Not for building grass roots organizations. Not for building resiliency. Not for active protests, and organized opposition by the politicians.
I'm sure the political consultants got paid well though.
“How do you feel about this economic path? Are you concerned at all about the harm this will cause?”
“It’ll hurt but I’d vote for him again in a heartbeat.”
Certainly, always compassion and empathy for compassionate people. I am a very empathetic and compassionate person myself, I will give you the shirt off my back. For everyone else? Hard times ahead, as compassion and empathy have limits. Kindness is not weakness.
The Peter Thiels of the world are who this move is for, not us plebes who spend time posting on HN.
I don't like how you can't see their recommendations for previous elections. That would help others judge if their "algorithm" is effective.
That's kind of an asshole move. Did people react to having their communities and livelihoods damaged by neoliberalism, in a way not approved by economically advantaged software engineers? Don't try to solve their problems in a better way, try to fuck them even harder instead! We should teach 'em to get fucked and not complain!
If you want to target anyone, you should target the people who made a shit-ton of money off of neoliberalism, in a way that paved the path for Trump.
No. The post I was responding to literally was talking about personally taking advantage of conservative voters, not their representatives. The post above that talked about "punishing everyone involved in this tax hike to the maximum extent. It's pretty clear it's just a "fuck you," aimed at regular people.
No introspection, no proposals for solving the problems that would cause people to give tariffs a chance, just punishment. It's neoliberals saying, "we don't give two shit about you, if you resist our beatings, we'll just beat your harder for being uppity."
> “It’ll hurt but I’d vote for him again in a heartbeat.”
What was done when the steel belt became the rust belt? Mostly finger wagging. I'm sure a lot of free traders would have the same response about all the harm their chosen polices caused.
But of course, more compassion is expected from some poor guy in a rust belt town, even after he's gotten very little compassion himself. How dare he not think about the rich coastal software engineers when he's in the ballot box!
As they say, hatred is like drinking a poison and then waiting for the other person to die.
A lot of hateful people out there eagerly guzzling poison these days.
Their algorithm is basically just targeting close state races, if I recall correctly. So like a state Senator from Arizona or something. Those are races where small donations go further than whatever big ticket Senate race gets a lot of press.
I am not unsympathetic to someone in the rust belt, anywhere really, who needs help. I don’t expect them to be a software engineer. We should provide robust social safety nets, guarantees of remote work in some fashion, whatever it takes to help these people live good lives until they retire or die. Tax me more, I insist. But, I don’t think that’ll make them happy nor what is on offer with this administration. It’s certainly not what they’re voting for. To reconfigure domestic manufacturing will take 5-10 years at least, and the evidence is robust the electorate is too unsophisticated and impatient for that.
One party had a message and large portion of it's voter base focused on messages and policies that can only be described as hateful and harmful. Now that it seems like that harm is transpiring and surprise surprise just as the "we don't give two shits about you" liberals warned that harm is at best indiscriminate and at worst going to impact those spiteful voters the most.
Trump is doing exactly what he said he'd do, tariff all the things, these people proudly and loudly voted for the (self-inflicted) punishment you're describing.
Campaign organizers in both major parties benefit by pointing out how the other party keeps spending more money, as a way to encourage even more donations.
It also seems like a negative incentive to pass certain laws. "We need money for the next campaign so we can work on $TOPIC" might be a good fundraiser, so if those laws are passed then the funding stops ... or even switches to the other party.
Which party is working on strict campaign donation limits, which in this post-Citizens United era we know requires a constitutional amendment, or an overturn by the Supreme Court. Certainly not the Republicans, as Vance is asking the Supreme Court to strike down limits on political donations precisely because PACs are now so powerful. Nor do I see active engagement by the Democrats.