This is my big struggle with all of this. His first term I felt America was duped by a con man so protested and made a fuss on social media. Americans saw the first four years and astonishingly decided they wanted more of it, by a decent margin.

So while I absolutely hate what is going on right now this seems to be what the people wanted. I question each day whether that needs to be respected or we should resist.

I also wonder if his supporters have any idea of what is going on. I am sure fox news isn't covering any of this and if they are it's probably being spun in some horrific way.

Don't live in the US, but I got the impression that a lot of people actually saw positive change in their lives in the first round, which is a pretty good reason to want more.

Do you honestly believe your news is being spun any less?

Yes I read high quality news sources- the WSJ, NYTimes, foreign affairs and a few others like the national review and mother Jones from time to time. I hear this argument a lot and my issues with Trump were from the primary source- his own words and tweets.

The economy was already humming when Trump first entered office and despite his best efforts it continued to do so through his term.

I feel like his first term benefitted from his administration being wholly unprepared to govern, as witnessed by the numerous stories of there effectively being no transition plan for a vast majority of departments.

The only real policy victory his first term was the TCJA. Otherwise, it was a lot of bark, no bite.

But now with four years to prepare, they came in barking and biting like hell.

Ironically, losing in 2020 gave MAGA time to create a game plan which we’re seeing in action now. A second Trump term right after the first would have been more effectual than the first, but not to the degree we’re seeing now.

And you honestly believe these "special" news sources are not spun to at least the same degree.

I think you have a few nasty surprises coming up.

They aren't. You are showing your true colors. Fox news literally says in it's tos that it's a source of entertainment and not real news.

There is no false equivalence here. Fox news is absolute trash. Don't even attempt to put it in the same conversation as othe news sources.

Good luck with that!

You are free to believe what you want to believe and to seek out media that will tell you what you want hear.

Those of use living in the real world don't have the luxury of believing what ever makes us feel good; we seek out and even pay for journalism that describes the world as it is and not just how we want it to be.

Where on Earth did you hear that? His approval rating was dismal.

If you want to try to understand the right-wing voter's perspective, all you need to do is realize is that Democrats are every bit as guilty of duping the public into believing they stand for something.

When they tried to force Hillary Clinton down everyone's throats in the most rigged primary I've ever seen, when Kamala Harris skipped the primary entirely and was just plain anointed instead? Voters care about that shit too, so you can't claim "overthrowing democracy" is the exclusive of the GOP. In both cases, the election was theirs to lose, and they lost it quite actively.

When the new crowd (AOC etc.) get introduced to Congress and are immediately told "these are the corporations whose interests you are supposed to stand for"? Voters remember that, so you can't just claim Trump is more corrupt than anyone else.

Or to take a step back: In 2008, Obama got elected on a promise of change, but by-and-large just did more of the same. Trump withdrew us from Afghanistan disastrously, but he only had to because the actually-competent people had refused to for over a decade, even though America was already sick of Vietnam 2.0.

Now, I do think Trump is a very bad thing for the US. But he's only a symptom of a problem that has gone unaddressed for a long time.

The ACA is just more of the same? Are you kidding me? Do you know how many lives that changed? No more pre-existing conditions? Literally before that if you lost your insurance you just died.

And it was just a compromise with the republicans

It was a Republican policy! From the 80s.

You mean 'a Republican's (I.E. Mitt Romney) policy'. What a manipulative response.

Republics hated it and fought against it.

It goes back a lot further; see e.g. https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/02/07/the-to...

And Republicans fought against it because the wrong party/person proposed it.

For the majority of people, the ACA just meant "insurance has an excuse to raise premiums without end (far more than the number of new people covered)". There was some corporate trickery involved, but that doesn't matter to the individual who's paying more.

The majority of people are very grateful of the coverage. The ACA is very popular if you call it something different (to move away from the propaganda) and explain the details.

The ACA is popular, it is ObamaCare that is unpopular.

I don’t know any serious person who could make these arguments without also acknowledging that premiums were increasing before the ACA. They typically won’t acknowledge that the rate of increase slowed down post ACA because then their entire argument falls apart.

Okay, but even with that (though I really don't think there were >20% increases in any year prior to the ACA ...), all we get is my original point of "Obama promised change, but just provided more of the same."

maintaining the status-quo was at least predictable. change was needed, and was inevitable, but will the result be akin to the replacement of the articles of confederation with the constitution, or the replacement of the french republic with the first french empire?

> In 2008, Obama got elected on a promise of change, but by-and-large just did more of the same

After 2010 midterms he couldn't really do anything, because the GOP did everything they could to obstruct everything, seemingly mostly just as a nihilistic power game. If you will recall, even very simple and uncontroversial appointments were being blocked. It was absolutely ridiculous. I don't especially like the democratic party, but there is no real comparison. Both a forceful push and several punched to the face are assault, but clearly they are not the same or "every bit as guilty".

In the first two years, when he was actually empowered, he mainly focused on the financial crisis and the ACA. Those two were already massive undertakings.

Also Afghanistan was not "Vietnam 2.0". About 280,000 US troops died in Vietnam. About 3,500 coalition troops died in Afghanistan, most of them in the early years. 2020 saw 11 casualties. Comparisons to Vietnam are profoundly unserious. There's a reason Obama stayed in Afghanistan: it was relatively cheap and kept an enemy (Taliban) in check. Now, you can agree or disagree with that, but it's really not as straight-forward as you're presenting it.

>Americans saw the first four years and astonishingly decided they wanted more of it, by a decent margin.

Also keeping in mind that Biden ran 2020 campaigning to return to the previous (Obama-era) status quo and Biden/Harris ran 2024 campaigning to further maintain that status quo. The status quo after given another 4 years of chance was flatly rejected in favor of a return to change.

>I question each day whether that needs to be respected or we should resist.

Well, considering you guys villified Republicans and Trump voters post-2020 (and justifiably so to some degree), I would assume the answer was always the former. Indeed, certain Democrats crying that 2024 was stolen or the like are hypocritical echoes of the same from Republicans and Trump voters in 2020. The pendulum swung back, as it always does.

>I also wonder if his supporters have any idea of what is going on.

I do, at least.

With regards specifically to Phyllis Fong, I have no confidence that an Inspector-General that occupied the office for twenty two years straight[1] can ethically perform their prescribed role. I am in complete agreement with her termination, we need someone (anyone) new and different in there.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Department_of_Agriculture...

> With regards specifically to Phyllis Fong, I have no confidence that an Inspector-General that occupied the office for twenty two years straight[1] can ethically perform their prescribed role. I am in complete agreement with her termination, we need someone (anyone) new and different in there.

Are you "in complete agreement" because of actual things Fong did, or because you think that 22 years experience in a position is disqualifying?

>because you think that 22 years experience in a position is disqualifying?

Yes.

An Inspector-General is in charge of inspecting and auditing, as the name would suggest. That requires being impartial in absolute terms, because you must be able to call out problems no matter how inconvenient they are.

Being in a position of power means an inevitable accrual of reputation and influence, and 22 straight years of accrual is ridiculous. Her excessively long tenure is also unusual; the longest-serving Inspector-General besides her served for 8 years, shortest being 2 years not counting acting IGs, average is about 4 years each IG not counting her 22 year tenure.

So yes, I support her termination because her long tenure lends me no confidence she can perform her duties ethically anymore. There must be a regular changing of the incumbent to head off the office being bought or otherwise corrupted. There are millions of other D.C. bureaucrats to replace her with, and even more Americans overall. There is no reason to keep her specifically for this long and I daresay that the lack of a term limit for this office has to be an oversight.

> An Inspector-General is in charge of inspecting and auditing, as the name would suggest. That requires being impartial in absolute terms

Yes, she's sure going to be replaced by someone impartial...

Thank for you for a thoughtful answer.

In a nutshell, you're advocating for a term-limit on roles like this, which is an entirely valid argument.

You got it. I would also support this termination if Biden or Harris had done the same. 22 years is way too long of a tenure by any reasonable measure for an office like this.

What is wrong with being reappointed to the same job for 22 years? What if she's just...competent? Your argument seems to be that anyone having the same job for that long must be corrupt in some way, but you don't provide anything to support that premise. Ironically, you're implicitly endorsing the resort to illegal means for her removal, rather than following the process defined in law.

"she" suggests DEI, not competence

-someone who reads blue check drivel on X

Are you arguing Phyllis deserved to be fired because she had a lot of experience and was a dedicated employee? That's a pretty hot take. I hope for your sake you are independently wealthy, lest someone who can impact your life comes along and determines you shouldn't be employed anymore because you've been doing it too long. You think twenty two years is too long to be in a profession, perhaps the next person will think 10 years or 5 years are too long, gotta get someone (anyone) new and different in there, and you out.

What has she done in those 22 years that benefited regular people and not her pocket? Do you guys realize Trump was the only president that left office worth less after presidency? Sources here are the same NYT that blamed Trump for colluding with Russia? Same sources that said Biden laptop was a conspiracy? Same sources that called Trump racist for saying Covid came from a lab? Lol do your own research

You're trying to spin him losing money because he's an idiot into a positive narrative you have lost the plot

> I also wonder if his supporters have any idea of what is going on.

They do not. Most of his supporters are either rich or uneducated normal people who lack the mental capacity to realize what's going on. They just repeat the talking points. Respond to anyone of them with a non-talking point, compassion, and honesty and they just shut down. They haven't a clue about what's really going on. I bet none of his supporters even know who Robert Mercer is, the person that got him elected in the first place.

I feel like you're interacting with the same people I'm interacting with because your assessment of them is spot on. They love the talking points. Whenever you shut down one talking point with facts they pole vault over that into the next talking point. They want to be 20 ft up in the air away from the truth and never question why they've been lied to. They believe and even make up wild conspiracy theories on the spot when confronted with information that conflicts with what Trump and his supporters have said and done. Their brains leap over every possible barrier I put up, never letting it stop them. Maybe I'm not a good debater but facts are facts and they don't seem to appreciate or respect or even value them. I need to find a new, less depressing group of people to be around which will unfortunately mean quitting my job but I just can't do it anymore.

+1 I spend a lot of time engaging with these folks in good faith as well, and exact same pattern.

Repeat statement from Trump -> demonstrate that it's untrue -> repeat statement from Trump on new topic -> demonstrate that it's untrue -> repeat statement from Trump on new topic -> demonstrate that it's untrue

They're in a cult.

No, you don't need to respect it for the same reason we needn't respect the decision-making of suicide cults.

Or election were hacked, but not the way you think.

Social media was weaponized and turned into a tool that manipulates people's view of the reality. Each person gets a personalized feed that presses their buttons to think certain way.

For example with war in gaza. If for example you were pro Israeli, you will see content that Harris was siding with Hamas, and trump actually was the most Israel friendly candidate.

If you were supporting Palestine you would get that there's no difference between Harris and trump, and it is best to do protest vote.

Same with leaning too much to the left, or not enough to the left etc.

Pretty much every issue was handled this way. People who got their news from social media had no idea what her stance were on any topic, because that was filtered.

Few years ago we had huge scandal about Cambridge Analytica, there was a bit loud about it and then died out, meanwhile it all continued and was perfected.

Twitter, Instagram, Facebook manipulated older generation. While TikTok managed to capture younger, left leaning generation and make it more apathetic.

I don't think it is a coincidence that pretty much all social media (except the Chinese TikTok) was present on his inauguration.

I also don't think it is a coincidence that all social media companies have involvement with AI. With it, they no longer need humans to generate content, so the whole manipulation is much easier to do.

This isn't just isolated to US and it is being used in Europe too. Look at elections in Moldova, Romania, what's happening in Germany etc.

Timothy Snyder's "On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From the Twentieth Century" book is a must read so we can prevent this.

Here's summary of the lessons: https://substack.com/@snyder/p-155209838

The book is quite short and he also reads and discussed them on his YouTube channel.

> Social media was weaponized and turned into a tool that manipulates people's view of the reality

I really dislike this argument. It shifts responsibility from the voters to evil nebulous puppet-masters. I reject that. At some point, you have to accept that people can think and make decisions for themselves.

> At some point, you have to accept that people can think and make decisions for themselves.

And then we have to accept that this world is what we want and deserve, and this dicussion goes in cycles.

Yeah. Everyone is convinced ads don't work on them, yet somehow it is a trillion dollar industry.

Perhaps you are lucky and don't have anyone in your family affected by disinformation.

I have family members that no longer watch TV, listen radio, read news papers. All "news" they are getting is from sources that also tell them that all other sources lie.

They live in complete different reality that it is a distorted mirror of actual reality.

Is it reasonable that social media influencers may be assigned some degree of credit? After all they are generally effective at selling products.

I also agree that people have responsibility for their actions. For example, it has been personally sobering to observe some friends and colleagues agree that defunding PEPFAR and putting 20 million lives at risk was morally the right thing to do.

He’s an elected president, not an elected dictator. It’s totally reasonable in our democracy to say that you don’t get to do anything everything you want just because you got 51% of the vote.

We have a constitution and separation of powers which many seem to have forgotten about this week

*49.8%

What is "the people" at this point, even? Is there really such a thing as "American people" that can be meaningfully defined? What would be its ideals?

If you look at everyone eligible to vote, the people spoke clearly in November with the same message they have for decades, "none of the above".

Those people spoke loud and clear: "We're OK with whatever everyone else decides!"

So again: the people have spoken. America is getting exactly what America wants.

He won the popular vote by less than Hillary won it in 2016, _when she lost the election._ Every time he's been candidate or president, he's the least popular of either in the history we've polled popularity or approval. Many pluralities who constitute "America" (felons, especially when you consider how many people we imprison; and immigrants) who are subject to US law don't get to vote. And many institutions (DC not having senators, Puerto Rico, and the Senate generally) are barely representational and serving the function of democracy.

So I know it makes you feel intelligent and cool to say "ah, but you see: this is what they wanted," but in every other way you can measure it besides the very narrow way you're focused on, it's as untrue as it could be.

The majority just wanted lower grocery / gas / rent.

Unfortunately they either didn't read the fine print, or concluded that it was a price they were willing to pay. I suspect it is more the former.

As Obama said, elections have consequences.

Thanks to California's incredibly slow counting system it was a lot closer in popular vote than it initially appeared.

Americans are desperate. May not be felt among the HN crowd, but standards of living in the US have been declining consistently for a long time [1]. Remember that Trump was not re-elected to a second term initially specifically because he failed to deliver on his promise of "MAGA". He instead did a Jeb Bush presidency, complete with Wall Street (Mnuchin) and the CIA (Pompeo) running the country exactly as would have occurred had Bush won. So Americans tried Biden, in the hopes of a return to Obama era America. This obviously didn't happen, as standard of living continued to decline. So they tried Trump again, in sheer desperation.

I don't see a positive future for the US, as it is so clearly a declining empire, exhibiting every textbook symptom. The startup/tech crowd loves talking about cheap phones and "services", but the reality is bleak outside of this narrow tech bubble.

1. https://www.oftwominds.com/blogjun24/negativity6-24.html

Nah. You cant explain fascism just by them being desperate economically. That is not how it works. They did not had to have Trump to be representant of the republican party again. If they were bothered by economics, they would pick someone else even if they wanted to change parties.

They wanted to cause harm for reasons unrelated to economics.

You see an electorate that wanted to cause harm. I see an electorate that thought anything is better than a black woman in charge. :-\

It rings a bit hollow when the single most popular president in recent history was Obama. If the US can cope with him what is the problem with women supposed to be? Harris was an unusually weak candidate; the primary system is supposed to shake people like that out and the Democrats were left in a disadvantageous place after bypassing it.

One of the reasons Trump is getting all these historic wins is because the US Democrats refuse point blank to do some introspection and ask if their policy positions are effective. Name-calling and shaming tactics turned out to not be good enough to stop Trump, so there is an interesting question of who they could stop and under what circumstances they could be politically successful.

Indeed. If the DNC had allowed Bernie Sanders to run against Trump, Sanders would very likely have beaten him and Trump would have remained a reality TV star. Instead, they pushed Clinton on Democrats just like they pushed Harris this cycle. The corruption within the DNC is very much to blame for Trump.

I refuse to accept the childish assertion that the majority of American voters are card carrying members of a radical political system that was defeated last century. This is just an emotional response to a reality that one does not want to accept.

> It rings a bit hollow when the single most popular president in recent history was Obama

Does it? It was when Obama got elected that Republicans started freaking out. Take a look at the 2008 Republican party platform [1]. On energy they talk about wanting an energy supply that is diverse, reliable, and cleaner.

They say "In the long run, American production should move to zero-emission sources, and our nation's fossil fuel resources are the bridge to that emissions-free future". They wanted more domestic oil to reduce foreign dependance, more nuclear (specifically calling out that it is zero-carbon. They also said

> Alternate power sources must enter the mainstream. The technology behind solar energy has improved significantly in recent years, and the commercial development of wind power promises major benefits both in costs and in environmental protection. Republicans support these and other alternative energy sources, including geothermal and hydropower, and anticipate technological developments that will increase their economic viability. We therefore advocate a long-term energy tax credit equally applicable to all renewable power sources.

> Republicans support measures to modernize the nation's electricity grid to provide American consumers and businesses with more affordable, reliable power. We will work to unleash innovation so entrepreneurs can develop technologies for a more advanced and robust United States transmission system that meets our growing energy demands

Read that to a Republican today without telling them where it is from and they will probably guess it was from Biden.

They also pushed conservation:

> Conservation does not mean deprivation; it means efficiency and achieving more with less. Most Americans today endeavor to conserve fossil fuels, whether in their cars or in their home heating, but we can do better. We can construct better and smarter buildings, use smarter thermostats and transmission grids, increase recycling, and make energy-efficient consumer purchases. Wireless communications, for example, can increase telecommuting options and cut back on business travel. The Republican goal is to ensure that Americans have more conservation options that will enable them to make the best choices for their families.

Here's what they said about cars:

> We must continue to develop alternative fuels, such as biofuels, especially cellulosic ethanol, and hasten their technological advances to next-generation production. As America develops energy technology for the 21st century, policy makers must consider the burden that rising food prices and energy costs create for the poor and developing nations around the world. Because alternative fuels are useless if vehicles cannot use them, we must move quickly to flexible fuel vehicles; we cannot expect necessary investments in alternative fuels if this flexibility does not become standard. We must also produce more vehicles that operate on electricity and natural gas, both to reduce demand for oil and to cut CO2 emissions.

> Given that fully 97 percent of our current transportation vehicles rely on oil, we will aggressively support technological advances to reduce our petroleum dependence. For example, lightweight composites could halve the weight and double the gas mileage of cars and trucks, and together with flex-fuel and electric vehicles, could usher in a renaissance in the American auto industry.

They had a big section on environmental protection which leads of with saying how the aforementioned energy policies will put the US in a good position to address climate change. They go on to spend 7 paragraphs explain a market and technology approach to addressing this.

Compare to the 2012 platform [2] and the 2016 platform [3].

[1] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2008-republican-pa...

[2] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2012-republican-pa...

[3] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2016-republican-pa...

Obama was black man president that broke republican minds. They really got more extreme, refused to cooperate in any way so center "work across the aisle" politics became impossible.

And then they voted for Trump. Ta-Nehisi comment with name "trum is first white president" makes the point better then I would do.

Whats race got to do with it? Trumps 2-0 against women regardless of race.

Yeah, the fact that she can barely speak full sentences surely had nothing to do with it.

Lets turn it into a race issue, let's pretend Obummer never happened.

I will give you one point for the gender angle, a female US president is very difficult to imagine.

> Yeah, the fact that she can barely speak full sentences surely had nothing to do with it.

This is a bald lie, and is wildly unbecoming of discussion on this site.

But it’s also a hilarious assertion in the face of literally anything Trump has ever tried to say out loud.

I'm just going to go ahead and trust my own experience more than your expert opinion on that, and I'd advice anyone to do the same.

Your experience wrt this matter appears to be limited, at best

Here's one full hour of complete sentences from a talk at Google in 2010.

https://youtu.be/aJllQ9d3pYM?t=161

It's difficult to be a public prosecuter without also being literate.

> and I'd advice anyone to do the same.

Something you might work on.

The only way to think she can't speak well is if you are so racist you are unable to process smart black woman.

Who is "they"? And yes, you can absolutely explain it with desperation, and arrogance and in-fighting on behalf of the non-fascists.

The issues on the minds of American issues were mostly things like housing, healthcare; economics. Trump at least pretended to be also angry and willing to do something about it, while saying the Democrats were lukewarm would be flattering them.

What is the point of saying "people wanted this"? To legitimize not fighting it? I don't even care what I wanted yesterday, what do I care what someone else wanted last November?

No they weren't. There was huge focus on trans and immigration and vaccinationa. Economic is distant third.

They have continuing quest to make abortions as illegal as possible, the quest for male supremacy, the climate denial ... This was not hold your nose for economics. This was I don't care about economics, I hate others too much.

> What is the point of saying "people wanted this"? To legitimize not fighting it?

I am sick of excessive benefits of the doubt constantly given to the conservatives and their voters. Of sympathetic portraits of poor then while people they harm never get that. Of them lying, knowingly throwing false accusations and then centrists or left being blamed for not being nice to then.

Yes it should be fought. But it is not true that republican voters were victims of something when eventually Musks actions harm some of them. They wanted to cause harm and will cause more harm to people not like them.

> There was huge focus on trans and immigration and vaccinationa. Economic is distant third.

I'm just not seeing that, e.g.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/651719/economy-important-issue-...

Not a mention of 'COVID' anywhere on this page (thank you Ctrl+F). Surely, it had a role in how we got here, at least inflation-wise?

Has it slipped so easily from the face of History? Let's just hope its not a new pandemic that provides that final false-flag style push into fascism, as an excuse for suspending democracy. Those Republicans who will say one final time that we aren't a democracy ("we're a republic!") will be sorry for the seeds they have sown.

Where did Trump promise to remove Phyllis Fong? Or something less specific that would translate to this? He promised to lower egg prices, and "the majority of the few people voted for Trump, so any random thing he now does is what THE AMERICAN PEOPLE wanted" is just not true.

And even if it was, to me the question isn't "did someone else want this at some point in the past, probably based on false or even no information" anyway, but how to judge it now. Sometimes people want wrong things for shitty reasons and a minority has to stand up to them standing on their principles.

I also spoke when I voted for my Senators and Congressmen/women. I voted for Congress to do their jobs.

A minority spoke clearly. Many of "the people" didn't vote, and Trump got less than 50% of those that did.

The ones that didn’t vote are ok with what the voters choose, otherwise they would’ve voted

They're okay the way a patient in a coma is okay with whatever the doctor does.

I'm sorry, but how many non-voters were physically unable to vote? My heart goes out to them. But everyone else, who chose to stay home, chose to let others speak for them.

"Spoke clearly that they wanted $X" != "Didn't take the opportunity to express any opinion."

Those are fundamentally different.

By deciding not to vote, you’re actively saying that either option is fine. So you’re ok with the outcome.

Everyone who decided not to vote literally relinquished their voice in the matter. They simply don't count. They were "OK" with whatever others decided. Their opinion has as much weight as my dog's (and I don't even have a dog!).

> The people spoke very clearly [that] they wanted this.

> [Nonvoters] were "OK" with whatever others decided.

Those are not the same thing! Stop contradicting yourself in order to sanewash Trump.

Not a contradiction at all. And this isn't about "sanewashing" Trump.

There is a set of people eligible to vote. There is a set of people who do vote. Anyone in the first set who chooses not be in the second set, is no longer included in statements about What The People Want. You snooze, you lose.

The time to say whether you want or don't want a President is in November. You stay quiet then, you don't get to complain in January "This isn't what I wanted!" To stay home by choice is be OK with whatever outcome others decide.

And those others spoke clearly that this is the outcome they wanted.

Honestly, my head hurts at the apologism over non-voters. If you don't vote, you don't count!

You're saying that 7 people could vote with the rest of the nations staying home, and then when Bob wins with 3/7 votes, I can say: "Look, the people spoke very clearly that they wanted Bob!"

No, that'd be frickin' insane, since:

1. Basically none of the "the people" ever "spoke" at all.

2. Even when non-voters somehow aren't "the people", there's nothing remotely "clear" Bob winning with a minority.

The moral fiber of nonvoters is irrelevant, this is about how you exaggerated a weak signal to the point of outright falsehood.

Can we then openly call republican voters guilty then? Instead of pretending that people voting for that party are good people? I do agree that many wanted the harm and that is why they voted for Trump.

IMO they're morally (and practically) responsible but it is politically unwise to do this.

I don't know. For years and years, center acted on the assumption it is unwise to be anything but accommodating and nice. Center enabled raise of extremism by tacitly suporting them.

Trump won by being not nice. Democrats lost by being nice.

Yeah, I’m obviously sympathetic to this view. I think things have changed in the last few days. This hostile takeover is going to be very bad for a lot of GOP and MAGA folks too and we need to ensure they’re ire is pointed in the right direction.

If 49.8% of the vote is the people speaking clearly, then what do you call the 50.2% of the vote that did not vote for this?

Social media made them think that some problems were huge and these elected people would solve them, while at the same time demonizing all other media so all signals that these people are not right were effectively muted.

> The people spoke very clearly in November: they wanted this.

49.8% of the people who voted wanted this.

50.2% wanted someone else to be president (but did not pass the threshold for someone other than Trump).

Where do you get that from? Huge numbers didn’t vote. Of those who did Trump squeaked by with a small lead but significantly less than 50% of the populace voted for him.

He has no mandate.