressive and probably unnecessary. Though to redefine sexism as "not respecting of gender norms my religion requires me to prefer" is quite a stretch

I believe my religion, and the religions of other people, is more deserving of protection than your self-proclaimed ability to transgress social norms; and voted accordingly.

> Though, I do empathize -- it must be highly embarrassing to have racism, sexism, and other bigotries noted as being offensive to people.

Reminder that Kamala Harris believes 15 year old young men who suddenly identify as female, have the right to compete with similar-aged young women and be in their locker rooms to see them naked. If that's not sexist, I don't know what is.

> Triumphalism, often a result of religious fervor, masks that in an echo chamber, so social media can be jarring for folks in such a situation.

So many platitudes, so many assertions, so many nuggets of delusion, so little reason to believe them as true.

> Though to redefine sexism as "not respecting of gender norms my religion requires me to prefer" is quite a stretch

Dude, even Richard Dawkins said this was insanity ("I object to the statement that a trans woman is a woman. This is a distortion of language and science.")

I look forward to the day it returns to that categorization. I am merely agreeing with one of the most prominent atheists in the world on this subject.

> transgressive and probably unnecessary

More dishonest name calling, and what a retarded perspective to assume I must be an idiot, or I would agree with you. We've had that for 8 years, and we don't give a darn, because you don't give a darn understanding our perspective either. Sticks and stones. I also will stick to the term "sexist," because to accept this view is to degrade women to the level of being completely interchangeable with men.

I object to the statement that a Black woman is a woman. This is a distortion of language and science.

Apologies, Dang. I wasn’t trying to spawn an instance of the Internet’s Oldest Flamewar by choosing as my example of Trump voter interviews in the late twenty-teens a paraphrase of the ones I remembered best, which happened to be the statements of pro-life evangelicals.

I think it points to a real lack of humility. Why would you try to find out how your thinking might be flawed if you start with the assumption that everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot?

And I say this as someone who did this exact thing in 2016.

I did, partly out of curiosity, partly because I'm in a progressive town literally surrounded for a hundred miles by a sea of red.

They like Trump because he appears anti-establishment and they fear/dislike the establishment. They don't feel the establishment in place is good for them. They truly, truly struggle with finances. Many are in the military and on food stamps. Some are farmers who can't make farming work anymore. They fear immigrants because they might take jobs or bring crime (and drugs). They fear they cannot protect themselves so the want access to guns.

One common thread was the stimulus checks. They really liked the stimulus checks.

Another thing is pining for the good ol' days. Lot of that, too. No issues like pronouns muddying things up.

Generally, not racist, not sexist, but some are, just like any rando person.

Seemed to me just like regular folk who are scared and can't make ends meet like they used to, well, a long time ago. The grocery store prices that are annoying to me are truly a decision point for them.

Then when you take three steps back, and look at it objectively, it's often of their own doing. A lot, I mean a lot, of disparagement of education, even of K-12, so the means to get better employment is more of a struggle. A whole lot of drug and alcohol abuse on top of it. They are the only people I know who smoke. Lot of broken relationships and marriages. Family chaos. The image of solid salt of the earth isn't what my Trumper acquaintances (friends?) are experiencing. They are pretty desperate and really wish there was some way to get back on top of things.

So, in desperation they vote for a person that promises to make it better. And really they don't care about much else. If you want to win elections, do the chicken in every pot line.

This is all anecdotal of course, but I went to the effort, this was seven people, all of whom I'm on good terms with and converse with on a regular basis. And they were respectful of my position - that you need both conservatives (to keep what's good of the old ways) and progressives (to find new ways that are better) in the political arena to make it work. That's not a popular position, though.

This feels close enough to my experience that I believe you actually do speak genuinely with these people.

I think a huge part of it is also that they feel seen by someone, finally. Trump did a great job of making these people feel like the spotlight was finally on them, and honestly it’s true.

Many of us have, and that's how we know their stated reasons are just nonsense. There's a video of the creator interviewing a Trumper about how tariffs work....

You think you're going to get a solid answer interviewing some random person on the street? That's what an intelligent person would call a strawman. Do you want me to point you to the video of well-educated coastal elites calling the assassination attempt a Hoax?

There are of course more than one reason why people voted for him, but there's literally tons of comments in this very thread explaining why with no nonsense and under no uncertain terms.

Ironically, a lot of those comments get flagged and are no longer visible.

No, I think there needs to be a culture of talking to and respecting people with different opinions.

And before you jump to the extreme of “but they don’t want me to EXIST!”, that’s not the point. The point is that we temper each other, partially by negotiating, and partially by simply making the “other side” more used to our ideas.

That just happens with repeated exposure. If something is scary, but generally not bad, people can get used to it, but only if they’re exposed to it regularly. You get used to public speaking after the ten thousandth time instead, because you’ve likely already confronted every fear you had in real life by now.

Ironically, this is extremely easy to fix. Politicians can simply get along in public. We’ve got studies showing that political extremism can die almost overnight when the opposing politicians simply explain that they do respect their opponent.

As for the people here explaining themselves clearly - that’s because dang has done a good job of fostering a community of high quality commenters. You won’t find this kind of discourse anywhere else, and it’s the main reason I treasure this site.

> No, I think there needs to be a culture of talking to and respecting people with different opinions.

Absolutely.

> As for the people here explaining themselves clearly - that’s because dang has done a good job of fostering a community of high quality commenters.

Hard disagree. The level of political discussion on HN is barely a step above r/politics. This is a forum for 110 IQ codecels who think minor domain expertise means they are smarter than everyone else in all aspects.

The contempt for ordinary people in this very thread is nauseating.

holy fuck this was the most based fucking thing i have read in a long time

> You think you're going to get a solid answer interviewing some random person on the street?

Yes. We educate the population for good reason. People _should_ understand that a tariff is a tax imposed on consumers, and if done with reasonable intent it is to prop up a key industry despite the distortionary effects with a particular goal in mind, such as national security, improvement of the populace, etc.

"Bringing back manufacturing" is not a coherent goal, it just sounds like one, because as soon as the tariffs are removed the US is back to offshoring again OR the purchasing power of the dollar is so low that it doesn't matter.

"Establishing manufacturing in key industries" is a completely reasonable goal -- which Biden did (solar, among others).

So once again, the Trump policy set is not actually good policy.

Again:

people _should_ understand that a president getting shot at live on television is not a hoax.

Do you really think farming plebs for political gain on social media is going to break for democrats? Really? That feels a bit out of touch to me.

> people _should_ understand that a president getting shot at live on television is not a hoax.

I am not seeing how this tangent is connected to the rest of the conversation. Can you please explain why you thought it related to discussions regarding interviews of random individuals on the street?

> Do you really think farming plebs for political gain on social media is going to break for democrats? Really? That feels a bit out of touch to me.

Are you saying I'm farming plebs for political gain on social media for the democrats? That's weird. I've no association to any political party nor do I care for their political gain. I think political parties are unfortunate and strongly prefer ranked choice voting explicitly to weaken their grip. That said, I do analysis for policy and strategy, so perhaps I should have been more explicit in my recommendation that actual outcomes-focused policy is better for people than vibes-focused word salads (which Trump often espouses as well as most Republicans and Democrats as they attempt to make soundbites) regardless of political affiliation. Please forgive my clear lack of clarity.

By interviewing random people you can easily find people who say seemingly dumb shit that make members of a particular political party look incredibly stupid.

A video of a random Trump supporter misunderstanding tarrifs is not a steelman argument against Trump supporters.

In the same way coastal liberals denying the assassination attempt and calling it a hoax is not a steelman argument against liberalism.

Both sides do this but theres a particular brand of "dumb out of touch liberals" that is pervasive on social media.

> A video of a random Trump supporter misunderstanding tarrifs is not a steelman argument against Trump supporters.

By way of background and disclosure, I got a PhD in economics at a point in life. This just means I've spent a bit of time thinking about tariffs and impact more than the average person. I understand the "theory" of tariffs and their impact, and the data has mostly supported the stylized facts that people point to for why they aren't good policy.

It's definitely true that tariffs aren't the first thing people think of in the morning (me included), and I consider it reasonable to say it is unfair to most people to expect, without some prompting first, a solid understanding that tariffs are a distortionary tax that the end buyer pays for. Higher tax means higher price. What concerns me is when I see people choosing to willfully ignore even a basic definition of something because of who said it, regardless of political affiliation. I strongly believe we can't operate on different facts, and should work to reduce jargon that confuse understanding.

> a particular brand of "dumb out of touch liberals" that is pervasive on social media.

I agree. I think this is an area where there is a lot of "both sides do this". Elitism is never a unifying attitude, nor are shibboleths generally.

> In the same way coastal liberals denying the assassination attempt and calling it a hoax is not a steelman argument against liberalism.

Yep. What chaos that event was. There are details both sides ignore that I call out only to acknowledge them, not agree with -- the shooter having strong affiliation with one party and weak affiliation with the other, the acknowledgement or ignoring of Trump's prior behavior and actions to influence opinion drawing from his entertainment background in WWE/The Apprentice -- but most of the speculation is crass and downplays the fact that someone tried to shoot a candidate for president. Speculate all you want about conspiracies on either side, it's not something that draws people together nor promotes liberalism.

I am eternally grateful that my MIL is an unironic trumper from an unbelievably small town in the Midwest, specifically so that I don’t need to listen to a “creator”. It’s an eye-opening experience to hear what their true, heartfelt concerns are.

If nothing else, surely we can empathize with being frustrated for ages and finally feeling seen.

Well, what are their concerns and how does voting for a serial con man solve them?

Do they know Trump doesn't see them either - that he just wants their vote and their tax money!

Well, what are their concerns and how does voting for a serial con man solve them?

Do they know Trump doesn't see them either - that he just wants their vote and their tax money?

Hard to find a family in rural America without a serial con somewhere at least in the extended family, usually due to drugs or alcohol unfortunately. It's relatable if anything.

They want cheaper gas prices first and foremost, and I guarantee that'll happen to some extent. Trump will expand drilling in the US, or reduce sales of our exports and divert them to the US, or something to that effect. The price of gas is a huge concern.

They don't want to hear any more about these culture movements they view as ridiculous, or for schools to teach their kids how to feel about $currentSocialMovement, especially when it goes directly against legitimately-held religious beliefs - "I can raise my kids how I want, thanks"-type attitude. This is the kindling for more parental rights political campaigns, which often includes the right to send your kid to whichever school you want.

They don't want to send money to Ukraine. Some know it's a lot of equipment, but it still costs money to send that, and there's an opportunity cost. It sucks what's happening over there, but they worry about being able to afford gas to get to work. They don't really care about what's going on half a world away.

etc. etc.

Plus, the media in general has been pretty aggressive towards Trump. Deserved or not, there's at least an air of truth to it. It's easy to dismiss a lot of concerns from the media. The Hunter Biden laptop thing (I haven't followed this at all) apparently is a big deal and seems to have massively fueled this idea.

I'm not going to reiterate their entire stance, because it probably varies from region to region anyways. Please don't shoot the messenger, I'm not going to argue their points, I'm simply summarizing what I've heard.

> If nothing else, surely we can empathize with being frustrated for ages and finally feeling seen.

I for one cannot. As a libertarian, I've long empathized with the concerns. I share many of the concerns. I've often tried to discuss how I was working to create solutions to their concerns of centralized control in the technology sphere, or that there are actually ways to prevent "GPS satellites tracking their phones" and not just resigned angst. None of it mattered. Because I wasn't just repeating their not-even-wrong talking points, I was othered and ignored regardless.

There is a severe lack of analysis going on in that red tribe, which is why they keep voting for politicians that superficially play to their egos while actually making their situation worse and worse. Trump is nothing new for them - he's from the same vein of looting elites they'll follow until they finally realize they've been had. The main difference is the degree to which Trump openly shits on American institutions and values, and it's a true tragedy for western civilization that four years was not enough for them to see it this time.

They’re literally trying to find out when they exclaim that question.

To me this seems a pretty clear case of inflation=“punish the incumbent” and also Biden spread out the pain of covid recovery instead of making red states bear the burden. Kamala promised more of the same, including lots of investment into rural and red areas that aren’t gonna vote for her anyway. Result? 10-15 million blue voters stayed home this cycle. Trump turned out his entire base.

Just pontificating…

> They’re literally trying to find out when they exclaim that question.

I've seen these conversations happen thousands of times in political communities online, before you know it, the person trying to understand starts getting angry at some point, and both people are calling each other names. Very few people truly want to understand the other side. If you want to understand the other side, the first step is to listen, and not say anything (don't try to defend your viewpoint, this isn't part of your goal, and it will derail it), ask questions, and agree to disagree politely.

Because those discussions go like this:

(to a C programmer) "Why are you using C?"

"Because it's memory-safe."

"But it's not memory-safe."

"Yes it is. Your program will just segfault rather than getting hacked."

"No it won't... see these examples of C programs getting hacked without segfaulting."

"You're using it wrong. See look, if you write with spaces instead of tabs, your program is memory-safe."

Do you remember "MongoDB is web scale"? Would you not get angry when trying to find good reasons to use MongoDB? That's what it's like talking to the average Trump supporter, except it's about the removal of human rights instead of just which database you should use.

I see this behavior coming from either side. We are insanely polarized.

Why do people vote for him? America is a closet racist country and the education system obviously doesn't produce critical thinkers. The south is poor and Trump will make them money again some how - they believe that. Trump will make grocery prices' go down and create many magnificent jobs. Trump will make interest rates go down and loans cheaper. He will deport all the Mexicans so the black or white people can fill the jobs.Trump is a populist con man who conned his base. No public company or start up will ever hire a CEO like him. I call this political entropy. This is the decline in America in my view. It's a sad day and I will just stick my head in the sand and hope we make it through.

Yup all my comments offering to explain and explaining have been flagged. Even ones with no sarcasm. Just because waiting for someone to doxx me again and dang to do nothing.

HN just flags all comments that seem to support Trump in any way, even with good arguments. So no idea why comments are even open anymore when some points of view are obviously not allowed here yet 52% of the country seem to supported them to a degree. Obviously HN users just want their own groupthink eco chamber without wanting to hear other opinions. So in that regard I'm enjoying watching lib woketards having a mental breakdown for the second time since 2016. Stay ignorant, stay foolish.

Hell, I'm not even from America and I saw it comming from a mile away. Calling half of their country "nazis" and "fascist" was the worst campaign move I have ever seen in my life.

The user base here seems to be just as close-minded and condescending as it is on Reddit.

Very disappointing to be honest.

Ideally the new economic policies will break the stranglehold of Silicon Valley. Already with the arrival of Musk, oracle, etc in Texas, there's a balance beginning to shift.

Yeah, I've been threatened and doxxed on this forum... no action. So brave. Stunning.

Why?

I've been doxxed for saying men and women are different and men can't be women. I did report to dang, and nothing.

Probably because you're not a marginalized minority. Otherwise HN moderation would go in overdrive to protect you.

> "stop calling people names!"

> "lib woketards"

but i agree with you that alienating more than half of the country was a move so stupid that only the establishment democrats could pull it off.

I never said you should stop calling people names. I said that if you do call people names they'll hate you and retaliate against you. Which is why people voted Trump and why I called them lib woketards.

Disclaimer: left wing European voter.

It's clear from the message what the grandparent post opinion is, there's no need for understanding the right, the conclusion is there already and it's that the right wing voters are:

> uneducated and poor

This narrative about the right voters has been there since at least the nineties, only for the left to wonder why dialogue dried up.

Then the left drops the ball on big ticket issues, and people move more and more to the right, while fringe right positions become normalized.

Oh well, if it weren't for those pesky uneducated voters!

The reason it doesn't make sense to people like him (and me) is that we look at all the times he promised to release the health care plan, the January 6 incident, the calls to states to "find" votes, the constant complaining about rigged elections, the constant complaining about basically EVERYTHING he doesn't like, and more, and we don't see how anyone can overlook that. He never answers policy questions clearly. He doesn't understand tarriffs will raise our prices. He thinks RFK should be in charge of HHS. He wants to shut down TV networks that criticize him.

When I ask folks why those things don't matter, I either get "what about So-and-so," or "I don't believe that," or they just blow off the question without an answer. I even went to the Ask a Conservative sub on Reddit and asked why people think millions of noncitizens are voting in elections, and I got yelled at, called naive, and told that some local municipalities allow non-citizen votes in local elections so therefore they can vote federally too.

That said, I'd LOVE to know why none of the things Trump says or does dissuades his voters. Truly, because I really do not understand. I don't want to argue, or to try to convince you you're wrong, I would love to know why those things don't matter and you think Trump is a force for good.

> we look at all the times he promised to release the health care plan, the January 6 incident, the calls to states to "find" votes, the constant complaining about rigged elections, the constant complaining about basically EVERYTHING he doesn't like, and more

Have you considered the possibility his supporters know something you don't? A lot of what you mentioned is either debunked or is fraught with misinformation

Yes, I HAVE considered that, it's why I keep ASKING Trump fans. I even stated in my comment that I never get real responses. I get responses like yours, which is "you're wrong, it's been debunked" but I'm never let in on the debunking evidence.

I'm dead serious and 100% sincere: Please show me the evidence. I REALLY want to see it. I don't believe people, I believe data. I don't even believe MYSELF without data.

I live in Georgia, I heard the tape with Trump and Raffensperger, but if you have evidence that call is somehow not true, please share it.

I heard Trump say he has "a concept of a plan" on Healthcare 8 years after he told me he already had a plan. If he's got an ACA replacement, I'd love to see it. I don't understand why it has to be repealed before it can be replaced, usually we just pass new laws that supersede the old one, but whatever, I'll look at whatever you have.

I don't think you can provide evidence that he doesn't complain about everything he doesn't like, every rally comes with a list of grievances. But again, if you have evidence, I'll look at it with an open mind.

And even if you don't have evidence for those things, show me what evidence you DO have, I'll be happy to examine it. I even looked at the stuff Mike Lindell released. I'll always look at evidence, but I just can't do the whole "do your own research" thing any more.

And, as I sadly expected, no response, no evidence, no showing me where I'm wrong. So I have no better idea than I did before. I don't know how a country can continue to exist when citizens won't even talk to each other. I'm so disappointed politicians have created such a divide within the country, and I don't think we'll make it without overcoming it.

> A lot of what you mentioned is either debunked or is fraught with misinformation

Why do you believe this?

What a great skipping-record case-in-point. I almost think this is satire.

> Have you considered the possibility his supporters know something you don't?

They literally considered that, it's a main point of the post you're replying to, they got answers that lacked actual details or hinged on hyperbole.

> A lot of what you mentioned is either debunked or is fraught with misinformation

See what I mean? "A lot" meaning what number of things? Either debunked or is fraught with misinformation? What does that even mean? Which things? Jan 6 is "debunked" or "fraught with misinformation" or both? Trump didn't release his health care plan, Trump called GA to find votes, Trump constantly complained about rigged elections. Those are sincere and unarguable facts. What are you speaking about in rebuttal?

> They literally considered that, it's a main point of the post you're replying to, they got answers that lacked actual details or hinged on hyperbole.

I appreciate that someone actually read my post. I'm not happy to say that's the usual reply I get from Trumpers, just an angry "you're wrong" and no discussion. I'm out of ideas on how to get them to engage in a conversation. I hate arguing. I really, really just want to understand their point of view but I just get yelled at.

And I'm NOT trying to denigrate anyone with that statement, it just feels like there's so much anger between Americans that it's hard to get someone to believe I'm sincere when I don't agree with them. It seems to immediately cause them to shut down and go into anger mode rather than just explaining to me why they feel I'm wrong.

He's got them convinced that people who disagree can't be trusted, and it fucking *hurts*.

explain how him saying for over two years that he would have a healthcare plan in some number of weeks (changed several times) is debunked or misinformation. Because we all watched it.

His supporters realize he is a blowhard and adjust accordingly. Shut down a TV network? Lock her up? It's BS. I don't like it much, but for him it's a rhetorical device.

By contrast when Biden calls me garbage, I'm pretty sure he means it.

First, Harris isn't Biden. Second, when Trump calls immigrants criminals, I'm pretty sure he means it. How many generations do you have to look back before you find an immigrant among someone you call friend or family? We are a nation of immigrants, a country less than 300 years old. And who does he mean when says immigrants? It never seems to be that nice German couple down the road who _look_ like the other European folk that happened to immigrate a few generations earlier.

> His supporters realize he is a blowhard and adjust accordingly.

He's not, though. A lot of Trump voters were shocked when he really tried to repeal the ACA. Marketplace did a piece on it, visiting Erie county PA after the repeal efforts. You shouldn't assume he's BSing, as he's tried to do just about everything he said he would. I can't imagine voting for someone and thinking, "Oh, he'll never do the things he says he will."

Great question, and well phrased. It's refreshing to see a few people in this thread with a genuine interest in trying to understand the root causes instead of engaging in personal attacks and emotional appeals.

I found it helpful to go directly to commentators on the right for deeper analysis. The average Trump voter generally has a hard time articulating specific reasons. Same is true on the left. Not to say they don't have valid reasons for their votes, but it's difficult for most people to remove the emotion online and clearly articulate substantive reasons.

This really requires a much longer essay. I found it helpful to set aside the impulse to immediately say "yes, but Trump did the same thing but worse." For the sake of brevity, the below focuses on the Democrat's mistakes which I believe were the ultimate root issue.

The summary of my analysis so far:

Trump rose to political fame in 2008 off the ridiculous "birther" claims against Obama. The left saw his success and has been trying (and failing) to beat him at this new media race to the bottom game. The Democratic party has strayed way too far from the center over the past few years. Kamala was the most progressive (far left) Democrat candidate in the history of the US. She ran a short campaign with many critical mistakes.

Because Kamala never clearly articulated her plan for the country, this left a lot of undecided Americans feeling like she was being controlled by the Democrat leaders and potentially hiding plans for overly unpopular (by majority) progressive policies. Specifically the plan to tax unrealized capital gains. She also made many of the same mistakes of Hillary Clinton's campaign assuming white women and black males would vote for her because of identity politics instead of winning them over on her policies. The right and center voters are extremely tired of being talked down to and lumped into identity politics.

In the end, Trump's campaign did a better job swinging back to the center while Harris's campaign left a lot of open questions on the table. This is a well documented mistake in American election political history. It almost always costs the win in a close election. Perception is everything. An ultimately the critical mass votes on policies and plans (whether real or perceived) vs character.

Why did Trump supporters ignore his atrocious behavior? They didn't, at least not completely. Mostly, the left's insane tactics of trying to equate Trump to Hitler using out of context sound bites backfired. There was a tremendous amount of social media activity on the right countering every one of these attacks using the source material from Trump's speeches. It made the left and mainstream media untrustworthy. All Trump had to do was pull back from using the same tactics (which the right uses just as much as the left) a couple months ahead of the election. This allowed the left to dig their own grave with undecided voters. Notice Trump stopped (or substantially reduced) using nicknames and personal attacks on Kamala many weeks ago.

Given that the right and most of the center lost all trust in mainstream media, it made it easier for people to rationalize. "Yes, Trump is morally bankrupt, but we had 4 pretty good years under his previous presidency. So I'll vote on the issues and not character."

And issues for most Americans always comes back to economy and taxes.

The short of it: Democrats lost the election more than Trump won.

Here are some videos that dive deeper into the analysis.

Piers Morgan - see Cenk Uygur's (Democrat) critique of the left. He's been highly critical of the way Democrats are playing politics for many years.

https://youtu.be/mIDLJnKesQM?si=tQu_H_JMqSLFVTNb&t=263

Konstatin Kisin - 10 reasons Trump won - simplified explanation for non-US citizens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlFTLhei7J8

Winston Marshal - ignore the "libtard" and gloating; Winston has been ruthlessly attacked by the left for years and this video is not his normal tone; pay attention to the examples of where the left used Trump soundbites out of context to try to paint him as the next Hitler

https://youtu.be/d254zOhdEA8?si=F9WQV0f1xGlZEkqw&t=85

Kevin O'leary on Fox News - talks about why small business owners voted for Trump due to fears Kamala would tax unrealized capital gains

https://youtu.be/7sNH_6eha9Y?si=2OuqyzukvSr4_nvg&t=81

I'll bite on this because I really don't understand it. I can understand why people relate to a lot of the messaging. For example, if you say that government institutions are broken because they're filled with waste and corruption, I think there's some truth to that and I can see the appeal of agreeing with that sentiment. There are many things that all politicians say are broken and they right.

Where it breaks down for me is when you move into the plan for fixing those problems. You can't just reduce the funding of government institutions and assume there's some motive to re-optimize for efficiency. That might work to some degree in the business world where there's a profit motive, but on the public side of things the people that are abusing the system for personal gain aren't going to optimize to provide services more efficiently. They're more likely to optimize for more personal gain as the expectation of failing institutions becomes normalized.

Eventually, I think you end up with government services and institutions that are even less efficient per dollar spent because the solution for trying to improve them doesn't seem to have any plans for accountability. So I think people are voting to effectively de-fund government services and institutions with the misguided promise of reduced tax burden and increased efficiency, but what they're going to get is equal spending, less services, and more people benefiting personally from the shift in policy, especially if services start using more private sector vendors.

For example, some of our education funding in Canada has been cut massively due to the perception of waste, which is true to a point when you look at administrative bloat, but the cuts always impact the front-line people providing services and miss the administrative layer where the waste is occurring. That makes the ratio of waste even higher and people are left wondering why nothing works.

I might be wrong, but I think all you're going to do with a broad mandate to "gut everything" is to create an opportunity for self-interested parties to usurp government funding for personal gain when the goal should be to increase accountability and efficiency.

Loosely related, a massive problem we have in Canada is that front-line workers have been completely eliminated from the decision making process. Everyone I know can look at things done in their workplace and identify mistakes and inefficiencies that are the result of administration that lacks real world experience. For example, they built a prison in the city where I live where they put (sewer) drains inside the cells. Every single prison guard that you'd ask would tell you that's a mistake because the prisoners can plug them and flood the cells. That's the result of arrogant administration thinking they know everything.

My last point is also part of the reason I think people voted for Trump. I wouldn't because I don't think his solutions are going to improve anything, but a lot of people believe the system is broken because they personally see mismanagement on a daily basis and it's done by the people getting paid the most.

So I get why the messaging is appealing, but I don't understand why people think some of the proposed solutions are going to work. Maybe someone can explain to me how having Musk "do what he did at Twitter" to public institutions is going to provide better services to the public.

interested, but I looked all through social media for that. Reddit, Tiktok, Instagram, Youtube, Twitter, Bluesky. Pretty much everything but Facebook.

I really couldn't find much reason. So many Trump supports were just interested in "salt mining" from Harris supporters. The few issues I could find were

- he'll fix inflation/the economy (he absolutely won't)

- he'll mass deport immigrants (not a sympathetic reasoning for me. Also mass deportations are expensive; see the above point)

- Racist remarks about Harris (that's not even worth talking about)

- "This is a response to identity politics" (to put it in the least racist/Sexist/transphobic way).

- Oddly enough, nothing on Gun control. Maybe I didn't look hard enough.

So there's maybe 2 legitimate reaosns (no matter how misguided I feel about them) and a lot of hate. And then dismissals of any worries from opponents. It was honestly tiring how many "but Trump doesn't support Project 2025" I've heard.

The most legitmate dismissals of Harris came from "she wasn't voted in". Which yes, I actually do agree with and did not support at all. But we're well past the point where general elections are "pick the least bad candidate". Some issues about Israel, but I'm not going to pretend that wasn't always a bipartisan issue up top and that both sides in government are walking on eggshells about that issue.

-----

So yeah, my experience trying to find some truth below the ocean of feelings came down to "There's nothing inspiring about trump except that he didn't fuck up like Harris". There's no platform, just chaos and hate.

Maybe there are some smart conservatives offline that have actual legitimate points, but I don't have access to that and I suspect many of their arguments are simply economical (they want tax cuts for them and will vote that way. Selfish, but a very honest and reasonable point in an individualistic society).

I'd love to hear otherwise, but I'm not convinced HN will be much different from the dozen other platforms I checked. It seems to be all "vibes". vibes in weird ways and very dangerous ways.