Comment by garmaine | Hacker News Reader

Comment by garmaine | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Hrm, I can’t seem to edit this for some reason.

I’m not being conspiratorial, although upon rereading I could see someone make that assumption. What I mean is that Trump is so hated that reversing his policies score political wins, regardless of the actual policy—much like how Obama was treated by the radical right. Trump has taken a harder line than previous presidents on China, although to be sure he has done a shit job of it if he actually wanted to stress the CCP. Any liberal politician can expect sweet lobbying on behalf of China-friendly interests, and score political points by reversing Trump’s China policies. Win-win for anyone that doesn’t actually care about the freedoms of the Chinese people.

Similar things can be said about other Trump policies that are actually good, like the NASA Artemis project and Space Force. Expect them to get severely defunded under a Biden administration, even though they are actually good bipartisan policies prior to Trump.

I’m NOT a trump supporter. But I evaluate his and any other politician’s policies on a case by case basis. I hope that Biden does the same, but I’m not naïve enough to expect it.

There is an objective view to be had about the accuracy of criticisms of any particular political party, because some of them do have some element of truth.

But we are passed the point of objectivity in what may be the first battle in a civil war. There were casualties and there are plots of a second attack. So at this point you just have to choose sides and consider that your ability to retain support amongst your peers means not using the phrases that "the other side" created.

The disclaimers about your affiliations won't help. I'm just the messenger.

Using scare tactics to force someone to “choose sides” is not the hallmarks of a classical liberal philosophy.

Please stop escalating things with hyperbole.

a week ago I would agree with you.

what would have to occur for you to change your mind about the current reality, if a militia aiming to restrain (or hang) the vice president while carrying confederate and foreign nation's flags and beating a police officer to death with the American flag didn't get that point across already? because they've been trying to coordinate a followup so I'm not sure what stage of grief you're at, but I'm way past stage 1

I wonder what you think my positions are, as I haven't voiced them yet. But you nevertheless feel certain I should change them. Be careful of projecting your own expectations onto other participants in a discussion.

Your position is that what I said is hyperbole. That's not projecting, that's a direct quote.

Hyperbole means exaggeration for effect, which is not what I did at all, in my view. So what would be necessary to happen for your position to change - which you really did make abundantly clear that my reality and description of reality is hyperbole. What I said is completely intended to be taken literally. What [else] would need to happen for you to take what I said as the literal and most accurate way of describing reality?

> But we are passed the point of objectivity in what may be the first battle in a civil war.

A small crowd of extremist nut jobs walked from one end of the national mall to the other and pushed their way past an ill-equipped police squad to damage some property in the national capital, and assaulted one police officer enough that he would die of his wounds.

This is a very bad thing. I hope that every single one of the people involved are caught, tried, and pay for their crimes. The desecration of the capital itself is shameful and sacrilegious, and that is not lost on me either.

But "civil war"? Please research what an actual civil war is like. Watch some news coverage of Syria. The storming of the capital is an act of insurrection, legally speaking, and it should be prosecuted as such. But are you really suggesting that we are near the point of nation-wide violent armed uprising, pitting brother-against-brother in a conflict that will rip apart any semblance of society (in which I MUST choose sides!), and reduce our cities to cratered wastelands like has happened to Aleppo or Raqqa?

I generously don't think that is what you literally mean. But then I don't know how else to interpret "the first battle in a civil war" except as exaggeration for effect, hyperbole. Please don't do that.

Third time asking, and try not to answer a question with a question this time

> What [else] would need to happen for you to take what I said as the literal and most accurate way of describing reality?

I have no interest in pursing this further.

Summary: Uses Trump Derangement Syndrome as an explanation, gaslights everyone about their political affiliation without specifically saying - not that we had any expectation or obligation for you to -, deflects, proselytizes, and then exits the conversation.

That conversation flowchart alone makes it clear who the influences of that particular filter bubble are.

> like the NASA Artemis project and Space Force.

The latter I could see happening, but not being eliminated, the former is just bad politics. Biden is almost definitely going to be more like Gerald Ford than some would like him to be, they'll probably have some kind of formal investigation into the Trump administration but not much else from the executive-branch itself.

> But I evaluate his and any other politician’s policies on a case by case basis.

This is fairly naive, i.e. ignoring that (Trump being the most shining example but in no way unique) politicians are two-faced by default, policy alone doth not a president make - no amount of policy would allow you to decide what type of president will condone QAnon or write a short love letter to people threatening to shoot up the capitol building.

As per YouGov, an overwhelming majority of republicans and a supermajority of democrats thinks China is a strategic enemy of the United States now, it's just plain bad (not just bad, diabolically awful) political strategy to undo what little Trump did. Some of his tariffs might go, but they were effectively just a Tax on US consumers and didn't move the Chinese an inch so that's not really up for discussion.

Are we talking about the same Artimis program? The one that has produced agreements signed by 10 different nations or space agencies agreeing to guidelines for the peaceful, cooperative exploration and utilization of space? The one that has, every step along the way, fostered cooperation with our international allies? The one that has revitalized kids interest in space, Moon, and Mars as a place that people actually go?

That's just bad politics?

And yes, I am concerned that because Trump politicized NASA with his ridiculous 2024 Moon landing date that Biden will throw out the baby with the bathwater and cancel the whole program, as Obama tried to do in 2009-2011.

> Trump derangement syndrome. Anything he touches must automatically be reversed.

Interesting projection, as everything Obama did good or bad had to be gone. I don't think Biden will do the same thing, as some Trump policies must be beneficial in some ways.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com