←back to thread

280 points dargscisyhp | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.891s | source
Show context
mehulashah ◴[] No.44765977[source]
This is a tragedy. Our pre-eminence as a scientific and industrial powerhouse that really began post WWII is now disintegrating because of the actions of a few. The funding being pulled from Terence Tao and his institute without due process is not the start, it's merely one casualty among many that began at the start of this administration. This is like cutting one's nose to spite one's face.
replies(4): >>44766103 #>>44766166 #>>44769856 #>>44770046 #
austhrow743 ◴[] No.44766166[source]
Punishing urban intellectuals for being urban intellectuals appears to be a common theme in a lot of right wing American messaging and the Republican Party won the popular vote.

You can’t put this on a few. It’s the genuine desire of the American voter.

replies(5): >>44766323 #>>44766345 #>>44766451 #>>44766476 #>>44766941 #
tzs ◴[] No.44766323[source]
A majority of the voters voted for people other than Trump.

Edit: come on people, read things in context. I was responding to someone who was implying that a majority of American voters support this. To support that assertion about any President's policies at a minimum you need that President to have received a majority of the popular vote.

When third parties get enough votes that a President gets a plurality but not a majority you can't really infer anything about what a majority of voters want.

Even if all the third parties were on the same side of the left/right spectrum as the President's party you can't infer much because if those voters agreed with most or all of the President's policies they would have voted for the President.

replies(1): >>44766360 #
ghosty141 ◴[] No.44766360[source]
49,8% popular vote, 50,2 is a majority but at that point I would say it’s clearly half the American population that wanted him in power.
replies(2): >>44766411 #>>44766449 #
sjsdaiuasgdia ◴[] No.44766449[source]
They're technically correct (the best kind etc) because they said "voted for people other than Trump" not "voted for Harris".

Voted for Trump: 77.3M

Voted for Harris: 75M

Voted for other candidates: 2.6M

Harris + others = 77.6M, which is greater than Trump's 77.3M

replies(2): >>44766479 #>>44774540 #
1. teiferer ◴[] No.44774540[source]
So, clearly about half the vote went to Trump. Stop splitting hairs please, there was enormous support for this. Whether there was an epsilon above or below some arbitrary 50% threshold is insubstantial to this discussion.
replies(1): >>44776418 #
2. sjsdaiuasgdia ◴[] No.44776418[source]
If we lose pedantry, we lose the spirit of HN.

I think there's also a lot to unpack in "support for this". What is 'this' precisely? Many of Trump's policies and actions get poor results in polls.

The die hard ride or die for Trump types that are fully on board with everything are definitely not half the country.

replies(1): >>44777008 #
3. teiferer ◴[] No.44777008[source]
> If we lose pedantry, we lose the spirit of HN.

Haha true! Though if the pedantry gets in the way of the big picture then it's counter productive, one may argue.

> I think there's also a lot to unpack in "support for this". What is 'this' precisely? Many of Trump's policies and actions get poor results in polls.

Fair point. It's the person that got the votes and it could be argued that people should have known what they voted for, even if many votes surely were cast more in the spirit of voting against the other side, and it's a common effect that once a side is chosen then the mind downplays the drawbacks of the "own" side in an effort to justify the choice.

replies(1): >>44777736 #
4. sjsdaiuasgdia ◴[] No.44777736{3}[source]
Yeah, and people are drastically [under|mis]-informed generally.

I saw a poll the other day with a question like, "since 1990, has violent crime increased or decreased?" with the usual significant / somewhat options in each direction plus a neutral option.

There's clear data that shows a substantial reduction in violent crime in the US since the 90s. Despite that, slightly over half the respondents answered that violent crime had significantly or somewhat increased.

Only 9% of respondents gave the "significantly decreased" answer that aligns to the data.