Hacker News Reader

Comment by helthanatos | Hacker News Reader

Trump won because people are sick of SJWs. He won because people are sick of being called racists when they're not. He won because his opponent was objectively worse. Any other democrat running against him would have probably led to different results, but the bickering between the children turned out in Trump's favor. It's ridiculous that either one ran. All we can do now is hope Trump does well. It really wouldn't be that hard to do "well"; we haven't had a good president for quite many years.

View on HN

According to the article, there is more to it than just hating sucial justice warriors. The fact that rural infrastructure is crumbling, jobs are lost and not returning and the fact that during 8 years with a democrat at the helm didn't change much for them. It is enough for a lot of people to seriously consider the alternative, especially if the (untrusted) establishment hates this alternative.

> The fact that rural infrastructure is crumbling

That's what I don't get. Do Trump voters think he gives a flying fuck about the state of rural infrastructure or the lives of poor people? I don't see it. Sure, the incumbent elite are feckless, tribal, irresponsible, greedy, and dishonest, but Trump is worse, obviously so.

I guess that's the problem in a two-party system. Usually you choose the better of two bad options. In this case, all the options were so bad that people just said "fuck it".

I know democrats who voted for Trump. One of the reasons is that he is planning on investing $500,000,000,000 in infrastructure, including rural infrastructure. So yes, I think economics played a large role in his win.

But I'd ask myself where is that half-a-trillion dollars going to come from, on top of the increases in military spending, the thousands-of-miles-long Mexico wall, the massively expensive roundups and deportations, and so on. Especially when taxes are apparently also going to be reduced.

And asking myself that question, I'd think his promises somewhat empty and opportunistic.

Obama pushed hard for big spending on infrastructure from the start of his first term. Not only do we need it in general, but then it also would have greatly helped push the recovery from the recession along.

Republicans in Congress were able to block it until they took control of both Houses, and then it was effectively dead.

Do they really think Trump has a better chance of getting Congress to pass a large infrastructure bill? I haven't looked into it in great detail, but from what I have seen it doesn't look like the incoming Republican House and Senate are at all inclined to be looser with the pursestrings now.

Also, Clinton's plan also called for large infrastructure spending, although only about half of what Trump's plan calls for. That makes it hard for me to understand why a Democrat who voted for Trump would cite infrastructure spending as a reason.

Do you refer to the "shovel-ready" stimulus? They burned through $830B on that, to little effect. One would hope that the next big infrastructure effort would be better focused on actual infrastructure.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023039457045793876...

> objectively worse

On what objective metric(s)? Answering this properly is extremely hard.

There is one objective metric on which she definitely was worse: telling lies. And by worse I mean, he told many more of them.

That's part of it, but I wouldn't put it at more than 20-30% of the total explanation.

And here I thought Trump won because of record low voter turnouts.

Everyone has a theory.

The current popular vote total stands at 127MM votes cast, and the Attorney General of California has already announced that they have at least 3MM absentee and provisional ballots to check, so it's expected that turnout will exceed 2012's 129MM votes cast.

Forgive me for going off-topic here but I'm curious about your reason for using MM to designate 'million'?

I think in the financial industry, particularly in the US, MM is often used to signify millions. MM is also one million in Roman numerals (1000(M) x 1000(M)).

I don't think there's any hard and fast rules globally how one specifies "millions":

https://www.quora.com/What-should-be-the-abbreviation-for-mi...

Wouldn't it be 2000 in Roman numerals?

I thought that too, but there's an implied multiplier. I'm guessing it's one of those examples of borrow and abuse things.

Roman numerals use implied addition and subtraction, not multiplication.

MM may signify million in some contexts, but not in Roman numerals.

> Roman numerals use implied addition and subtraction, not multiplication.

I already agreed to that fact; whilst reluctant to invoke "appeal to authority", I know how Roman numerals work, I studied Latin and Classical Studies. I also said "I'm guessing it's one of those examples of borrow and abuse things".

> MM may signify million in some contexts

I already stated that: I think in the financial industry, particularly in the US, MM is often used to signify millions - I didn't mean everywhere, that was just one example where it's sometimes used.

From my fairly lengthy google searching the rough consensus is that MM has been hijacked from Roman numerals and that there's an implied multiplier. Whether you like it or not, it's just how it is.

Sorry if you took my post the the wrong way. While the use of it was likely inspired by Roman numerals, I read your post as indicating that it actually did mean one million in Roman numerals and wanted to be clear that it did not as I was likely not the only one to understand your post that way.

000's, MM, Bn, Tn, - how to spot a banker :) (I interned at an ibank, not criticizing)

Exactly this. I interned at a pension fund, but now refuse to work in the financial industry.

For a little context, some rough voter totals going back to 2000 (in millions):

While, certainly, there were less votes cast than the last two elections, it doesn't appear to be a record low.

Edit: Sources are Google for 2016 and Wikipedia for the rest.

Don't forget to factor in population growth (above 18 years of age) from 2000 to 2016. Is it enough of a factor to make 2016 the record low? I don't know.

low turnout is just a symptom. the cause was weak enthusiasm for a candidate that didnt emotionally resonate with the public, and had no simple, strong messsage about what she would do.

on the other hand, you had enough enthusiasm from trump's side that they more than compensated for "normal" Republican voters that hated him.

It's overall a very good opinion piece, but this little ditty didn't escape my notice:

> We diagnose them as racists in the way Dark Age clerics confused medical problems with demonic possession.

"Medical problems"? I don't know much about these things, but isn't this what some would call a "microagression"?

Eh, I'm going to give the guy a pass. At least he's trying.

I think the thrust is, "we don't understand the real problem, lets call it something that we think we know about."

All in all, I think it's a pretty solid article, and hits on a lot of the rural-urban disjunctions that I've experienced, as a redneck Mainer from up near the Canadian border having to move out of 1950s-throwback-world.

> his opponent was objectively worse

If he really continues with global warming denial and make real effects based on that idea, I'd like to see who will dare to say that to his kids. Just this single issue is enough to make the whole difference.

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-victory-climate-a0c595572299

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees:_Our_Future_on_a_H...

That's also the biggest issue that's still not clear in the confused heads of too much US citizens, and where the real action is needed.

Misinformation paid by the oil companies sadly worked. The good proof than even the side that sees other manipulations isn't immune at all.

As one thinker said: "when you look at somebody and hold your head and think how come the other side just doesn't see the facts, there's a simple answer: you're an idiot, and, by the way, the other side is too. People aren't rational. The proof: almost 50-50 opinions, even among the supposedly "smart" people, on some important subject -- how probable is that to be the reflection of the real rational state of the truthfulness of the issue in question. Effectively zero."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com