Any Trump Supporters Want to Dialogue?
post by k64 · 2024-09-28T19:41:55.370Z · LW · GW · 42 commentsThis is a question post.
Contents
Answers 23 Shankar Sivarajan 10 deepthoughtlife 7 HNX 2 Cleo Nardo None 42 comments
It's that time of year - the time when rationality seems increasingly scarce as political tensions rise. I find myself wishing I could have one of the people I see reaching super different conclusions shoot me with a POV gun so I could understand what it's like being on the other side.
I'm not strongly left-leaning, so I don't have trouble understanding why people may have some concerns about the left - but I have 0% support for Donald Trump, so if you want to explain to me why you think he's great, go for it. I also think that the election is close to 50/50 currently, so if you think it's 80+/20- either way, I'm also interested in hearing from you.
2 notes:
1. I really wish I understood how the irrational people were thinking about it, but unfortunately, they aren't able to explain it to me in a way I can understand, so I have to settle for rational people on the other side, but if you feel you have a good grasp on how your less rational peers tick, please share.
2. In your comment, let me know if you want pushback or not. Let's make the options: "just listen", "listen and question", and "open". Just listen means I'll attempt to only ask questions to clarify your meaning but not test edge cases. Listen and questions means I'll also ask about edge cases, internal coherence, other considerations, but won't be presenting evidence or making statements. Open means I can respond however I want.
Answers
I like Sam Harris's description (from The Key to Trump's Appeal - Episode #224):
One thing that Trump never communicates, and cannot possibly communicate, is a sense of his moral superiority. The man is totally without sanctimony. Even when his every utterance is purposed toward self-aggrandizement. Even when he appears to be denigrating his supporters. Even when he is calling himself a genius, he is never actually communicating that he is better than you, more enlightened, more decent, because he's not, and everyone knows it.
The man is just a bundle of sin and gore. And he never pretends to be anything more. Perhaps more importantly, he never even aspires to be anything more. And because of this, because he is never really judging you, he cannot possibly judge you, he offers a truly safe space for human frailty and hypocrisy and self-doubt. He offers what no priest can credibly offer, a total expiation of shame. His personal shamelessness is a kind of spiritual balm. Trump is fat Jesus. He's grab-'em-by-the-pussy Jesus. He's I'll-eat-nothing-but-cheeseburgers-if-I-want-to Jesus. He's I-want-to-punch-them-in-the-face Jesus. He's go-back-to-your-shithole-countries Jesus. He's no-apologies Jesus.
And now consider the other half of this image, what are we getting from the Left? We're getting exactly the opposite message. Pure sanctimony. Pure judgement. You are not good enough. You're guilty, not only for your own sins, but the sins of your fathers. The crimes of slavery and colonialism are on your head. And if you're a cis-white-heterosexual male—which we know is the absolute core of Trump's support—you're a racist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, sexist barbarian. Tear down those statues, and bend the fucking knee. It's the juxtaposition between those two messages that is so powerful.
This sounds reasonable to me, and would adequately explain my support in 2016.
But since then, he has done something that surprised me: he stood by Brett Kavanaugh. At the cost of losing the House in the midterms, Trump backed him. I don't think any other Republican politician (at least at the time) would have done that. Neither side talks about this anymore, but I consider this the single best thing he did in office.
From a policy perspective, I generally like the decisions of his Supreme Court picks. I don't like his tariffs, but think the Democrats' policies are worse. I like his isolationism, but I don't expect it'd be implemented.
Oh, and I'm open. Respond however you want.
↑ comment by k64 · 2024-10-06T03:34:17.101Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thanks for this! So, you mainly support him because he doesn't make you feel judged?
Also, would you tell me more about what the Kavanaugh thing means to you?
↑ comment by Shankar Sivarajan (shankar-sivarajan) · 2024-10-06T15:24:39.271Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't think that quite captures it. That makes it sound like I've done something I think I should to feel bad about. No, it's more the lack of sanctimony. The lack of … hypocrisy.[1] I despise the holier-than-thou self-righteousness of the other side, and he feels like the antithesis of that.
A related part of this is the inspirational aspect of his own behavior. Fear does not recall him from danger. Shame does not recall him from infamy.[2] He is vulgar. Rude. Uninhibited. Free.
Now, after saying all that, the Kavanaugh thing wrecks that narrative. Contrary to the meme, they weren't after him. They were trying to hurt Trump, and he just happened to be in the way. I could easily imagine someone I knew and cared about being in Kavanaugh's position, and the Democrats were casually ruining his life for their political goals. They were blatantly lying about him, and backed by the most powerful institutions in America, they were going to succeed. It felt inevitable that Trump, who I thought to be supremely self-interested, was going to withdraw the nomination, and, for no fault of his own, a man would spend the rest of his life in ignominy. But then, Trump defied my expectations and stood up to them. Against this force that seemed inexorable, he stood. At first alone, and then the Republican Senators rallied behind him. And they won: Kavanaugh now sits the bench. I guess it doesn't sound like all that much now, but I was emotionally invested in this story as it unfolded, and the best description of what I felt is awe. The man I saw in the President's chair then was a leader fighting against impossible odds for a righteous cause. I don't think Trump is always that man, or even usually, but he can be.
- ^
I recognize that the mismatch between what he says and what he conveys makes this tricky to assess.
- ^
Yes, I'm deliberately omitting the third part of Cicero's line.
↑ comment by k64 · 2024-10-06T19:57:48.649Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Oh, that's really interesting. I don't think that you should feel bad about liking someone who makes you feel less judged. I think most people actually have emotional reasons behind their decisions, and knowing your own just makes you self-aware. And, for as much as the president affects our daily lives, maybe feeling less judged isn't that tiny compared to the other theoretical benefits of having the right candidate in office.
That said, based on your Kavanaugh story, I do feel like I was missing something. As you point out, it doesn't really make sense to like someone both for their morality and amortality. It sounds like its more like negative reinforcement, or "a breath of fresh air" with respect to the self-righteousness/judgement you're feeling from the Left. Then, someone who was pushing back against that judgement did something you see as righteous and were emotionally invested in - the feeling of awe makes sense as a response.
Personally, my reasons for not supporting Trump are emotional. Of course I have logical reasons to support those, and I think some of those logical reasons are legitimate, as opposed to simply motivated reasoning/confirmation bias, but the direct reason why my brain is ready to say "the other guy" when it's "do you want Trump or..." before I've even heard the rest of the sentence, is a strong negative mental association I've built with Trump over the past 8 years. And my best guess for that negative association is a combination of a) dislike of his divisive rhetoric, and b) fear of the impact of electing someone who rejected the norm of peacefully accepting election results. While mental associations don't retain a full log of how they formed, they just are features of our mental landscape, I do have some memories to clue me in to how mine may have formed:
1. When Trump announced his candidacy, I didn't take him seriously. No real negative association, but here was a tv personality trying to do politics.
2. By the end of the primary, despite having gone into it with the intent to vote Republican, I had decided I couldn't vote for Trump.
3. When he won, I held out hope that he would leave behind his divisive rhetoric as a campaigning strategy and be a decent president. I changed my mind about this upon hearing his inauguration speech, which is possibly the most negative, divisive, us vs them speech I've heard from an elected official.
4. In 2019 I was still telling people they were ridiculous for saying Trump was the worst president. Had they heard of the trail of tears for instance?
5. In 2020, my negative associate with Trump J-curved. On the heels of using foreign aid to pressure another country into helping him win the next election, we had covid hit, and while I'll never know the exact reasons, I can't help but suspect that the anti-vax, anti-distancing stance of the GOP contributed to the US hitting number 1 in the world for covid deaths (more than all US military deaths combined), despite not being number 1 in population. Finally, in interviews before the election and in the debate, Trump refused repeatedly to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, which was a huge red flag for me. This ended up culminating in the election denial that has undermined tens if not hundreds of millions of people's faith in our democratic system. Even typing this, I feel strong negative emotions toward a candidate who would refuse to accept losing an election. I don't expect much from presidents, but being willing to give up power is definitely up there.
So, for me, instead of feeling relief from judgement or self-righteousness, the effect Trump has had on my personal life is increased levels of interpersonal conflict, more distance in some relationships, and more difficulty communicating and finding common ground with many people. This is a larger impact than I'm aware of any other political figure having on my day to day life, and it's negative, so it makes sense that I would have a negative association with Trump.
As for judgement from the left, if you don't mind me asking, what are your demographics? I'm a straight white cis-male with judeo-christian upbringing and no official minority statuses, and I would say I feel some judgement from the Left. I am actually concerned about the Left gaining too much power. But the Republican party I intended to vote for in 2016 doesn't exist anymore, and I feel like rejection of election results, higher education, fact checking, epidemiological science, etc, are much more pressing concerns than the theoretical thought-policing dystopia I fear the Left could eventually evolve into. To be honest, I'm kind of upset with Republicans for removing their decent option and making me feel like I don't have a choice, but I was never fully on board with Republicans anyway. It's just weird how despite feeling like McCain and Romney were downgrades from politicians of the past, I wish I had them as options to vote for now.
I wonder why, despite also feeling some judgement from the Left, I ended up on the opposite side of Trump as you. Do you think you don't mind his rhetoric? Or do you think it's a first-impression snowball effect, or something else?
↑ comment by Shankar Sivarajan (shankar-sivarajan) · 2024-10-06T22:33:29.690Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It don't get the impression you're making an effort to understand my position. It barely feels like you read my response. It could be my fault; I will try to be clearer.
I don't think that you should feel bad about liking someone who makes you feel less judged.
You misunderstand me completely. I was criticizing your description. Which you've just doubled down on.
it doesn't really make sense to like someone both for their morality and amorality.
Sure it does. You just need to be clear what you mean: antiheroes are a perfectly coherent thing. He's not a good guy, but he's on the right side, and he occasionally does great things.
Their "self-righteousness/judgement" is the least of my objections to the Left, especially during the Kavanaugh affair. They fabricated obviously false rape accusations against an innocent man because it might get them what they wanted, and they knew they'd get away with it. I don't think "evil" is a particularly useful term in general, but if it is to mean anything at all, it would be used to describe everyone who participated in furthering that. And they would have triumphed if Trump had done the easy thing.
My "demographics" are unlikely to be helpful in understanding my views, but fwiw: Male, South Indian heritage (though on any forms that ask, I leave that blank), either Millennial or Gen Z depending on whom you ask, middle class, atheist, advanced college degree.
much more pressing concerns than the theoretical thought-policing dystopia I fear the Left could eventually evolve into
I don't think there are any concerns more pressing than that. I also don't think it's "theoretical" or "eventually."
And since you mention McCain and Romney, you'll remember that they lost. And I assess that to be because they didn't actually care about winning, believing losing politely to be just as good.
you don't mind his rhetoric?
I like his rhetoric. Funny and blunt.
inauguration speech, which is possibly the most negative, divisive, us vs them speech
What? I take the view that politics is distinguishing between friend and enemy, but that speech wasn't that. I looked looked it up: he really only condemns the establishment/Washington.
Broadly, my suspicion is that you trust the establishment news media too much, and let their description of events affect your perceptions the way they intend. That would explain the difference adequately. Here's a good test: do you believe Trump called neo-Nazis in Charlottesville in 2017 "fine people"?
As a side note,
undermined tens if not hundreds of millions of people's faith in our democratic system.
Lots of people say almost identical things about "faith in institutions" or "experts/Science!™" as well. If their faith is misplaced, undermining it is good, actually. Electronic voting and mail-in ballots are more vulnerable to large-scale fraud than traditional in-person voting. And I bet you would recognize this if this was happening elsewhere. For example, Russia now has voting online, and plans to make that universal. I expect you understand why that system is not in fact "safe and secure" even if you can't any specific fraudulent votes
Replies from: k64↑ comment by k64 · 2024-10-07T01:49:35.321Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It don't get the impression you're making an effort to understand my position.
Ok, well first let me correct that misconception: I am definitely making an effort to understand. Knowledge is the only thing I get out of this. If you feel I'm being insincere about any specific point, feel free to ask about it. But I think the difficulty in communication really just shows exactly that: real communication is difficult.
You misunderstand me completely. I was criticizing your description.
I interpreted your initial "That makes it sound like I've done something I think I should to feel bad about." to mean "It sounds like you are implying that my reason for supporting Trump is bad" (I took the word 'judged' from your original post, btw), so this reply was saying "no, I am not implying that it is bad".
Apparently, you were actually criticizing my description. By that, do you mean that you do think "not feeling judged" is a bad reason to support someone, or do you mean that it's not an accurate statement about you. If the former, why do you think that it's a bad reason, and what in general do you consider acceptable reasons? If the latter, how is me saying I don't view it as bad "doubling down"?
For your next objection to my "it doesn't make sense to like someone for both their morality and amorality", perhaps I should have paraphrased less as directly quoted you with "the Kavanaugh thing wrecks that narrative".
I also don't think it's "theoretical" or "eventually."
This implies you think it is actual and current. Do you think we currently have a thought-policing dystopia?
politics is distinguishing between friend and enemy
That's reasonable. I would like there to be no enemies. Now, obviously that's not the case, but it is almost never true that an entire group is an enemy, and it is often true that calling people enemies creates and perpetuates enmity.
Broadly, my suspicion is that you trust the establishment news media too much, and let their description of events affect your perceptions the way they intend. That would explain the difference adequately. Here's a good test: do you believe Trump called neo-Nazis in Charlottesville in 2017 "fine people"?
You're correct that I trust the establishment, though obviously not to a degree that I think is too much. I also think that you're correct that this may be a crux. For your test, without Googling, my belief is that Trump said "there are fine people on both sides" in reference to the Charlottesville protests. Even if I'm incorrect about that though, I don't think that it measures how much trust I have in the establishment news, since you haven't measured my confidence in that belief or how resistent it would be to counter evidence. If some random person on the street tells me they just ate a bagel, I will believe they just ate a bagel, despite a relatively low level of trust. But that doesn't mean I would stake much on that belief or resist counter-evidence. I don't know if my current belief on this is true, but if not, I guess you can test how I react to counter-evidence (though you may have to distinguish between my resistance to changing my belief and my level of trust in the source of whatever counter-evidence you provide).
I was recently thinking about how I would explain my general trust in the established systems (science, education, free press, democracy) to someone who didn't share it. It's quite difficult, because I think at core it comes down to beliefs about what other people are like. Perhaps the best way to explain it is that my base assumption is that other people are like me, and when I think about how I would act in these systems, the result of them being filled with people like me is that they would be fallible but reasonably reliable. The other reason it's hard for me to explain why I don't distrust them is that trust seems like the default to me. Like I said, I'd believe a complete stranger's claim about what they ate. When I ask a cashier the price of an item, I've never once thought they might lie to me. The vast majority of things I hear people say (and the things I say to others) line up with reality, so against that background prior of P(statement|human said it)~=0.99, it feels like I would need to understand why someone else think P(statement|human said it & establishmentIndicator)<50%, before I could begin to explain why I haven't reached that conclusion.
I'm curious, do you have any beliefs that others label as conspiracy theories? How do you determine which sources to trust? Do you trust any of our established systems in (science, education, free press, or democracy)?
↑ comment by Shankar Sivarajan (shankar-sivarajan) · 2024-10-07T03:08:11.745Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
First, I apologize for my comment about you not making an effort. That was more an expression of frustration than accusation.
Let us shelve the discussion on the semantics of judgment vs. self-righteousness. Probably too subtle to be worth bothering with.
Before the Kavanaugh affair, I thought Trump acted entirely in naked self-interest. But how he handled it showed me he was more than I had given him credit for.
a thought-policing dystopia
Yes. What do you think the "cancel culture" we've been decrying for years is?
Just to clarify, I didn't come up with the friend–enemy distinction. That's straight from Carl Schmitt.
I didn't ask whether he used the phrase. He did. My question was whether you thought he used it to describe neo-Nazis. If you did, I wouldn't blame you: that's the impression the media has been cultivating. Would it surprise you to learn Trump, a few sentences later, said explicitly, "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally"?
I don't think your resistance or lack thereof to counter-evidence about this particular quote is relevant. The question is whether you will continue to trust the people who left you with that impression when they knew better. If they show you another clip of Trump saying something you think is terrible, will you assume until proven otherwise that it isn't grossly misleading? If they claim "anonymous sources" told them things about Trump, will you believe they aren't just made up? If they make a claim about how many lies Trump told, would you take that as a reasonable estimate if they don't present you with a complete list you can inspect?
Your mistake is in assuming the statements you care about and act on are randomly sampled in the space of all statements that people make. No, they'd be adversarial examples, crafted to manipulate you.
Yes. Several. Without looking up a more complete list of conspiracy theories, I'd list the existence of the Deep State, manipulation of the historical record by the Soviet Union, and the biological reality of race and sex.
Nullius in verba. On no one's word.
No, not really. Except for the "established systems in democracy," the others have lied too much, and suppressed the truth too often. And the democracy one is secretive by design, and has done nothing earn my trust.
↑ comment by Pazzaz · 2024-10-02T21:06:59.111Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Just one question, when he tried to steal the election using fake electors in 2020, do you think that was bad?
Replies from: shankar-sivarajan↑ comment by Shankar Sivarajan (shankar-sivarajan) · 2024-10-03T02:22:39.398Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I reject the premises of this blatantly loaded question.
The strategy Trump attempted to win the election using alternative electors to keep Biden from getting a majority so that Congress would decide the Presidency, reprising the similar (successful) strategy employed by Hayes in 1876, was unlikely to succeed from the outset, and poorly executed to boot. So yeah, I think it was "bad" in that sense, but probably not what you mean. Do I think it was an insurrection or a putsch, or a threat to "our democracy," or anything like that? No, no more than this appeal to electors in 2016 to change their votes was a foiled plot to overthrow the government.
Replies from: Pazzaz↑ comment by Pazzaz · 2024-10-03T06:43:57.138Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't know why you are bringing up the 1876 election, when that was before the Electoral Count Act, which sets the procedure for electoral votes that was used in 2020.
I'm still a little confused.
- Do you think it would be fine if 2016 electors changed their votes so that Trump lost?
- Does it depend on if it was legal?
- Do you think it would be fine if Trump would have succeeded with his plans in 2020?
- Does it depend on if it was legal?
↑ comment by Shankar Sivarajan (shankar-sivarajan) · 2024-10-03T14:42:53.656Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Arguing matters of law regarding transfers of power in the highest echelons of government is … misguided. It's like arguing with Reddit mods about what their rules say when they ban you. Or more classically, paraphrasing Pompey (via Plutarch), "Stop quoting laws at us. We have the swords." What the laws/rules literally say doesn't mean anything; how they're enforced is all that matters [1].
(I suppose if one were religious, one could consider the letter of the the Law sacred in some way, not to be profaned regardless of consequence or enforcement, but I am not.)
If you win, there are many ways it can be made legal. For example, the Supreme Court rules on what the law says, they say the Constitution overrides all federal laws, and the Constitution says the President has the "Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons," so he pardons himself and everyone involved [2].
The strategy Trump tried (or one very similar) worked in 1876. I consider that extremely relevant, though as I said earlier, the plan was unlikely to work in 2020. The Electoral Count Act passed in the interim mattered insofar as its threat was sufficient to dissuade Mike Pence (and probably several state governors) from coöperating, so I guess it did its job.
I don't know what you mean by "fine." I would have preferred Trump win. Some reasons for which I listed on my top-level comment.
I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "legal," (according to whom?) but no, not in the slightest.
- ^
Is it even worth listing examples of times politically powerful members of the ruling class flouted laws they would have enforced harshly against commoners? Just look at the many instances during the "covid" lockdowns, for a start.
- ^
You could say their actions would still be illegal even if the law can't be enforced against them, but I consider that a distinction without a difference.
↑ comment by Pazzaz · 2024-10-03T15:19:20.658Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This comment is just confusing me even more. If you found out that Trump threatened Mike Pence with a gun to try to force him to count Trump's electors, would that be bad? You would prefer if Trump won, so that sounds like a good thing for him to do, right? But maybe you think it's bad for presidents to threaten people with guns, so you think it's bad. Can you answer what you think about this hypothetical?
Replies from: shankar-sivarajan↑ comment by Shankar Sivarajan (shankar-sivarajan) · 2024-10-03T15:51:04.515Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
it's bad for presidents to threaten people with guns
They do this indirectly all the time. This is the basis of all laws of the federal government. Yes, I think it's bad, but I don't think it'd be fundamentally any worse for Trump to point a gun at Pence than for, say, an FBI agent (acting under the aegis of the Executive Branch, i.e., the President) to point a gun at a drug dealer.
But I agree it'd have been a stupid thing to do for many reasons: the threat wouldn't be credible, he'd get removed from office even if it works, people he needs to govern would turn on him, voters will switch to supporting Democrats, … that's not winning.
Edit: This is also the basis of my criticism of the rabble-rousing on January 6. It's primarily a matter of aesthetics.
Replies from: Pazzaz↑ comment by Pazzaz · 2024-10-03T16:23:02.525Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
So the problem is just that it wouldn't help him win? So if threatening Pence with a gun would have made him president, and the supreme court said that he was immune from criminal prosecution, it wouldn't affect if you'd vote for him again? (Ignoring that it would be his third term.)
I'm a lifelong independent centrist who leans clearly Republican in voting despite my nature. I actually mostly read Dem or Dem leaning sources for the majority of my political reading (though it isn't super skewed and I do make sure to seek out both sides). I would definitely vote for a Democrat that seemed like a good candidate with good policies (and have at the state level). I believe it is my duty as an American citizen to know a lot more about politics than I would prefer. (I kind of hate politics.)
I really wished there was a valid third option in 2016, but unfortunately I couldn't even find a third party candidate that seemed better than Trump even then. Hilary was a truly abysmal candidate. That isn't actually enough to get me to vote for someone, and I would rather do a protest vote than vote for someone that would be a bad choice. In the end, I only decided to vote for Trump two weeks before the election instead of a protest vote.
Due to preexisting animus, I probably would have ignored Trump's actual words and deeds on the 2016 campaign trail if the media hadn't constantly lied about them, but the things he said were both much truer than claimed, and actually made a lot of sense. The media has never stopped lying about Trump since then, but they just shredded their credibility with me and many others. I don't recall the sources, but unless I am remembering incorrectly (which is always a possibility), this lying campaign against Trump was directly suggested through op-eds in major newspapers, and then implemented. You can probably make good points against Trump, but no one seems to actually complain about things that are both true and actually bad? (I am very pedantic about truth, and find that I'm not interested in listening to people who twist things and then pretend they are true.)
I deeply want to change and improve things, and chafe at the idea of being restricted to some old formula for life but I've been forced to realize that conservatism is necessary. I am very much a centrist in terms of ideology, but in the current state of America, that means being very open to conservative ways and values. Understanding why what you are changing is the way it is, and being careful with the changes are both very necessary; since most things are actually pretty well tuned, incautious changes usually make things much worse.
The extremely obvious reason why people support Trump is because he was a good and effective president (in comparison to other presidents, which is a low bar, I know). President is a very difficult job where people mostly screw up, and much of it is ceremonial, but Trump had a large number of successes compared to what I expected going in. The state of the country was clearly improved by his actions, and would be again. The country and world situation got much worse under his successor, Joe Biden (in a way that also mirrored the failures of Trump's predecessor).
I've had a strong personal distaste for Trump for decades, but he was either the best president in my lifetime or very near. I'm loyal to the America, so I've been forced to upgrade my opinion of him dramatically. I still wouldn't like to hang out with him, and wouldn't encourage others to do so, but that isn't the point of selecting a president. It's for the good of the country.
He's actually a centrist; there is a reason he was comfortable as a democrat before, and as a Republican now. None of his personal positions are extreme, and though he's willing to work with people more extreme than him, and it tends to be to the right, the only reason he worked primarily with Republicans is because the Democrats were busy trying to score political points instead of advancing their policies. Since Trump actually wants things, people can work with him if they choose to, and they don't have to do anything extreme to do so.
His opponents are pretty unimpressive at best. Kamala Harris was a terrible state politician (I'm Californian and saw what she did in my state); either corrupt as hell or incompetent as hell (likely both), though I don't have particular evidence at hand of it. She was a completely ineffectual VP. Her VP choice is deeply unimpressive. She obviously helped cover up Biden's decline into clearly being an unfit president. Her ideas are either stolen from Trump's campaign or incredibly harmful. Almost no one actually expects her to be a good president? Just a few months ago even the Democrats thought she was completely incompetent, and she was only selected for contingent reasons that had nothing to do with her quality as a candidate.
Additionally, the Democrats have gone too far, and the Republicans need to be given another turn. As an independent, I wouldn't want a particular party to grow too powerful, and the democrats are in a much stronger overall position in terms of controlling the country outside of politics. If Trump wins, the Democrats will still be in a strong position and have a lot of control over the next four years, while the Democrats might get away with going completely overboard like they have been trying to.
Some short points: He's not the most accurate speaker, and really doesn't care to be (which rubs me the wrong way), but he means what he says, and actually tries to follow through. I actually think he lies less than the standard politician, which is, I admit, mostly an inditement of his fellow politicians. He's the only president I know of to reduce regulation. He appointed very capable judges whose legal reasoning seems pretty good (even when I disagree with them). He was willing to work with the opposition, but had genuine goals for the good of the country rather than just being political. I know what I'm getting with him at this point (Trump is who he is). Trump will be term limited, so the next election would be an even fight between the Dems and Reps.
If you want to respond to my post, I'm open to pushback, though I don't know how much I would say since I am a long term lurker who rarely comments (mostly in bursts). I would prefer responding to things much shorter than my post here I admit. I'm not happy with how long this is, but I tend to be long winded on each point in a discussion and have to consciously dial it back. Since each part of my reply would likely be long, it would be difficult to respond to something this length personally. I would prefer to talk in general, rather get bogged down in details that are not actually important to how people actually view the situation. That said, important details are obviously important to talk about.
↑ comment by k64 · 2024-10-06T14:07:45.794Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Wow, this is the most interesting reply I've gotten yet, because of just how much I agree with! I'm also a centrist. I also don't want one party to gain too much power. And "since most things are actually pretty well tuned, incautious changes usually make things much worse" is such an articulate way of expressing exactly what one of my biggest political concerns is. I may steal that line!
Ok, so to respond, it seems like the main points are:
Media lies
Don't want drastic changes
Trump had a successful presidency
Other candidates are unimpressive
Don't want one party to have too much power
Media lies: I get this one. There's something about seeing someone make false claims or bad arguments that pushes me to the other side. Interestingly for me, it cut the other way. I didn't see much reporting about Trump in 2016 as much as I just heard him say things that were just blatantly false. Even getting past his continual bragging, he set a record for "pants on fire" statements. I wonder if I would have felt differently if I was mostly hearing media lies instead of Trump himself talking.
Don't want drastic changes: Yes! 100%. I look at human history and see so much suffering, and we get to enjoy a peaceful life where I walk past strangers every day with no fear. And we have a political system where bribery is not the norm, people choose their leaders and laws, and leaders are supposed to serve rather than be served. I definitely believe in making things better, but just screwing with stuff without understanding it seems dangerous.
Interestingly, this is actually one of my strongest reasons I don't support Trump. Trump objectively has less knowledge of the inner workings of the political system than any other main-party candidate in my lifetime. And he also is pushing for change as strongly as the most progressive candidates out there. He wants to "drain the swamp". He also set a record for administrative turnover. He has pushed for government shutdowns multiple times. To me, he totally seems like he's coming in with a sledge-hammer.
Most importantly to me, during his 2020 campaign, he repeatedly refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. This is a gimme question that should be the center bingo tile for any candidate, but for him it wasn't. Somehow a simple "yes, I'll step down peacefully if that's how the votes come in" was something he couldn't say. This was a huge red flag for me, and when he then lied about the election, it confirmed my fears - that Trump wasn't prepared to let go of power. That seems incredibly dangerous to me, and honestly, with no malice toward Trump himself, I think the best thing for our country would be if him and his family were thrown in prison as a result. Now, secretly, they could get carted off to a life of luxury in the bahamas or something, I don't have any reason to want them to suffer at all, but I really need anyone considering a coup to believe there will be dire consequences for them.
Trump had a successful presidency: This one is really interesting. I had the exact opposite impression. There was tax reform passed, that's a win. Other than that though, he failed to deliver on his promise of a wall or repealing obamacare (sure, because he had opposition, but it at least means he wasn't successful crossing the aisle, if that's a thing anyone can do nowadays). He had record administrative turnover and a brief trade war with China. And then, the big one, under his presidency, America hit number 1 in worldwide covid deaths, despite not being number 1 in population. Now, maybe none of this is his fault, but I certainly wouldn't call it "success". I'm curious if we have different sources of information, different ideas about what constitutes success, or just different emotional associations coming into his presidency that led us to opposite conclusions.
Other candidates are unimpressive: Yeah. I feel this one. I wish we had better. It feels like we keep getting stuck with picking the least worst candidate instead of the best. I guess I just have different values or views than a lot of people if those are the candidates that become popular enough to run.
That said, I've been impressed by Kamala's rhetoric this campaign. She talks about being a candidate for all Americans. She talks about wanting unity and conversation. She has committed to a peaceful transfer of power, and talks about respecting the will of the people. Is it all just talk? Maybe, but talk matters. How has my life really changed since 2016? Mainly, I feel I've become disconnected from a lot of people, and people write eachother off more now and find less common ground. It feels like so many conversations are shiboleths for "are you with us or with them?". That is the real impact Trump has had on my life, and it has primarily been from how he talks. He constantly uses "us vs them" framing in his speech, he broke all sorts of ettiquette norms for talking to and about other candidates. He is almost always airing a grievance or bragging about himself and his people. I feel that's the thing that has actually impacted my day to day life, and I prefer a candidate who at least espouses positive values. And hey, maybe it's not all talk! I'm willing to give her or anyone else willing to say they want to work with the other side in this political climate a chance.
Don't want one party to have too much power: Completely agree. My voting strategy used to be to split my vote. I liked Obama as a candidate and voted for him twice, so I went into 2016 fully intending to vote Republican. And I would have happily voted for Jeb Bush, or Kasich. But, the Republican party put Trump up instead and started the transformation into what we see today. I think this was a mistake. I'm actually afraid that the left will get too much power because I think the Republican party has abandoned truth and goodness and will eventually collapse because a core of "us vs them" anger isn't sustainable. I wish we had the old Republican party. I would happily vote for Bush, McCain, or Romney. But we now have an anti-vax, anti-fact checking, anti-higher education, anti-free press party that won't admit when it lost an election, and as much as I fear how this is going to slingshot back too far left, I'm busy avoiding the current dumpster fire. I'm curious: what do you think about the current GOP vs the GOP 20 years ago?
In conclusion, I think we have a lot of the same beliefs/values, and it's super interesting to me that we ended up on opposite sides of the "trump divider". If you have any hypotheses on how that happened, definitely share them!
↑ comment by deepthoughtlife · 2024-10-07T04:05:17.666Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
That got very long. (Over 19,100 characters.). Feel free to ignore parts of it. TL;DR: Trump has a lot of faults but I should reiterate that I really do think Trump was a good president by my standards and I think there is a very high chance the he would be again, though it is far from certain. My reason really is just that I think he was a dramatically better president than I expected he would be when I begrudgingly vote for him.
Sometimes I have to correct for my tendencies to go the opposite way as people are trying to push me, but overall it seems like a useful way to be if I want to come up with what my actual personal beliefs are.
Does Trump say things that are blatantly untrue sometimes? Yeah, and I really wish there were candidates I could select that just didn't do that. I actually hate lying and liars so much. Give me an honest person that goes against what I want and believe and I will at least grudgingly respect it (if I can determine that is true, of course.) I don't think we've had an honest candidate since George W Bush (and maybe not even then since I wasn't paying attention during his initial election), though in some cases I have only determined that I believe they were dishonest after the election.
My personal definition of lying might be relevant to the discussion. 'Lying is attempting to trick people into believing things that are either known to be false to the speaker or to which there is no genuine effort to correspond to reality.'
It is the first part being missing that makes me think he isn't as much a liar as many other politicians. Trump isn't trying to trick people in general, while his opponents are, so I consider his opponents to be lying and him to simply be a poor source of truth. That said, I do despise his lack of care, and sometimes consider it egregious (he definitely has often fallen under the 'there is no genuine effort to correspond to reality' part, which I would count as 'negligent lying' if he is trying to trick people. This is obviously very bad even when it isn't lying.).
I do believe he is dishonest, and wish that weren't the case. I think that the reason the word 'trick' for lying is important is that I wouldn't consider something like a fictional story or a song or whatever to be lying in and of itself even though it is obviously false. He believes what he says, it just often isn't true because he didn't bother to check.
I believe that one of the reasons people claim Trump is more dishonest is that he uses fewer qualifiers that make things arguable, while something similar to what he said is often enough actually true, but other politicians are more legalistic liars, carefully not actually saying anything that can be easily checked. In other words, Trump says more things that are false while his opponents say things that are (intentionally) far more misleading and pernicious. This is probably where people came up with the 'seriously but not literally' claim about how you should interpret Trump. (Though don't count on me to know what is going on inside other people's minds. Mind reading is rude and we aren't good at it. Yes, this makes it harder to know when other people are lying.)
Obviously saying false things is not a good qualification for president, but I have to grade on a curve to an extent.
"I look at human history and see so much suffering, and we get to enjoy a peaceful life where I walk past strangers every day with no fear." is a good way of describing what society is for, though I would go further. We want the correct response to seeing said stranger to be 'Yay! Another person!' rather than 'How do I protect myself?' or even 'ugh! How annoying.'. Obviously we aren't at 'Yay!' in general, but it is a nice goal, and we are so much closer than societies used to be to it. Early on, society focused more on just reducing the danger level, and now we are at a point when we can carefully try to improve beyond just safety. Some people, mostly Democrats but an increasing portion of dissatisfied Republicans (who are often Trump supporters) don't seem to realize that it needs to be careful. Trump is not the most careful person in his personal life, but he isn't trying to upend things politically due to his personal moderation on many political topics.
Lack of fear in general might be part of why people focus so much hostility on politics, which is one of the few places left where there are very large genuine conflicts that aren't personal (to the average citizen). Politics is actually sort of a safe outlet for many people, which has many unfortunate effects, but at least means they feel like it is okay to do so and it won't lead to them being harmed. In many times and places, having a discussion like this about a controversial political figure who was once the leader, and may be again, would be a very bad idea, but for most of us it is very safe.
His signature desires like immigration reduction seem largely aimed at patching the safeness of our society, though I would actually like to see immigration increased, just more carefully chosen for the good of people already present in our society.
His fandom of tariffs seems the same way. I don't like them. but I get why they seem like a good idea to some people and find them less harmful than many other attempted patches.
If you look at the actual changes Trump has made, they have been very limited. Small reductions in immigration, small reductions in regulatory burden, a reduction in new wars, small increases in economic efficiency, small reductions in tax burden, and a new segment of society feeling heard, lowering the likelihood of going outside the system.
His judge appointments have made flashy changes, but these decisions mostly just revert things to letting the states decide and moving closer to following the actual laws and constitution of the country. Luckily, those aren't actually big changes, and the fact that people think they are is just one of the signs that our society is currently functional.
Also, you seem to be coming at this from an angle of 'How big are the changes to government?' whereas I am thinking more 'How big are the changes to society?' The former is larger under Trump, and the latter is smaller.
He seems to see large portions of the government as intractably opposed to their duty in serving the country, and unfortunately I agree with that, so I am more okay with large changes involving the government if I think they are narrowly tailored against those elements and won't have much spillover into society. (I do wish they were more carefully targeted.) If you want the internal workings of the government to stay as they are, I do agree that Trump is not the right selection for that.
That said, it seems pretty clear to me that Trump doesn't actually want to reduce government as much as your average Republican, (or increase it to the same extent as your average Democrat,) which sort of paints him as moderate? Drain the swamp was ostensibly about removing corruption, and I actually believe that was the real meaning (though corruption claims are often used to consolidate power around the one claiming it in other countries, so we should be careful about that).
Also, to mention the judges again, I think the judges Trump has appointed are more than willing to rule against him on anything that is hard to support based on the way the system is supposed to work. Trump has not created a cadre of loyal flunkies that will just go along with his big changes. A large number of people think he will try harder on that this time, but he does only have one term if he wins and I'm not convinced that he will try to do so.
I can't agree that Trump wanting the votes to be correctly counted (which is clearly how he conceives of it) should lead to him being jailed. I don't think he actually did anything genuinely illegal (though a number of people are trying to claim he did). I think he did just let go of power, after going through all the genuinely legal approaches he had available. That doesn't stop him from constantly complaining about it of course, but I believe that even obsessive interest in the issue isn't criminal.
On January 6th, there was no attempted coup (just a riot which is bad, but not the same kind of thing), congress was not in real danger, and Trump did not support it. (I responded a bit more in depth to another comment about that issue as well.) It is highly unlikely anyone will be persuaded about those matters of course since everyone has heard a lot about it.
Trump's successes (Keep in mind that I expect presidents to largely fail):
Lower taxes (letting people spend their money on what they want, not what the government wants)
Improved economy/improved buying power
A measured approach to foreign policy that keeps in mind our actual goals
A foreign policy that allows other countries to take responsibility for themselves
No new wars for us and reduction in old ones
Few new wars in the world
A lessening of border issues (aside from the grandstanding by both sides)
Minor increases in freedom (from reduced regulatory burdens)
Minor counterfactual increases in freedom (from not increasing regulatory burdens like his opponents want)
A reduction in the rate of large changes in the law (though this was not always his preferred outcome)
Returning some authority to the states or people by legislative means
Returning some authority to the states or people by judicial decisions involving his appointed judges
Not repealing Obamacare is a failure on one of his campaign goals. It was by the singular vote of a guy with a personal animosity toward Trump, and who had a brain tumor that killed him, and thus had nothing to lose. I personally believe that McCain's act was malfeasance since he actually campaigned himself on eliminating it (unless I am conflating him with other Republicans), but McCain saw himself as a defender of the old order, a not uncommon thing among conservatives. Trump did eliminate the mandate to buy insurance (which is the truly offensive part to me).
Not getting political buy in for the wall is also a failure of one of Trump's campaign goals, but he did notably improve border security during his presidency. (Which promptly got worse again after Biden won. The wall would have been helpful.)
I admit that I don't think of Covid as being a significant determiner in how I should think of Trump's presidency (nor Biden's). I honestly stopped paying attention to it a long time ago and never was super worried about it. (Perhaps this is partially due to personal experience: When I got Covid it sucked, but not any more than many other illnesses I have gotten in my life. It was perhaps slightly above average discomfort, but far less than things like the flu were when I was younger. I actually got the flu early in 2020 too and that was much worse. The rest of the family seemed to think the flu was worse too.)
As I recall, death rates from Covid are highly dependent on things like age, demographics, and preexisting health issues which Trump could hardly have been expected to change on his own. The presidency is powerful, but not that powerful, and the US death rate would be expected due to preexisting conditions. The things he did like closing the border were reasonable, though a little too late to actually be helpful.
His 'operation warp speed' did genuinely help the world to get vaccines very quickly compared to normal by paring back regulatory burdens, though it should have gone further. (Things like human challenge trials to immediately know whether the vaccines worked when developed could have cut several more months off the time, since the actual development only took a small number of weeks and safety testing could have been rolled into initial deployments as the factories started producing them.). We could have had vaccines before there were many deaths at all.
Death rates were overreported while I was paying attention (the famous, 'with covid or because of covid' thing is a big difference in the reported death rates between not just countries, but even states and counties in the US).
Also, I don't believe statistics from places like China (who were clearly faking) or India (who are pretty third world in a lot of places, according to Wikipedia, the 125th to 136th in GDP per capita, which leads me to thinking they barely have real statistics in the country, though that could just be my prejudice). Those are the only countries with more population than the US. Also, the other countries with large numbers of people are generally pretty young (and thus not susceptible to such death rates) even if I did believe them. If I am not wrong, you have to get down to Japan which is vastly less populous than the US to find the next country with enough of an elderly population.
I honestly think that most of the damage from Covid was overreaction (like shutting down 'nonessential' businesses and screwing up supply lines in a way that lasted for years). Covid just isn't a super deadly disease, and we changed the way society worked for years to a massive degree because of it. I believe that hurting the economy both directly and indirectly increases death rate substantially, just not in ways we know how to count.
Covid overreaches were mostly state level, though the CDC behaved like clowns. Trump was clearly not an expert on infectious diseases, and didn't pretend to be. Unfortunately, the experts were themselves to blame for much that went wrong. (Unfortunately, the elderly often die from other Coronaviruses too, and when I heard what the general death rate from Coronaviruses in the elderly was, it was kind of shocking, though I don't really remember what it was now. Coronaviruses that you haven't encountered before don't get antibodies quickly enough in the very old, and covid was genuinely novel to immune systems.)
A bias I probably should have thought to mention in my initial take on his presidency is that my life and the life of most people directly around me got better during Trump's presidency, while during Obama's and Biden's they got clearly worse. In late 2019 and 2020 (despite Covid stuff) my life was so dramatically better than it had been before. Note: I don't think this had anything to do with Trump but subconsciously I obviously would think 'how do the years when he was president compare to other years?' And I actually think that is a good idea since people can hardly know the actual effects of the changes over the period. This is likely a strong effect.
I always disliked Hillary, but I think Kamala Harris is much worse for some reason it is hard to determine. Honestly, I wouldn't trust a anything Harris would say after her stint as Attorney general of California and I thought she was dramatically worse and more corrupt as a candidate for Senator than the other Democrat (who I did vote for because I found that despite not agreeing on policy, she seemed like a decent person and fairly moderate Democrat). I honestly don't remember the original cause of said antipathy against Kamala, but I trust it for some reason. Obviously that isn't convincing for other people (and rightfully so). Most California attorney generals and senators are people I disapprove of policy wise, but I think about them vastly less negatively.
She's not my least favorite Californian politician ("Hi, Newsome.") but she is probably second or third. I can't actually bring to mind much of what she did representing California. (I do tend to especially dislike San Francisco Democrats. In my part of California, which is purple, the Democrats are nothing like San Francisco ones, at least when they are campaigning, though statewide tends more towards San Francisco style.)
As for Walz, he seems to be an extreme liar, (though I can't necessarily trust that judgment since I haven't researched him much,) though that is sadly par for the course these days in candidates. While, he's pretty par for the course, I still hate it. Also, and this is a very untrustworthy judgment based off very limited information, he seems like a deeply angry and sanctimonious person. I think that one of the other answers mentioning that Democrats are very sanctimonious is part of what I don't like about high profile national Democrats. I should probably research Walz more, but I doubt I will? Hopefully he doesn't stay nationally relevant and I don't have to think about him again? I don't honestly have an opinion on JD Vance aside from thinking that his wife speaks well so I can't really compare the two.
I do think I should put more effort into determining whether or not JD Vance is a decent backup president (which is one of his main jobs and the only one where he isn't mostly a figurehead), but I honestly tend to put off a lot of my research on things until late in the cycle, and I already know I won't vote for Kamala under any reasonably foreseeable circumstances, so I am paying a bit less attention to that. If it were to turn out Vance was bad enough, that would be a good reason not to vote for Trump, but would not be a reason to vote for Kamala.
Remember that I think the Dems are much more powerful on the national scene in almost all parts of society other than politics, and I've seen what happens when they get too powerful (in my state). I wouldn't be shocked if the Dems managed to nearly maintain their current level of power even if they are soundly defeated at the national political level. In part, that is a bit of why the Republicans need to win, because the Dems will crush them if they don't. (That could be biased by the fact that I am Californian, which means I watch the Dems routinely crush the Republicans. Perhaps I am overestimating the strength of the Dems and underestimating their foes.) That the Dems are stronger than ever is both an indictment against Trump, and a reason the Republicans need to win; the Dems will crush them if the Republicans lose many more times and we might be in for 20 years of pure Dem victories.
Honestly, I prefer the old Republicans too. By a lot. They were much more my style. I miss that era of the GOP.
I get why it changed though. Twenty years ago (also 40), the Republicans were genuinely trying to improve the world in a usually conservative way (which I am very much up for in many cases), but a decade ago, Republicans were using a 'death with dignity' strategy rather than fighting like Trump does, and people got tired of electing Republicans who were too concerned with their dignity to act, ceding cultural victory to the Democrats.
Losing slowly is not a popular strategy with voters most of the time. Trump basically did a hostile takeover of the Republican party, and did improve its chances of succeeding at Republican goals, though it also tossed some Republican goals aside and increased the chance that the Democrats would win enduring major victories quickly. I do think that the changes to the party aren't necessarily permanent whether or not the Republicans win, but that would be because it could always change again.
If Trump wins, I think that could lead to a lot of reforms in the Republican party that would marry parts of their old style with a willingness to fight, but that probably doesn't happen if Trump loses and his faction of the party gets repudiated.
That isn't entirely bad, I don't like a lot of the ideological changes and want a careful approach, but I am more worried about the power of the other team (and some of the ideological changes are good). Once your opponents know you won't fight, you are doomed. Even worse would be if his faction gets more extreme after losing and it is the rest of the Republicans that get booted.
Also, I very strongly think that every country should be led by leaders that want to make the country great. 'Make Liechtenstein Great' should be the slogan of the leaders of Liechtenstein. Whatever that means to the people of Liechtenstein. This holds even for countries like China that I think very poorly of.
↑ comment by Pazzaz · 2024-10-06T08:25:37.363Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
People often say one of the reasons they won't vote for Trump is his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. What is your view on that?
Replies from: deepthoughtlife↑ comment by deepthoughtlife · 2024-10-06T09:01:49.169Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't think people believe that asking the legal system to rule on whether the laws were properly followed is somehow disqualifying, so unless I am mistaken about what they are claiming, it didn't happen in any meaningful way.
The media has intentionally misrepresented this. He believed there was cheating from the other side, and said so. He used the normal methods to complain about that, and the normal lawsuits about it to get the court to rule on the matter. It's all very normal. When the courts decided to not consider the matter (which was itself improper since they generally did that without considering the actual merits of the cases, generally claiming that it was somehow moot because the election was already over) he did nothing and just let his opponent become president (while continuing to vociferously complain).
Both Al Gore and Hilary Clinton made roughly the same level of complaining about the result as Trump. (Since I think both of them are terrible, that is a negative comparison, and I dislike that Trump matched them, but it isn't disqualifying.) You could actually argue it was his job to make these lawsuits (to see that the federal election was properly executed). Coming up with who the electors would be if the lawsuit changed the results is normal (and not at all new). There was no attempt to go outside the legal system.
In all likelihood there was a nonzero amount of cheating (but we don't actually know if it was favoring Biden, Republicans can cheat too) but I doubt there was any major conspiracy of it. I expect there is always some cheating by both sides, and we should try to reduce it, though I have no opinion on exactly how much or little there is. There were enough anomalies that investigating it would have made sense, if only to prevent them in the future.
The J6 riots were just normal riots, on a small scale, that Trump didn't support at all and were nothing approaching a coup at all. Congress was not in any real danger, and there were no plans to take over the government. While I strongly disapprove of riots, this has been dramatically overplayed for purely partisan purposes by people who want to tar him with it. The people who support actual riots for political purposes are his opponents, not him.
Replies from: Pazzaz↑ comment by Pazzaz · 2024-10-06T09:42:12.103Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think you are missing something. The lawsuits were fine, though maybe a little silly as most of them were thrown out because of lack of standing. I'm thinking more of the "fake elector plot", where Trump pressured Mike Pence to certify fake electors on Jan 6 (as Pence said: "choose between [Trump] and the constitution"). I think trying to execute that plan was wrong, because if they would have succeeded then Trump would have stolen the election.
And Trump may not have supported everything the J6 rioters did, but he was the reason that they were there. He said that the election was stolen. He said that it "allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution". On Jan 6 he called on them to pressure Mike Pence and other lawmakers to go through with his plan: to steal the election.
I (and many other people) think a person who tried to steal an election shouldn't be elected.
Replies from: deepthoughtlife↑ comment by deepthoughtlife · 2024-10-07T00:08:56.950Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Obviously I won't prove anything in this statement, but I just don't think there is a genuine case to be made that the common interpretation Trump's foes like to use is valid.
I completely disagree about the idea that Trump supported any sort of coup, and that the riot was anything more than a riot.
I agree that the statement linked from Trump sounds bad, but the interpretation seems like a misreading of Trump to me. It sounds like vociferously complaining that we don't know the outcome of the election due to fraud in his trademark sloppy style, and that he believes he would win if counted fairly. (Could it mean what you think it means? Perhaps, but that isn't the most likely reading to me.) Redoing elections that aren't held would be required despite that not being in the constitution (because the electors must be selected), and you could make the argument that one where the result cannot be known would be the same. I assume (obviously mindreading is often faulty) that is what Trump would have been talking about if he was more of an analytical speaker rather than an emotive one.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
That is what the relevant part in the constitution for selecting electors (aside from a later clause about Congress setting the time of selection), so as far as selecting electors go, the state legislatures are in charge of that and asking them to intervene doesn't seem like going out of bounds. Depending on the actual laws and constitution of the state, there may not be anything the legislature is allowed to do either, but it doesn't seem like something the is obviously out of bounds. (I do not want this sort of behavior of course, the current election system does its best to ignore that the state legislature is in charge of who the electors are for a reason.) States are even free to directly control who the electors vote for (so called 'faithless elector' laws have been ruled constitutional by the supreme court). And as said before, this is hardly the first time after an election that someone has tried to determine who the electors would be and try to have the slate prepared in case it was overturned.
Also the term 'fake electors' is obviously crap, the correct term is what the Trump side called them 'contingent electors', as in, contingent on the results being ruled to have really been the way he believed they were. Historically, the courts require such things to be done on time, and then they sort it out later if it comes up.
I don't find Mike Pence credible, nor do I find what is often referred to as 'lawfare' indictments to be of any significant probative value. To be straightforward, I think Pence is just lying in an attempt to not be associated with Trump. Pence thinks of himself as a respectable person, and Trump is not the kind of person Pence thinks is seen as respectable. He was also directly trying his hand at running for president at the time (and politicians like to denigrate their opponents while casting themselves as heroic). Of course, Pence could even believe what he is saying exactly and that wouldn't make his interpretation correct (we can certainly convince ourselves that what we want to say is true, and I am sure some would say the same of me).
Every time I have looked into a specific claim relating to this, it hasn't turned out to be anything truly abnormal or there has been no credible (to me) confirmation. (Assuming that Pence is not credible.) I have not looked into all the claims, and honestly I am highly unlikely to do so at this point.
Replies from: Pazzaz↑ comment by Pazzaz · 2024-10-07T07:51:16.400Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Redoing elections that aren't held would be required despite that not being in the constitution (because the electors must be selected), and you could make the argument that one where the result cannot be known would be the same. I assume (obviously mindreading is often faulty) that is what Trump would have been talking about if he was more of an analytical speaker rather than an emotive one.
Yes, redoing the election would probably be a good thing to do, if there was evidence of widespread fraud. But Trump doesn't see that as the only option. The full "Truth" was:
So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great “Founders” did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!
So he says we should either "have a NEW ELECTION" or "throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER [Trump]". He tried to do the second option: tried to get states to change the result, and when that didn't work he tried to get Pence + Congress to change the result. He doesn't care about laws or rules or the constitution. He just believes there's fraud, so he should be chosen as the winner.
I completely disagree about the idea that Trump supported any sort of coup, and that the riot was anything more than a riot.
What do you think Trump's goal was on Jan 6? Take for example part of Trump's speech:
Now, it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down, we're going to walk down.
Anyone you want, but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
Which electors were Trump referring to here? He is not saying they should do the process as normal, because then there would be no point of protesting. He is saying they should either throw some electors out or include some "contingent electors", so that they have a "contingent election", so that the house (voting by state) would declare Trump as the winner. And if they did that, then Trump would have succeeded in stealing the election.
And you're completely correct that each state legislature has total control of their electors. And only electors from state legislatures should be counted. In the past, there have been situations where state legislatures sent multiple "alternative electors", because of weird circumstances. But the reason Trump's "contingent electors" are called "fake electors" is that they were not sent by a state legislature. They were by Trump associates and random Republicans. This is wrong, and in some states even illegal. Multiple people have already pleaded guilty to crimes related to this.
Replies from: deepthoughtlife↑ comment by deepthoughtlife · 2024-10-07T22:09:52.217Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I skimmed the transcript at the link you provided, and it seems like a standard political speech (in Trump's style).
Obviously Trump thought that there was easily enough proof to know that he won, or at least clearly enough prove election invalid if more was required. He would expect to genuinely win any real redo of the election. And the whole scheme was to send it back to the states, who have the authority to choose the electors. His claim is that the states wanted that (which I don't know any evidence of, but this scheme only does anything if the states actually do want to).
The quote you provided literally sounds like normal political posturing about how important the people on your side are, and a claim that they should take political actions. This seems like a thing to say in regards to protests, rallies, or even just doing things like voicing support for him. I've heard countless politicians say this sort of thing before? It seems pretty anodyne?
Saying that they should cheer for the legislature but not all of the legislature will be getting many cheers seems like an obvious joke with no deeper meaning than disapproval of some members. It's obvious what behaviors will get cheers and which won't, but it isn't threatening.
All talk of fighting involved metaphorical fighting by duly elected representatives (and replacing them through primary elections if they didn't) and the people cheering them on. This is normal politics. And as far as it goes, he is literally saying that they should demand the law be followed as the point of this.
Replies from: Pazzaz↑ comment by Pazzaz · 2024-10-08T09:28:33.557Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You say "send it back to the states" but what would that mean? Every state held their own election. No state found any proof of fraud (at least not enough to impact the outcome). So they all verified the results. Then they sent their electors to Washington. For Trump to then say "the states should decide" doesn't make much sense, because they already did decide. They decided he lost. Now maybe he meant that every state should have a reelection, but that would go against a bunch of (federal and state) laws, rules and the constitution, so that would be bad. The states control their election, not Trump. It's bad to change the process just because Trump doesn't like that he lost.
But luckily, I don't think Trump meant to have a reelection. I think he meant to follow the established procedure in the constitution for contingent elections. That's what you're supposed to do, if it's confusing who won the election. And if Trump would want to follow laws, rules and the constitution, he would want Pence + Congress + House to do that. What basically happens then is that each state gets one vote to decide the president. So in a way, that would "send it back to the states". Each state's vote would be decided by the people in the House of Representatives, and if everyone voted according to their party affiliation then Trump would have won. Good for Trump!
But would it have been good for us, the people? Well, the problem is that the election wasn't really a contingent election. Every state verified the results, every state sent their electors. To actually use the procedure, then one would have to follow the plan in the Eastmann memos. It says that Pence, while counting the elector votes, should pretend to be confused. He should act as if he has no idea which are the correct electors. And then it would be a contingent election. But Pence didn't want to do that, so Trump didn't win.
That's what the plan to steal the election was, and that's how Pence stopped it, and that's why Trump and MAGA people dislike Pence now.
Replies from: deepthoughtlife↑ comment by deepthoughtlife · 2024-10-08T20:44:45.932Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I did have to research a few things for this, but they don't seem to change matters at first glance. The situation is murky, but it was always murky and both sides clearly are certain they are right.
I personally don't know whether or not it was a fair election with a fair result and unimportant anomalies, or if the anomalies really were cheating. They certainly looked suspicious enough in some cases that they should have been investigated. I think that many of the actions by the Democrats were done in the way they were because they didn't know whether or not there was rampant cheating causing these anomalies and didn't want to know, and that Republicans were far too sure about what they think happened based off weird and unclear evidence.
You could argue for the contingent elections thing being relevant (and it is a scenario in the memos you mentioned), but it is far from settled when that would trigger in a sequence of events. It would not, in fact, be a change of procedure if it did. (As your link notes, it is in the constitution.) Uncommon parts of a procedure are still parts of it (though all the examples are so far back it would be quite strange to see it used, I agree on that).
Several recent presidential candidates have used legal tactics to dispute how elections are done and counted. There are already multiple this year (mostly about who is and is not on the ballot so far.) There is nothing inherently wrong with that since that is literally how the laws and constitutional matters are intended to be handled when there is a dispute with them.
I'm obviously not a constitutional scholar, but I think the contingent election stuff wouldn't really have come up at that point, since it reads more like something you do based on the electors choosing in a way that doesn't lead to a majority, not over the process of electors selection being disputed.
You could easily argue that the disputed electors might not count if that simply means electors were not fully selected, and you need a majority of the number of electors that should be, but I would assume otherwise. (In part because there appears to be no wiggle room on the Constitution saying that the states will select electors. It isn't "up to the number specified", but the specific number specified.)
I believe that if there is doubt as to who the states selected for the electors, you would simply have the legislatures of the states themselves to confirm who are the correct electors by their own rules (and that their decisions are controlling on the matter), and I believe this is what Trump would have intended (but I don't like mindreading and don't think it should be relied on when unnecessary).
It appears that you believe the states already selected their electors fully, and so do I, so this plan wouldn't work if I am right about how to interpret how this works, but Trump obviously claimed/claims otherwise, and there is no indication of duplicity in that particular belief.
Everyone agrees that Pence did not think Trump's interpretation of the matter is correct, but Pence's own personal beliefs as to whether or not the electors were correctly selected does not, in fact, make people who believe otherwise some sort of enemy of the republic. Trump wasn't asking Pence to fake anything in any reasonable source I've seen, but to 'correctly' (in Trump's mind) indicate that the electors were not chosen because it was done in an invalid way. Pence interpreted this request negatively seemingly because he didn't agree on the factual matters of elector selection and what his interpretation of the meaning of the constitution is, not because anything Trump wanted was a strike against how things are meant to be done.
I didn't really remember the Eastman memos, but when I looked up the Eastman memos, reporting seems clear that Trump and company really were pushing to convince Pence to send it back to the states for confirmation of selection which is not an attempt at either a contingent election or just selecting Trump, and is not out of bounds. That those other scenarios existed as possibilities in a memo but were not selected obviously in no way implicates Trump in any wrongdoing.
I read the two page memo and it seems strange. To me it reads like a few scenarios rather than finished decision making process or recommendation. I am sympathetic to the argument that it makes about how the Electoral Count Act is unconstitutional (and I think the change made afterward to it also seems at first blush clearly unconstitutional). If it is unconstitutional, then Pence 'must not' follow it where it conflicts with the constitution (so advising that it be ignored is not necessarily suspect). I also had a hard time interpreting said act, which seems poorly written. The memo itself does rub me the wrong way though.
The six page memo seems pretty normal to me (from reading how judges write their decisions in court cases the style seems similar), and lays out the reasoning better, though I definitely disagree with some of the scenarios as being within the vice president's authority (which is itself somewhat murky because of ambiguity in the constitution and relevant amendments). The VP has no authority to decide to simply declare that the number of electors are fewer that were really appointed (though this is also not actually clear in the text), but some other scenarios are plausible readings of the laws at first glance depending on the actual facts at hand (which they have a clear opinion on the facts of).
An analysis I read included a lot of fearmongering about letting the states decide if their electors had been properly selected, but that is clearly something they are allowed to determine. (The fact that it is popular vote is a choice of the legislatures, and up to the laws and constitution of the individual states.)
This was not a plan to 'steal' an election, but to prevent it from being stolen. Obviously both sides like to claim there was an attempt at stealing it (the right's motto was literally about preventing stolen elections), that they were just trying to prevent. Both sides are still very angry about it, but that doesn't actually make Trump disqualified in any way.
Replies from: Pazzaz↑ comment by Pazzaz · 2024-10-10T08:52:56.098Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
They certainly looked suspicious enough in some cases that they should have been investigated.
Yes, I also think it's important to investigate those things. And the US government agrees, which is why they investigated them. But they didn't find much, because the election wasn't stolen.
I think that many of the actions by the Democrats were done in the way they were because they didn't know whether or not there was rampant cheating causing these anomalies and didn't want to know, and that Republicans were far too sure about what they think happened based off weird and unclear evidence.
I don't really agree with this framing, it's not about Democrats vs Republicans. The ones who were claiming the election was stolen were Trump and his associates, not general Republicans. Mike Pence is a republican, and he didn't say that the election was stolen. William Barr, the trump appointed republican attorney general, said the FBI and Justice Department investigations found no evidence of large scale voter fraud. It was investigated, but nothing was found, because the election wasn't stolen. Just because some people lied about voter fraud, like Rudy Giuliani, doesn't mean it's okay to overturn the election.
But what did Trump do when the FBI and Justice Department didn't find any evidence? He asked the DOJ to lie, say that the election was rigged, without evidence. And when they didn't he threatened to fire them.
I think you're getting a little lost in the weeds trying to interpret the legal schemes. If he managed to overturn the election in a way that is technically legal, would that be good? And if he attempted to overturn the election in an illegal way, would that be bad? It seems like you value the law, and that's good to do. But Trump doesn't value the law, and thinks it would be good if he overturned the election even if was done in an illegal way. He doesn't care about the law. Does this not worry you?
Replies from: deepthoughtlife↑ comment by deepthoughtlife · 2024-10-10T23:57:32.909Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm a centrist (and also agnostic in regards to religion religion) in part because I believe there are a lot of things I/we don't/can't know and shouldn't be overconfident in, ideologically, factually, and interpretationally. I don't know what Trump actually thinks, and neither do you, but we seem to disagree strongly on it anyway. I don't want to try to read your mind, but that part is at least very obvious. (I do have some very confident ideological, factual, and interpretational beliefs, but believe they shouldn't be overly relied upon in these matters.)
I also tend to keep in mind that I can be wrong (I am also keeping that in mind here), which is how I ended up believing Trump was worth voting for in the first place. (As stated originally, I actually had an extreme personal distaste for him for decades that sounds much like how people accusing him of being, but I paid attention and changed my mind later. Obviously, I could have been right originally and be wrong now, that definitely happens.)
To me, you seem overconfident about what happened in the election, and your sources seem highly partisan (not that I know of any sources on this matter that I think aren't partisan). Neither of which actually mean you are wrong. I do think it is very important that there is genuine doubt, because then you can't simply assume those on the other side are operating in an objectionable way because they are opposing you. (Of course I would think you overconfident since I am hedging so much of what I am saying here.) I generally find it hard to know how accurate specific political reporting is, but it seems generally very low. Politics bring out the worst in a lot of people, and heightened reactions in most of us (me included, though I try to damp it down).
There is always vote fraud and cheating, but what is the definition of 'large scale' such that you know for sure it didn't happen? States have in fact found cheating in small but significant amounts (as well as large scale rule changes outside the regular order), but what percentage of it would be actually discoverable without extensive investigation, and how much even with? William Barr saying that he had “not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.” hardly means they found everything, and crucially, is very different than saying that it wasn't large scale by at least one reasonable definition.
Hypothetical: If someone was counted to have won a state that decided the election by 100,000 votes, and Barr could have proven that 40,000 were switched (meaning current count is winning by 20k), what would that mean for your statement? What would that mean for Barr's? I think that would prove you wrong (about no large scale cheating), but Barr's statement would still be true (I would still consider it lying though).
Additional hypothetical: Suppose that three states too small to change the election were given to Biden due to cheating, but it could be proven that Trump had won all of them? That would be large scale cheating that changed nothing about the result, and again, Barr's words would not technically be untrue. Suppose then that there was a fourth small state that would tip it where there was enough cheating to actually change the overall result, but this can't be proven?
Note that neither of those hypotheticals is meant to be close to accurate, they are meant to show the uncertainty. For clarity, I believe that there is not strong enough evidence to say there was sufficient cheating to change results, and we should default to assuming there wasn't, but that is only because our elections usually aren't fixed, and in certain other places and times the opposite should be assumed. I believe that Biden most likely won in an election close enough to fair, just that people coming to the opposite conclusion are usually operating in good faith including the subject of this matter. (I do not assume good faith in general, it just seems that way here.)
I can find places claiming that there is literally nothing, and others claiming to have found dozens of issues that could possibly count as 'large scale' cheating depending on the definition (not all involving the Democrats, and many not involving directly changing the votes). Neither side actually seems especially credible to me, but instead obvious partisanship is deciding things.
I probably should have clarified the split as establishment vs populist. I think that I can speak of Democrats without implying that it is an exact midline Republican / Democrat split when referencing something known to be a minority viewpoint, but I really should have been more clear that I was speaking of a portion of the Republicans rather than all of them (I do think it is a very large portion of the Republicans, but more so the base and more populist/Trump camp politicians rather than the established politicians). I was saying that I think the politicians among the Democrats (enough of them to control Dem policy, far from all of them) had specific motives (their being unsure whether or not their local members cheated) for their actions in and reactions to the issue that consisted largely of vehement denial of the possibility regardless of the evidence (and wanting to prosecute people for talking about it or taking legal steps that are required for disputing the election!), and that many Republicans overindex on very questionable evidence to say with equal certainty that it did happen.
People often would like to cover up things when they don't know exactly what happened but it looks bad (or even if it just might cause a scandal, even if it could be proven to be fine), and I can't possibly agree with anyone who thinks that Democrats in general didn't at least consider that when deciding on how they would react to the evidence.
The split between establishment and populist Republicans is very large in recent years, starting noticeably before 2016 and largely leading to Trump's faction even existing, which then movef the party further toward populist. The establishment and populists do not share the same reaction to the evidence in 2020, among other things, and I should have been more careful.
You assume that the US government didn't find much, but a number of people would just as confidently state that much of the government just chose not to look, and others that things were in fact found. Many of the investigations would have been state and local governments if they'd happened, and in many of the places the local leaders were Democrats who had every incentive not to look (which is part of why people were suspicious of how things turned out there, and this is true even if the local Democrat leaders were perfectly upright and moral people who would never act badly as long as we don't know that). Trump and company brought many court cases after the election but before inauguration that were thrown out due to things that had nothing to do with the merits of the evidence (things like standing, or timeliness); there may have been some decided on actual evidence, but I am unaware of them.
Many populists have seen the DOJ and FBI as enemies due to past discrimination against populist causes, and that is generalizing too much, but they also don't seem very competent when performing duties they don't care for (which is normal enough). It is hard for many people to know whether or not the FBI and DOJ can be relied on for such things. (See also the recent failures of previously considered competent federal agencies like the Secret Service).
You are interpreting things the way that most benefits your point, but without regard to other reasonable interpretations. The meaning of pretty much everything Trump camp did is debatable, and simply believing one side's talking points is hardly fair. I genuinely think that both sides believe they were on the side of righteousness and standing up against the dastardly deeds of the other side.
Also, the cnbc article is largely bare assertions, by a known hyper partisan outfit (according to me, which is the only authority I have to go on). Why should I believe them? (Yes, this can make it difficult to know what happened, which was my claim.) The other side has just as many bare assertions in the opposite direction.
Hypothetical where no one thinks they are doing anything even the slightest bit questionable (which I think is reasonably likely):
Trump camp viewpoint: This bastard repeatedly refuses to do his job* and protect the election from rampant cheating. I should force him to do his job. (This is a reasonable viewpoint.) People keep telling me to remove them for refusing to do their jobs. I don't think I should (because this is not the only important thing). How about I ask them more about what's going on and trying to get through to them?
Other viewpoint: Here I am doing my job, and someone keeps telling me to say <specific thing>. They're obviously wrong, and I have said so many times*, so they must be telling me to lie. (And their statement that he was asking them to lie would not seem false to them, but in this scenario is completely false.)
*This is the same event.
In fact, the video testimony included with the article itself sounds exactly like my innocent hypotheticals rather than other parts, while the cnbc commentary in the video is obviously making up and extremely overconfident partisan interpretations (which makes their article's bare assertions even less believable since they really are hyper partisan).
I don't really care about Giuliani, but the Giuliani article is extremely bad form since the bbc's summary of his 'concession' is not a good summary. It says only that he will not fight specific points in court 'nolo contendre', it is not an admission to lying.
You mention that I value Law and Order, which is true. It isn't actually natural to me, but over the years I have come to believe it is very important to the proper functioning of society, and as bad as some parts of society look, our society actually works quite well overall so we do need to support our current law. This includes parts that aren't used often, but I have much less confidence in them. The parts Trump wanted to use do seem irregular, but he did seem to be trying to use actual laws (sometimes incorrectly).
To bring up something I think you mentioned earlier, I would be pretty unhappy about an election decided by 'contingent election' for instance, but still think it appropriate to use one under the right circumstances (which I don't think these are even under the Trumpian interpretation of cheating in the elections). I would also be unhappy about an election where the state legislatures changed who the electors are in a meaningful way, even though I believe they clearly have the right to. There would have to be vastly more evidence for me to think that the legislatures should act in such a manner, but I don't think it is necessarily disqualifying as a candidate for Trump to think they should.
Would it be good if he stole the election legally? Obviously not. Would it be good if he protected the election legally? Obviously yes. Would it be good if he protected the election illegally? Eh, I don't know? It depends?
Does Trump value law and order? I think he values law (with moderate confidence). Whenever I hear the words of people directly involved, it sounds to me like he told them to do everything in the legal way, and that the process he advocated was something he believed legal. He doesn't seem interested in breaking laws, but in using them for his purposes. Does he believe in order? I'm not convinced either way. He certainly doesn't believe in many parts of how things tend to be done (to an extent that it is odd he is the leader of the conservative party), but is his plan for the world following some sort of consistent internal logic worthy of being considered orderly? I don't know.
Obviously if I had similar interpretations as you do about all of these things I would be much more concerned. I just don't. Of course, I very much want you to be wrong, so that there is little to worry about.
I don't know if it is confirmation bias or legitimate, but the more carefully I go through things, the more it seems like Team Trump really was just trying to do what they were supposed to do (and his opponents believe the same of themselves). Even the words of people that are very much against him usually seem to indicate Trump's genuine belief in everything he said about the election being true.
Replies from: Pazzaz↑ comment by Pazzaz · 2024-10-11T12:26:05.059Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't know what Trump actually thinks, and neither do you, but we seem to disagree strongly on it anyway. I don't want to try to read your mind, but that part is at least very obvious.
I don't care that much about what's in his mind. I care what he has done, what he has said and what he will do. The precise motivations don't matter that much to me.
What if Trump said "God showed himself to me and he said the vote was rigged"? As an agnostic who trusts Trump, maybe you would think it was true. But should that matter? No, because godly revelations is not how we run our country. And neither is revelations from Trump. It doesn't matter if the election was stolen if it can't be shown to be true through our justice system (courts, FBI, DOJ, etc.). And it couldn't be shown through the justice system, so unless we want to ignore all laws, rules and the constitution, then Trump just has to take the loss.
Trump and company brought many court cases after the election but before inauguration that were thrown out due to things that had nothing to do with the merits of the evidence (things like standing, or timeliness)
Yes, and they were able to say "Look, we have a bunch of active cases, there's something fishy here" and then "They are throwing out our cases for no reason, look how rigged the system is". If they bring a bunch of cases which gets thrown out, then you should trust them less.
I don't really care about Giuliani, but the Giuliani article is extremely bad form since the bbc's summary of his 'concession' is not a good summary. It says only that he will not fight specific points in court 'nolo contendre', it is not an admission to lying.
I don't care what the BBC said. Giuliani said false statements. For the court he agreed they were false. If he had evidence that they were true, he would not have conceded in court that they were false. That he didn't have evidence for his claims means that you should trust his allegations of voter fraud less. It should also make you trust Trump's allegations of voter fraud less, as they were the same allegations.
Also, the cnbc article is largely bare assertions, by a known hyper partisan outfit (according to me, which is the only authority I have to go on). Why should I believe them? (Yes, this can make it difficult to know what happened, which was my claim.) The other side has just as many bare assertions in the opposite direction.
I linked cnbc to support the statement "Trump asked the DOJ to lie, say that the election was rigged, without evidence. And when they didn't he threatened to fire them.", and the article contains statements from "Jeffrey Rosen", "Richard Donoghue" and "Steven Engel" to support that. I don't care what cnbc said, I care what the DOJ said.
I think [Trump] values law (with moderate confidence).
But not when he believes there's been fraud right? Remember, he said:
A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution
So he doesn't care that much about rules, regulations or the constitution. He thinks the government should be allowed to terminate "all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution". This is not consistent with someone who values law. Maybe someone dislikes some laws, but all laws? All regulations? The whole constitution? That's pretty extreme.
Replies from: deepthoughtlife↑ comment by deepthoughtlife · 2024-10-11T19:57:07.214Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
We seem to be retreading ground.
"It doesn't matter if the election was stolen if it can't be shown to be true through our justice system". That is an absurd standard for whether or not someone should 'try' to use the legal system (which is what Trump did). You are trying to disqualify someone regardless of the truth of the matter based on what the legal system decided to do later. And Trump DID just take the loss (after exhausting the legal avenues), and is now going through the election system as normal in an attempt to win a new election.
I also find your claim that it somehow doesn't matter why someone has done something is terrible claim when we are supposed to be deciding based on what will happen in the future, where motives matter a lot.
I read the legal reasons the cases were thrown out and there was literally nothing about merits in them, which means they simply didn't want to decide. The courts refusing to do things on the merits of the claim is bad for the credibility of the courts.
I told you I don't care about Giuliani, and that the article is very bad. Those are separate things. Whether or not he is guilty of lying (which was not what the stipulations actually mean), I already didn't take his word for anything. The BBC on the other hand, has shown that it won't report in a fair manner on these things and people shouldn't trust them on it.
You linked to a cnbc article of bare assertions (not quotes) that were not supported by the statements of the witnesses in the video also included! I talked at length about the video and how the meaning of the testimonies appears to contradict the article.
We already discussed your claim about the meaning of Trump's words. And you once again left out:
"Our great “Founders” did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!"
He was saying the election did not actually get held properly and that changes things.
Replies from: Pazzaz↑ comment by Pazzaz · 2024-10-11T20:16:04.221Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
He was saying the election did not actually get held properly and that changes things.
No, it does not. Laws, regulations and the constitution exists in a society in order to coordinate behavior among it's citizens. Laws, regulations and the constitution does not assume that everyone follows the law. In fact, it does the opposite, it assumes that people will break laws, that people will break regulations and that people will go against the constitution. That's why there are mechanisms to punish people who go against them. You cannot terminate the constitution just because you think people broke the law.
Edit: Also, if there is some court case you think shouldn't have been thrown out, then you are free to link it.
Edit2: I don't understand why this comment got so downvoted
Replies from: deepthoughtlife↑ comment by deepthoughtlife · 2024-10-12T02:05:09.305Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Your interpretation of Trump's words and actions imply he is in favor of circumventing the system of laws and constitution while another interpretation (that I and many others hold) is that his words and actions mean that he thinks the system was not followed, which should be/have been followed.
Separately a significant fraction of the American populace also believes it really was not properly followed. (I believe this, though not to the extent that I think it changed the outcome.) Many who believe that are Trump supporters of course, but it is not such a strange interpretation that someone must be a Trump supporter to believe the interpretation reasonable.
Many who interpret it this way, including myself, are in fact huge fans of the American Constitution (despite the fact that it does have many flaws), and if we actually believed the same interpretation as you would we condemn him just as much. The people on my side in this believe that he just doesn't mean that.
The way I would put it at first thought to summarize how I interpret his words: "The election must be, but was not held properly. Our laws and constitution don't really tell us what to do about a failed election, but the normal order already can't be followed so we have to try to make things work. We could either try to fix the ways in which it is improper which would get me elected, or we can rehold the election so that everything is done properly."
I think Trump was saying that in a very emotive and nonanalytical way meant to fire up his base and not as a plan to do anything against the constitution.
I obviously don't know why you were downvoted (since I didn't do it) but if you mouse over the symbols on your post, you only got two votes on overall Karma and one on agreement (I'd presume all three were negative). The system doesn't actually go by ones, but it depends on how much Karma the people voting on you have I think (and how strongly they downvoted)? I would suspect that people that the comment not quite responsive to what they believed my points to be for the overall karma one?
My memory could be (is often) faulty, but I remember thinking the dismissals were highly questionable. Unfortunately, at this point I have forgotten what cases seemed to be adjudicated incorrectly in that manner, so I can't really say one you should look at. Honestly, I tire of reading about the whole thing so I stopped doing so quite a while ago. (I have of course read your links to the best of my ability when you provide them.)
I don't usually comment about politics (or much of anything else) here so I don't really know how what I should write in these comments, but I think this is more about people wanting to know what Trump supporters are thinking than about determining what they are and aren't right about. If I was trying to prove whether or not my interpretation is correct I supposed I would do this differently.
Replies from: Pazzaz↑ comment by Pazzaz · 2024-10-12T14:08:08.423Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't usually comment about politics (or much of anything else) here so I don't really know how what I should write in these comments, but I think this is more about people wanting to know what Trump supporters are thinking than about determining what they are and aren't right about. If I was trying to prove whether or not my interpretation is correct I supposed I would do this differently.
Sorry for badgering you so much, I've appreciated the discussion. Some of the other Trump supporters here seemed to have very weird beliefs and values, but your values don't seem that far away from mine. I think I got a better understanding of why you think what you do (though of course I disagree on things). Thanks for answering a bunch of questions :)
Replies from: deepthoughtlife↑ comment by deepthoughtlife · 2024-10-12T16:31:05.032Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I get it. I like to poke at things too. I think it did help me figure out a few things about why I think what I do about the subject, I just lose energy for this kind of thing easily. And I have, I honestly wasn't going to answer more questions. I think understanding in politics is good, even though people rarely chang positions due to the arguments, so I'm glad it was helpful.
I do agree that many Trump supporters have weird beliefs (I think they're endemic in politics, on all sides, which includes centrists). I don't like what politics does to people's thought processes (and often makes enemies of those who would otherwise get along). I'm sure I have some pretty weird beliefs too, they just don't come up in discussion with other people all the time.
The fact that I am more of a centrist in politics is kind of strange actually since it doesn't fit my personality in some ways and it doesn't really feel natural, though I would feel less at home elsewhere. I think I'm not part of a party mostly to lessen (unfortunately not eliminate) the way politics twists my thoughts (I hate the feeling of my thoughts twisting, but it is good I can sometimes tell).
Not from the US either. I'd be far too biased if I were to express my personal stance, as well. Yet as far as irrationality goes, a few things stand out:
- To quote Eliezer himself: politics is the mind killer. Even more so, when the general population doesn't seem to be either aware of, or particularly concerned with, the ease it is swept by the tidal waves of their respective tribal call to arms with.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9weLK2AJ9JEt2Tt8f/politics-is-the-mind-killer [LW · GW]
- For a rather substantial portion of it (at least, to an outsider's perspective - which very well may be as distorted as it can possibly be), the question seems to have less to do with Harris or Trump as candidates, or their policies. Much more: with what they claim to stand for.
Harris represents the system. She's been part of the establishment for as long as she's been on the radar of the public. She's a woman. She's Hispanic. She's a Democrat. She's pro all the minorities. Thrilling start for any PR team!
Trump is the embodiment of the exact opposite. He's the anti-system, anti-bureaucracy, anti-spending, anti-NATO. Pro back-in-the-day.
"Make all things great again".
Harris is riding a wave of (rather questionable, accountability-avoidant, no-interviews-please?) trust by the most progressive portion of the population in that their voices have been heard, and the changes they (alongside the minorities they are allegedly protecting) expect are just around the corner. As long as Harris wins.
Trump is riding a wave of discontent. Of the dissatisfaction with the status quo, with the establishment, with the MIC, with politicians - everything a typical, down-to-earth, quid-pro-quo American has likely grown to despise.
Harris = trust us, we are going to change. Trump = trust me, they are lying to you again.
The growing gap in between concerns of the left and the centrists/right certainly doesn't help. Yet a more fundamental belief in one's ability to actively influence to one's benefit, on one side; and ever increasing distrust towards, the system as a whole, on the other one; doesn't seems to be the least significant of a factor here.
Trump has certainly contributed to the amount of distrust the latter are now feeling, of course. Though I'm personally struggling to say whether this was due to his positioning alone, or (at least in part) thanks to an increasingly larger portions of the "machine" actively weaponizing more and more of its metaphorical antibodies against the threat of his highly unwarranted "invasion".
- Lastly, differences in acting styles. I'm not sure I'll ever be able to take a US politician's self-expression at a face value given all that's transpired over the last decade, so forgive me that particular term.
Trump is a celebrity. He's honed his skills as a public figure quite well while running his empire. He's also lived through enough controversies and humiliations to develop his own style, which he's likely only refined further with "The Apprentice".
To stay a celebrity, you have to continue supplying people with what they expect from you. Here, you can either choose to passively play into trendy people's whims. Or to craft an image, conditioning people to expect a certain "shtick".
What has he conditioned people to expect, over the decades in real estate and later - show-biz?
One, larger-than-life, Trump-Tower-'esque show.
To create one, you need a central theme. You can't orchestrate it around 6-hours long debates on contentious issues without an immediate, visceral, instant response from the public.
What about a catchy slogan? Yes, please.
"Make America Great Again", it is.
What about a Big Brother as an enemy? Done.
A fascinating side effect / self-fulfilling prophecy here, in particular. The more he's baiting / provoking / exposing / calling out the establishment, the more compelled this last one feels to adopt increasingly Big-Brother'esque tactics in direct response to his shenanigans.
Those, who have originally anchored him as a "threat to democracy" would then get even more polarized towards the "he's the next Hitler" part of the spectrum. The ones who already resonate with his MAGA performance grow to support him even more, as more and more of their own doubts, concerns, and suspicions come to life.
Combine all three points with a more traditional, conservative, occasionally: God-fearing perspective; concern about Biden's cognitive decline supported by Harris & Co enthusiastic conviction in him still being as sharp as ever, (virtually completely?) unattended border situation - and you'll probably get yourself a rather coherent picture of a Trumpist.
How much of it is pro-MAGA and "Trump will save us all" vs "Biden and Harris just have to go"?
No idea, to be completely honest.
Completely open to having all of my "arguments" torn to shreds, of course. The sole fact there is such a perfectly civil, patient, non-hostile discussion taking place on topic of this sort has already been an incredible sight to witness.
↑ comment by k64 · 2024-10-06T03:44:44.007Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I really like the framing of establishment/anti-establishment. I think that there are a lot of people who weren't on those sides who got pulled into one side or the other because of their left/right affiliation, but I think that is a really good explanation of the "core" appeal - the one that was there in the 2016 primaries. It would also explain why I reject Trump. I'm not anti-establishment or discontent. I am generally trusting and not suspicious of others. Combine that with my education level, and the "Big brother is out to get us" shtick Trump gives in his rambling style was never going to appeal to me.
↑ comment by Pazzaz · 2024-10-06T07:42:04.077Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Trump has certainly contributed to the amount of distrust the latter are now feeling, of course. Though I'm personally struggling to say whether this was due to his positioning alone, or (at least in part) thanks to an increasingly larger portions of the "machine" actively weaponizing more and more of its metaphorical antibodies against the threat of his highly unwarranted "invasion".
I think one thing you're missing is the huge right-wing media ecosystem, the part of the "machine" that supports Trump, even spreading lies to support him. Take for example the court case Dominion v. Fox which showed pretty clearly that Fox News is willing to broadcast statements they know are false, as long as it's what their audience wants to hear (i.e. they're audience captured). Fox News is one of the largest media networks in the US and when Trump and his attorneys said the election was stolen, and Fox News knew it wasn't stolen, they still said it was stolen.
This is a Trump/Kamala debate from two LW-ish perspectives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSrl1w41Gkk
↑ comment by Pazzaz · 2024-10-07T08:26:35.088Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
For those who prefer text form, Richard Hanania wrote a blog post about why he would vote for Trump: Hating Modern Conservatism While Voting Republican.
Basically, he believes that Trump is a threat to democracy (because he tried to steal the 2020 election) while Kamala is a threat to capitalism. And as a libertarian, he cares more about capitalism than democracy.
42 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by contrarian · 2024-09-29T18:29:39.278Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I certainly don't think that Trump is great. He has an erratic personality, poor focus, and lies far more frequently than the average politician. That said, on most issues I care about I expect him to perform better than Harris:
Economy.
I don’t know any historical precedent when attempts to reduce inflation via price controls did not result in a costly failure. I would appreciate it if you could point me to a contrary example.
Immigration.
I believe that mass immigration of uneducated people would negatively affect the economy and the political system of the country.
Individual liberties
In recent decades, the capture of government agencies and academic institutions by progressive ideology has led to severe restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. I don’t know if Trump would be able to reverse this trend but at least I don’t expect him to make it worse.
Feel free to argue with these points or to give your own.
Replies from: Pazzaz, k64↑ comment by Pazzaz · 2024-09-29T20:44:46.824Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I can argue some:
- Economy Well that obviously depends on what you mean with "price controls". None of the candidates give that much details on their economic policies, but Harris has mostly focused on anti-price gouging legislation. Now maybe you disagree with this legislation, but you have to compare it to Trumps economic policies: he wants to increase tariffs drastically, which would increase inflation. He also wants the Fed to be less independent, which could cause them to prioritize short term politics, which would be bad for the long term economy.
- Immigration The president doesn't control immigration alone. Any changes to the immigration process in the US would need bipartisan support. Now luckily, there is bipartisan support for improving the immigration process. That's why there was a bipartisan bill drafted earlier this year to improve the immigration process in various ways. Passing the bill would be good for the US, but bad for Trump as it would make it harder to say that the democrats don't care about immigration. So he told the republicans to vote NO, and they killed the bill because of it. That shows that Trump cares more about winning the election, than improving the border.
- Individual liberties The examples you give are a little vague. I don't know any restrictions that the Biden administration has done to freedom of speech or freedom of conscience. I do know that some people consider the right to abortion a Individual liberty, which is now banned in multiple states because of Trump. Trump has also said he wants to put people in jail for expressing their freedom of speech through burning flags. That's a pretty severe restriction.
↑ comment by contrarian · 2024-09-30T12:30:52.621Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Empirical observations are usually more reliable than theoretical arguments.
- Trump already passed a large number of tariffs during his first term and the inflation remained significantly lower than under Biden/Harris administration.
- Illegal immigration was far lower under Trump than under Biden/Harris administration.
- Here is one example: In recent years, NSF made submitting DEI statements a precondition to obtaining scientific grants. Any STEM researcher who thinks that, for example, discriminating against talented Asian students based on their race is immoral, is now required to publicly lie about their beliefs or be denied research funds. Since getting grants is generally a prerequisite to getting tenure, this also means that politically non-compliant people are now barred from starting a career in the academy.
↑ comment by Pazzaz · 2024-09-30T13:57:03.691Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I agree empirical observations are generally more reliable than theoretical argument.
- But higher tariffs does in general increase inflation right? And he didn't influence the Fed that much during his administration, but if he did then it would make the economy worse, right? And it wasn't higher during the Biden/Kamala administration because of price-controls, right?
- Yes, I agree that it was lower. But when voting you don't vote for outcomes, you vote for people who have policies which affect outcomes. When politicians tried to improve the border, Trump told them not to do it. He sabotaged legislation that you would like, to increase the chances that he would win. It feels like you're rewarding Trump for making the border situation worse. I think that is bad.
- If I look up the NSF on Wikipedia, then it says that it's an "independent agency". This means that it is not controlled by the president. It's ok to dislike that policy, but you shouldn't blame Biden for it, because he doesn't control the agency. If Trump was the president, he wouldn't control the agency either. But sure, he could cooperate with other branches of government to influence the NSF. He could also use other branches of government to make it illegal to burn flags. Is that good? Is that not a limit on freedom of speech?
To me it feels like you're bringing up small disagreements you have in some policies with the Biden/Kamala administration, but turning a blind eye to the huge problems with a Trump/Vance administration.
Replies from: contrarian↑ comment by contrarian · 2024-09-30T22:27:26.714Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It seems that you are trying to prove to me that Trump’s policies, such as tariffs, would also have downsides. This is obviously true.
> To me it feels like you're turning a blind eye to the huge problems with a Trump/Vance administration.
I must admit that after you mentioned that you don't know any restrictions that the Biden administration has done to freedom of speech I felt the same way. However, personal feelings are subjective, and, most likely, we are both biased on this issue. Can you think of a good rational argument that Trump’s call to imprison flag burners is a greater threat to freedom of speech than the currently existing restrictions in academic institutions?
Replies from: Pazzaz, Pazzaz↑ comment by Pazzaz · 2024-10-01T09:24:53.211Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Sorry for writing two comments, but I'm really curious of some ground beliefs, because it feels a little silly to talk about specific policy proposals without mentioning the - in my mind - biggest reason not to vote for Trump: he tried to steal the last election.
More specifically, he said after the election that the election was rigged against him. He had a bunch of court cases which sought to prove that the election was rigged against him, and pretty much every case was proven false. Then when his vice president were to certify electors from the state, Trump wanted him to use fake electors, which were not sent from the states, to say that Trump won the election. If his plan would have worked, then Trump would have stolen the election. But Pence did not do that, because Pence didn't want to steal the election. He later said Trump "demanded that I choose between him and the constitution, [..] I chose the constitution". That's why the crowd was yelling "hang Mike Pence" during Jan 6.
Do you care about that?
Replies from: contrarian↑ comment by contrarian · 2024-10-03T18:06:26.668Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I strongly disapprove of Trump’s post-election antics, but I believe them to be less important than the Democrat's use of illegal immigration to boost their vote. If the US had no illegal immigration from Latin America, the Democrats would have lost about a fifth of their current voters, and, unless they radically changed their platform, would have lost all Congress and Presidential elections in the past twenty years.
Replies from: Pazzaz↑ comment by Pazzaz · 2024-10-03T20:12:10.305Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thanks for answering but I don't get it. I think trying to steal an election is really bad. Is it just that Trump didn't succeed that makes the difference?
And I don't really know what you refer to when you say "Democrat's use of illegal immigration to boost their vote". I know illegal (and legal) immigrants tend to lean democrat, but illegal immigrants can't vote. Is there some study looking at demographic patterns or so? What are the immigration policies of democrats that you think is wrong, and do you have a problem with legal immigration, as that helps democrats too?
Also, immigrants are more than just votes. America has historically had a high level of immigration, who bring a lot of good to the US. Just because a policy is good for democrats doesn't make it into a bad policy. If you don't like immigration or naturalization, then that's fine, but I don't think democrats should avoid a policy just because it will help them.
Replies from: contrarian↑ comment by contrarian · 2024-10-03T22:07:31.982Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Replies from: Pazzaz↑ comment by Pazzaz · 2024-10-03T23:25:38.015Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The "Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986" was passed by Ronald Reagan, a Republican, so probably not an attempt by democrats to get votes.
I believe the most likely interpretation of the events is that Trump was not actually trying to steal the elections but to make most Republicans believe that the victory was stolen from him so that he could have another chance in 2024.
Where are you getting this interpretation? He is not saying this, no one around him is saying this. He says that the 2020 election was rigged. He says that it was so rigged that he should be able to suspend the constitution. He tried to execute a plan which, if successful, would have made him president. How was he not trying? Was Rudy Giuliani not trying? Were the fake electors not trying when they signed all those fake documents? Was Trump not trying on January 6, when he told the protestors to pressure Mike Pence to go through with his plan? Were the Proud Boys not trying when they broke into the capitol? Were whoever placed pipe bombs around DC on Jan 5 not trying?
It feels like for someone not trying, he sure made a large impact and made a lot of people believe that he was trying and that they should try to help him win (because it was so rigged).
↑ comment by Pazzaz · 2024-10-01T08:03:18.295Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Well the reason I didn't think of DEI statements and such is because that's not really something Trump talks about much, right? He mostly talks about immigration (cats and dogs!), Ukraine, inflation, etc. So I don't know much about it.
Also, I don't really see DEI statements as a restriction on "freedom of speech" or "freedom of conscience". If I understand correctly, it's that grants by NSF to institutions have to have a section explaining their DEI initiatives. And sure you can disagree if that should be a factor, and maybe you think it's stupid to have as a requirement, but just because they have different priorities/beliefs than you doesn't mean they're stifling freedom of speech.
Imagine if the government started caring a lot about AI and NSF required people to talk about their AI work/impact in every funding request. Would that be stupid? Yes, because a lot of important work isn't that relevant to AI. But this doesn't really impact freedom of speech, it just means they prioritize research differently than you would. The government thinks DEI should affect research grants. You don't. Someone will always feel left out when funding is allocated, and feel "forced" to act in some ways to receive funding. But I don't see that as a restriction on "freedom of speech".
When it comes to burning the flag, maybe it's a bad example. In my mind, burning the flag just means hating on America and I don't think that should be illegal. But some people see burning the flag like destroying something holy, so they treat that restriction differently than other restrictions. But it's still a more clear restriction than DEI statements. It's an actual law that restricts how you are allowed to express yourself in America.
But when it comes to infiltration of institutions, I find it worrying when Vance says:
Fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people.
What does he mean with "our people"? Would it be a restriction on freedom of speech to fire every civil servant and replace them with "our people"? I think it would. Surely he doesn't mean people who are critical of Trump as "our people".
Also, I think removing the right to abortion from millions of people is a much clearer restriction of liberty than DEI statements or banning flag-burning.
Replies from: shankar-sivarajan, contrarian↑ comment by Shankar Sivarajan (shankar-sivarajan) · 2024-10-01T20:44:15.303Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Would it be a restriction on freedom of speech to fire every civil servant and replace them with "our people"? I think it would.
Why does your argument about how the government is free to allocate funding however it wishes in the context of NSF grants not apply to civil servant salaries? About personal loyalty to Trump over the Constitution[1] or whatever,
you can disagree if that should be a factor, and maybe you think it's stupid to have as a requirement, but just because they have different priorities/beliefs than you doesn't mean they're stifling freedom of speech.
…
But this doesn't really impact freedom of speech, it just means they prioritize [not being critical of Trump] differently than you would. The government thinks [party loyalty] should affect [civil service positions]. You don't. Someone will always feel left out when [civil service hiring] is allocated, and feel "forced" to act in some ways to receive [employment]. But I don't see that as a restriction on "freedom of speech".
- ^
This dovetails nicely with your other argument, about him "trying to steal the last election."
↑ comment by contrarian · 2024-10-01T18:41:30.436Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
- If I understand correctly, it's that grants by NSF to institutions have to have a section explaining their DEI initiatives.
Grants to individual researchers now also require the DEI statement. I think the AI is not a very good analogy because:
- it's apolitical
- I assume that in your example historians and cancer researchers would not lose their jobs for saying heretical things in their AI statements.
A more appropriate analogy would be abortion. Suppose the progressive admins in the NSF are replaced with Christian conservatives who replace the DEI statement with the statement on the “sanctity of life”. To get grants, all researchers must demonstrate how their work is relevant to the fight against the murder of unborn children. Those who refuse or argue in favor of pro-choice policies do not get funding and, after a few years, are forced to quit academic institutions. Would you consider this policy a restriction on the freedom of speech and conscience or just a shift in government priorities?
It would probably be more constructive if we focus on one issue at a time, so I suggest we finish this topic before discussing others.
Replies from: Pazzaz↑ comment by Pazzaz · 2024-10-02T12:19:14.622Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It would probably be more constructive if we focus on one issue at a time, so I suggest we finish this topic before discussing others.
Okay.
I see all of these decision of deciding what to fund and how to fund them as political. I mean, during the last century a lot of marine research was done through the military, and that shaped what kind of research was done, and which people could do it (probably not anti-war people). I see all of these things as changing government priorities and not restrictions on freedom of speech or conscience.
On the topic of DEI statements themselves, I don't really think it's that productive to require them on a large scale. Many universities and research agencies motivate them by saying that it's important for them to have a diverse base of researches to be more effective/have more perspectives or that it's the moral thing to do, after excluding them historically. And sure, that might make sense, but I think what that means depends a lot on the scientific field and where in America it's done. So such policies are probably better done on a more local level.
I also see that the way the Biden/Harris admin has influenced the NSF is through two executive orders (1, 2) which I don't think is that good. If NSF changed their priority or if laws are passed to change their mandate then that's one thing, but executive orders are pretty blunt. They also make it hard to say who to blame for things like DEI statements as the executive orders are pretty vague. As the NSF is still an independent agency, it feels like DEI statements are more something the NSF made up to promote DEI and which Biden/Harris is allowing, then something they made them do.
But if someone just dislikes DEI statements then it doesn't matter that much why exactly they were implemented, as the important part is that Trump would probably get rid of them.
So basically, I think it's kind of a bad policy, but not that big of a deal.
Replies from: contrarian↑ comment by contrarian · 2024-10-02T13:04:42.631Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Can you clarify your answer a little? Do you consider this policy to be not that big of a deal because
- it only forces anti-DEI scientists out of the academy, or
- the specific ideological filter does not matter and forcing out all pro-choice and pro-DEI scientists would not be that big of a deal either.
↑ comment by Pazzaz · 2024-10-02T22:02:07.515Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The problem is that these questions depend a lot on the details. I don't know much about the impact of DEI statements or how they are used. I mean, the Biden/Harris administration doesn't have a policy which is "anti-DEI scientists should be fired" or even "NSF grants should require DEI statements". The NSF just has the mission "to promote the progress of science, to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare, and to secure the national defense". That's really vague, and now the Biden/Harris administration has passed some vague executive orders. But even without executive orders, the NSF could just believe that promoting DEI efforts is important to achieve their mission more effectively. They may be mistaken, but I don't think I can have that much to say about it if I'm not well read about it. That's why I talk so much about process and why I dislike the use of executive orders as it's kind of a sidestep of the normal process (I think).
Basically my answer is (2), but it depends on the details and I just haven't seen that much of an impact of these DEI statements. I just think there are differences between the candidates that are a lot more important than their impact on DEI in academia.
Replies from: contrarian↑ comment by contrarian · 2024-10-03T13:32:28.732Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Choosing (2) makes you an extreme outlier among Democrats, so to be honest, it’s a little hard to believe that you thought it through very well. In your opinion, why is it so bad to replace progressive civil servants with conservatives (“our people”), but doing the same for college professors is not?
Replies from: Pazzaz↑ comment by Pazzaz · 2024-10-03T15:03:30.404Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
So someone who doesn't agree with democrats hasn't thought through what they think? That doesn't sound right. I already said I disagree with the policy and how it's implemented. I just think there are other things which are a lot more important.
And I don't think choosing (2) is that weird, I just think it matters a lot what the process is to "filter out" people. Trump has said that he wants to make every executive branch employee fireable by the president. That gives a lot of power to the president, which I think is bad. I think it's good if the government has a system of checks and balances which limits the presidents power so that the government has a more "slow" and consistent policy, so that the employees don't feel like they are micromanaged by the President.
Replies from: contrarian↑ comment by contrarian · 2024-10-03T18:06:59.062Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Fair enough. My own opinion is that, beyond hurting freedom of speech, hiring researchers based on their race, sexual orientation, and ideological compliance is doing massive damage to scientific progress and undermines the ability of research institutions to provide objective information on matters of public policy (COVID-19, AGW, etc.). However, people can indeed have different opinions on the importance of these issues.
I responded to your other questions in two separate comments.
↑ comment by k64 · 2024-10-06T13:08:41.544Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'd like to push back against the idea that empirical observations are more reliable than theoretical arguments.
1. Did you say this because you have empirical data showing that empirical data is more reliable, or do you believe it should be more reliable on theoretical grounds?
2. Here's a reductio ad absurdum: Empirically, a terrible pandemic started under Trump's presidency and 0 pandemics have emerged under the Biden/Harris administration. Thus, relying on empirical observation, we should vote for Harris to avoid another pandemic.
3. Empirical observation, literally, can only tell you the past. I can observe that on Tuesday July 11, at 3:13pm, a bird chirped, but that doesn't give me any information about whether I will observe a bird chirp tomorrow. So, when we say "empirical observation" here, we really just mean "the theory that the same things will happen next time", which is just a naive theory. Additional empirical observations have helped us establish more nuanced theories like "inflation is related to the money supply" that would let us assign the cause for inflation to the economic stimulus used to prevent a covid recession, instead of to the sitting president.
So, I think that we need empirical observations to build valid theories, but making connections between these observations allows us to leverage that knowledge to gain insight in novel contexts. One of those contexts is that future, so any time you want to talk about the future, you are inherently talking theory.
↑ comment by contrarian · 2024-10-08T22:50:47.276Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I do not disagree with anything you wrote in this comment. My statement about empirical evidence was made in the context of policy discussion. When one politician consistently worked to implement some policy (for example, restricting illegal immigration) and another politician worked to sabotage it, the most plausible assumption is that they would stay on the same course during their next term in office. It is also possible that the politicians would radically change course and, in principle, one can make theories trying to predict such changes. However, in practice, people (myself included) are usually very bad at making such predictions.
↑ comment by contrarian · 2024-10-03T18:04:02.464Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
You are correct that major legal changes in the immigration process generally require bipartisan support. However, controlling the executive branch is already sufficient to sabotage the implementation of the existing laws. In 1986 the US passed a bipartisan compromise bill that naturalized illegal immigrants residing in the US in return for measures that were supposed to prevent further illegal immigration. However, subsequent Democratic administrations largely refused to enforce them allowing illegal immigration to grow. There is no obvious reason to think that the recent bill proposed by Democrats would have been any different. Given that it was proposed during the election year, its only effect would have been to allow Democrats to pretend that the issue has been resolved and remove it as a discussion topic during the election campaign.
Replies from: Pazzaz↑ comment by Pazzaz · 2024-10-03T18:24:34.064Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The bill was a bipartisan bill though. As described by republican James Lankford:
It is interesting: Republicans, four months ago, would not give funding for Ukraine, for Israel and for our southern border because we demanded changes in policy, [..] And now, it’s interesting, a few months later, when we’re finally getting to the end, they’re like, 'Oh, just kidding, I actually don’t want a change in law because it’s a presidential election year.'
It's effect would have been to improve the border. That's why there were republicans who wanted it passed, because they wanted to improve the border. Some democrats probably also want to improve the border, while some democrats just want to pass the bill to improve the chances that the democrats would be elected again. But the republicans probably don't want the democrats to win, and probably just wanted to pass the bipartisan border bill to improve the border.
↑ comment by k64 · 2024-10-06T04:31:03.413Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I appreciate you sharing your perspective! My first question for you is, are these the actual reasons you support Trump, or are these the arguments for him you'd present? What I mean is that, as someone who doesn't support Trump, I have plenty of arguments I can give for why he's a poor candidate, but if I'm honest, my direct reason for not wanting to vote for him is a strong negative association I've built with him over the past 8 years. Now, why do I have that negative association? Well, hard to know 100%, but I suspect it's his divisive rhetoric. I always hear him talking about us vs them, the media being unfair, lock her up, people rigging elections, etc. I remember in 2016 when he won I thought, "hey, I didn't like how he campaigned, but now that he won, maybe he'll turn out to be decent president, and then in his "American carnage" inauguration speech he talked about how he was only going to be a president for the people who voted for him, and I was like "well, there goes that theory". The other turning point for me was when he refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power repeatedly leading up to the 2020 election, which is a huge red flag for me. So my actual reasons for not supporting Trump are: I dislike his divisive rhetoric and fear the impact of electing someone who rejects the tradition of peacefully giving up power when voted out.
What are your actual reasons, if they are different from the issues you've already shared?
↑ comment by contrarian · 2024-10-08T22:26:40.641Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I agree with you regarding the problem with Trump’s rhetoric. However, the way I see it, we have a choice between a candidate with terrible rhetoric and bad policies, and a candidate with bad rhetoric and terrible policies. I think on every important issue except Ukraine Harris’ policies are likely to be significantly worse.
My first question for you is, are these the actual reasons you support Trump, or are these the arguments for him you'd present?
On the economy, there is a high chance that Harris’ most irrational ideas, such as price controls, would remain a dead letter (especially if Republicans keep control of the House), so it is not implausible that the outcome of the 2024 elections would not matter much for the economy. I do not have such hopes about the other two issues and I do believe them to be very important.
Another important issue I have not listed is the Democrats’ hold on government agencies and public institutions. While I do not like Trump’s behavior in the aftermath of the 2020 elections, I do not think that he was actually attempting a coup or that he had any real chance to hold on to the presidency even if he tried. In contrast, Democrats remain substantially in control of the executive powers even when their party loses the elections.
comment by frontier64 · 2024-10-12T14:14:40.887Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Why are you asking this question in a rationality forum and using language that indicates your opinion is based on rationality when it's clearly not and you admit as such?
but if I'm honest, my direct reason for not wanting to vote for him is a strong negative association I've built with him over the past 8 years. Now, why do I have that negative association? Well, hard to know 100%, but I suspect it's his divisive rhetoric.
If you want some good rhetoric to show you why people vote Trump then go to a local Trump rally near you. You'll see that the people in attendance are the nicest in America and you'll have a fun time listening to an electrifying speaker. If you go to 1 or 2 rallies it'll probably change your vibes and then you'll understand.
My personal, rational reasons why I will be voting for Trump for the 3rd time are:
-
Trump is less likely to do pure evil stuff like this: https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1844856866192363630, https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1373236/dl
-
Trump talks about diplomacy with other nations in a way that makes sense. We protect american interests and if those interests align with other countries we work with them. If the interests don't align then we work whatever we can out through trade. I don't want to hear about how my country "stands by" other countries. I want to know that the person in the white house is at least trying to support American interests.
-
Trump will be better for lowering taxes. Taxes are evil and destroying all progress. The government has gotten to the point where it's taking virtually all non-necessary, and now even necessary, profits to support its bloated corpose. More than half the people in America are reliant on stealing large portions of the income from the top 5% of the tax bracket. This is not how a real civilization should operate.
Edit: and I’m open to whatever response.
comment by MattJ · 2024-09-28T20:35:51.554Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I’m not allowed to vote in the election but I hope Trump wins because I think he will negotiate a peace in Ukraine. If Harris wins I think the war will drag on for another couple of years at worst.
I have no problem getting pushback.
Replies from: anon-user, k64↑ comment by Anon User (anon-user) · 2024-09-29T17:01:52.299Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Do you care about what kind of peace it is, or just that there is some sort of peace? If latter, I might agree with you on Trump being more likely to quickly get us there. For former, Trump is a horrible choice. On of the easiest way for a US President to force a peace agreement in Ukraine is probably to privately threaten Ukranians to withhold all support, unless they quickly agree to Russian demands. IMHO, Trump is very likely to do something like that. The huge downside is that while this creates a temporary peace, it would encourage Russia to go for it again with other neighbors,and to continue other destabilizing behaviors across the globe (in collaboration with China, Iran, North Korea, etc). Also increases the chances of China going at Taiwan.
↑ comment by k64 · 2024-09-28T20:38:39.096Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Why do you believe that Trump will negotiate a peace?
Replies from: MattJ↑ comment by MattJ · 2024-09-28T20:39:42.214Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Because he says so.
Replies from: k64↑ comment by k64 · 2024-09-28T21:14:04.506Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
For me, a candidate's claim of what they will do is sufficient when they have unilateral control over doing it. For instance, I believe a claim to sign or veto a specific type of bill. I don't tend to believe that they will make the economy good, avoid recession, close all the tax loopholes, etc.
Do you:
a) believe candidates when they claim they will be successful at things not entirely in their control
b) believe Trump but not others (like Kamala) when they claim they'll do things not entirely in their control
c) think that a Russia-Ukraine peace negotiation would be entirely in Trump's control
d) see some actions that are entire in Trump's control that you are confident would cause peace
e) other
↑ comment by exmateriae (Sefirosu) · 2024-09-29T05:28:21.320Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm not convinced Trump will succeed and I'm worried by what he would be ok with to reach peace but it is true that he made happen things that seemed unlikely (no war, leaving Afghanistan, korea meeting), nevermind if this meant negotiating with terrible people.
So if you don't care about Ukraine and want the war to stop, I'm also under the impression that Trump is your best shot.
comment by Big Tony · 2024-09-29T04:56:02.547Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Not an American but support Trump from afar. Genuine curiosity here - if you were to steelman the rational Trump supporter, what would you say? (happy for pushback in the ensuing discussion).
Replies from: k64, Pazzaz↑ comment by k64 · 2024-10-06T04:07:28.861Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Sure, I'll attempt a steelman. I don't know how well I'll do, and the purpose of this question is to help me understand so I could do better, but why not have a before/after version. So here's my initial attempt at a steelman (I guess it ended up being more "honest" than a normal steelman, more like "channeling" a rational Trump supporter.)
Ok, is Trump actually a genius? No. Is he the smartest, most moral, or otherwise flawless candidate? No. But I don't need a role model to be President, I need someone who will create change, and Trump, more than any politician in my voting lifetime has offered a credible promise of change. Despite all the "Hope and Change" every politician promises, they only ever got to their current position by conforming to the current system and not rocking the boat. Trump is the first politician who got there by being independently wealthy and popular in the real world, outside of the political machine. And yeah, I'd support Musk or someone else who ran for office like that. I even liked Yang, though he had some ideas that were kind of out there for me. Trump doesn't just promise change - he is a change from the norm.
Why do I want change? I don't know - call me an optimist, but I gotta think we can do better than this. Maybe I've just bought the propaganda, but I believe that there was a time when hard work paid off, and people valued family more than appearances, and I feel like we've lost that. It feels like people who didn't work hard are getting ahead while people who are working are falling behind, and I keep hearing more virtue signalling and people obsessed with social media. I'm willing to roll the dice on seeing what someone from outside the system can do.
So yeah, I can give you tons of reasons why Trump is a better vote, and I believe them too, but the real reason I support him is because he has shown that he is willing to take real action, even if people don't like it. As self-aggrandizing as he can be, he's not spending his career virtue signalling, he is willing to step on toes, and he will actually put America first.
↑ comment by Pazzaz · 2024-09-29T12:34:44.690Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Here's a steelman:
- Abortion If you believe abortion is immoral, then Trump's greatest accomplishment during his last term was to appoint conservative supreme court judges which gave the ability to ban abortion to the states. This lead to several states placing heavy restrictions on abortions. If Trump wins again, abortion might even be restricted nationally, as Trump has declined to say whether he'll veto such a bill.
- Immigration The US has seen an increase in illegal immigration during Biden's presidential term. There are many factors that influenced this, but if Trump was President then it would probably be lower. For example, he wants to use the military to deport people, something I don't believe a democratic candidate would do.
- Israel/Palestine A war is happening in the middle east, and though the US is supporting Israel, their support is partial, and they express support for Palestinians too. They are sanctioning settlers and being affected by democratic voters who don't support Israel. Trump would be more pro-Israel and would not cave in to pressure; he would even jail protesters who burn flags.
- Winning The democratic party cares about laws and democratic norms. Trump cares about winning. Sometimes you have to have a guy that tries to win, no matter what. If cartels are affecting the US, bomb Mexico. If there's a war in Europe, force a peace deal. If bad people win the election, use fake electors. If you break the law, become immune. Elect a leader who does whatever it takes to win, and then the US will win too.
↑ comment by Alexander Gietelink Oldenziel (alexander-gietelink-oldenziel) · 2024-09-29T12:48:15.514Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
"Winning The democratic party cares about laws and democratic norms. Trump cares about winning."
I doubt that you passed the IIT. I presume MAGA republicans would say that they're the ones that care about Freedom and Democracy while the democrats are the two-faced cronies of the Deep State.
↑ comment by Pazzaz · 2024-09-29T13:21:11.516Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yeah maybe. I tried to write what I think is true, but from the perspective of someone with different values. If I included things I didn't think were true then that feels like I'm mocking Trump supporters and I don't want to do that. For example: "The democrats are letting in immigrants who are eating cats and dogs, people's pets. Trump would stop this". Obviously it's a belief held by MAGAs, and if it was true then it's a good argument to vote for Trump. But I don't think it's true, and therefore it's a very bad argument.
Replies from: ghb, alexander-gietelink-oldenziel↑ comment by gb (ghb) · 2024-09-29T14:32:52.260Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I highly doubt anywhere near the majority of Trump supporters (or even Trump himself) give any credence to the literal truth of those claims. It’s much more likely that they simply don’t care whether it’s literally true or not, because they feel that the “underlying” is true or something of the kind. When it comes to hearsay, people are much more forgiving of literal falsehoods, especially when they acknowledge there is a kind of “metatruth” to it. To give an easy analogue, of all the criticism I’ve heard of Christianity, not once have I heard anyone complain that the parables told by Jesus weren’t literally true, for example. (I do believe my account here passes the IIT for both groups, btw.)
Replies from: D0TheMath↑ comment by Garrett Baker (D0TheMath) · 2024-09-29T16:47:34.134Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
A steelman is not necessarily an ITT. The ITT for any "average X supporter" is always going to be very underwhelming.
Replies from: ghb↑ comment by gb (ghb) · 2024-09-29T16:55:35.064Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
A steelman is not necessarily an ITT, but whenever you find yourself having “0% support” for a position ~half the population supports, it’s almost guaranteed that the ITT will be a steelman of your current understanding of the position.
↑ comment by Alexander Gietelink Oldenziel (alexander-gietelink-oldenziel) · 2024-09-29T13:29:02.449Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This is a pretty good example of the dangers of steel-manning I think. The disagreement, on the face of it, seems to revolve around both values and truth claims.
It seems there is a pretty substantial disagreement between you and MAGA republicans on which of the two parties are most subverting due process and democracy. [ see the rethoric around 'the swamp', 'deep state' , 'lawfare' and the Trump assasination attempts etc]
I would guess that this is plausibly the largest crux between you and MAGA republicans. I would be skeptical you can have a real dialogue with a MAGA republican if you deny this part of the disagreement.
↑ comment by Shankar Sivarajan (shankar-sivarajan) · 2024-10-03T02:38:11.345Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
passed the ITT
@Pazzaz [LW · GW] That's the Ideological Turing Test. [LW · GW] I agree that really ought have been written out in full.