Ironically, I suspect the biggest threat to democracy would be a staunch refusal to admit that your political opponents are human beings and do, on a fair number of issues, have good points. Democracy is impossible if two groups of people start convincing themselves it is a fight to the death where the fate of the country is actually on the line.
I take heart in the US case that nearly 10 years into the Trump era the Democrats are being beaten back from "Nazi" to "Weird". My hope is that in another 5 years they'll retreat to "well we just don't agree with some of this".
> Democracy is impossible if two groups of people start convincing themselves it is a fight to the death where the fate of the country is actually on the line.
From my perspective, only one group wants to marginalize groups of people and roll back decades of social progress. For the people being unjustly targeted, it is becoming a fight to the death for them if they want to maintain their dignity, autonomy, and quality of life.
Not to mention the whole electing a dictator thing. Kinda weird.
Unironically, the republicans aren't shy of calling liberal opponents 'nazi' either. Do conservatives have any responsibility to also tone down their rhetoric?
There was a time when the two parties had a very different dynamic and could, at times, work together when a given policy was in line with both. I think this degraded and then the tea-party conservatives broke it for good, opting for a much more confrontational style where democrats ceased being people with a different opinion and started being 'the enemy' with whom no compromise would be entertained. This trend continued, even strengthened into MAGA trumpism. Biden's bipartisan immigration bill for example, which had many components which conservatives wanted, was rejected because Trump thought it would be seen as 'a win' for 'the other side'. I can't think of an example where a bipartisan bill was rejected by the democrats for similar reasoning.
Republicans have been calling their "enemies" communists for years, the actual politicians that the people elected. Democrat politicians don't generally behave like that, but if there ever were a time this would be it.
From what I've witnessed many people see democrats being "rotten to their core" which makes the discussion not about values or policies, but fundamental stance on how to govern a country. Who cares about good points of democrats if those points are perceived to push a hidden agenda, while whatever you don't agree with is them "pushing agenda in plain view!".
> Ironically, I suspect the biggest threat to democracy would be a staunch refusal to admit that your political opponents are human beings and do, on a fair number of issues, have good points. Democracy is impossible if two groups of people start convincing themselves it is a fight to the death where the fate of the country is actually on the line.
The Republicans are human being who do, on a fair number of issues, have good points.
The problem is they also literally are saying:
"Christians, get out and vote! Just this time – you won’t have to do it any more!"[1]
"Get out – you gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not gonna have to vote."[1]
And they aren't afraid to put physical violence behind those words. They literally broke into the capital building.
So, the fate of the country is actually on the line.
Meanwhile, you don't seem to take any issue with Republicans saying their opponents are socialists, nazis, and communists, somehow all at once, because we want to do something as benign as provide healthcare for poor people. Is it only okay to say the fate of the country is at stake when Republicans do it?
You've highlighted a couple snippets of a quote, which taken out of context and interpreted through a cynical and paranoid lens, could be taken to mean "There won't be voting anymore after I'm elected".
Of course, everyone understands this wasn't the intended meaning, so nobody really cares.
Trump is legitimately pretty terrible and says and does all sorts of bad things, so focusing on these type of "gotcha" intentional misinterpretations seems unnecessary. You might have a more compelling argument if you picked any of the many things he's said where the actual intended meaning was horrible.
Actually there are quite a few instances where Trump "said the quiet part out loud", such as with the January 6 insurrection. Passing off his comments as "just Trump saying funny things" is dismissive and dangerous.
> You've highlighted a couple snippets of a quote, which taken out of context and interpreted through a cynical and paranoid lens, could be taken to mean "There won't be voting anymore after I'm elected".
When Fox News started the lie you're repeating[1], they didn't say what the context was because the context doesn't change anything about the meaning. The context, cited from a conservative news source[2]:
"We have to win this election, most important election ever. We want a landslide that’s too big to rig. If you want to save America, get your friends, get your family, get everyone you know and vote. Vote early, vote absentee, vote on Election Day. I don’t care how, but you have to get out and vote. And again, Christians, get out and vote just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what? It’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.
"I love you, Christians. I'm a Christian. I love you, get out, you gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don't have to vote again, we'll have it fixed so good you're not going to have to vote."
So, what about that context changes anything?
> Of course, everyone understands this wasn't the intended meaning, so nobody really cares.
False. It's my firm belief that the intended meaning was, in fact, "There won't be any voting anymore after I'm elected." The only people who don't understand it that way are the less extreme conservatives who are willing to give Trump an absurd amount of benefit of doubt.
Note that when asked, Trump reiterated the statement and refused to clarify.[3] It would have cost him nothing to say "I believe in democracy" or something like that, but he didn't, because he knows that a lot of his extremist base is actually on board with a dictatorship.
> Trump is legitimately pretty terrible and says and does all sorts of bad things, so focusing on these type of "gotcha" intentional misinterpretations seems unnecessary. You might have a more compelling argument if you picked any of the many things he's said where the actual intended meaning was horrible.
Then why bother defending him? Is defending someone who "is legitimately pretty terrible and says and does all sorts of bad things" really the hill you want to die on? Aren't there better people you could be defending?
[1] I'm calling this a lie because it is a lie. However, I'm not accusing you of lying--you probably believe what you're saying. Fox News on the other hand, is lying.
I don't watch Fox News, nor do I really consume any rightwing media that would repeat their messaging, so, I don't believe I'm "repeating" anything of theirs.
>So, what about that context changes anything?
He's trying to convince apathetic, disinterested non-voters to go out and vote, by making an appeal that this one-time act will fix things. This is an appealing claim to many people who believe voting doesn't matter, nothing ever gets fixed or meaningfully changes and so don't believe it's worth their effort. It's not a long-term commitment to becoming more political involved or a requirement to vote in every primary, ballot initiative, etc, it's a one-time ask.
> It's my firm belief that the intended meaning was, in fact, "There won't be any voting anymore after I'm elected."
That's unfortunate. Maybe you should try to talk to some real-world conservatives to broaden your understanding. Or at least recognize that your belief is a fringe, extremist interpretation not held by 99% of people.
>really the hill you want to die on? Aren't there better people you could be defending?
I don't believe I'm dying on a hill here? My stance is basically that Trump is terrible, and that there's no need to engage in hyperbole or dishonesty against him, and that doing so is in fact counterproductive, because it just makes it easier for the MAGA folks to ignore legitimate criticisms because they get used to tuning out the false "boy who cried wolf" ones.
In simple terms, I'm not trying to "defend" Trump here. I'm saying let's focus on the real problems, not against some strawman from an ambiguous statement. Of course, if we're a dictatorship in a few years, I'll be eating crow and I'll try to send you an apology. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> He's trying to convince apathetic, disinterested non-voters to go out and vote, by making an appeal that this one-time act will fix things. This is an appealing claim to many people who believe voting doesn't matter, nothing ever gets fixed or meaningfully changes and so don't believe it's worth their effort. It's not a long-term commitment to becoming more political involved or a requirement to vote in every primary, ballot initiative, etc, it's a one-time ask.
While I admire your optimism, this is quite a stretch. He literally said "In four years, you don't have to vote again, we'll have it fixed so good you're not going to have to vote." It's certainly more hopeful to believe he's openly abandoning the future of his party to their faces than that he's a wannabe dictator, but that's simply not plausible. He's speaking to his base, he's telling them what he thinks they want to hear. He surely doesn't think that they want to hear isn't "I don't care whether the Republicans win the 2028 election".
And, notably, this is a pretty significant change from your initial claim that I took what Trump said out of context. First it was out of context, now I'm just interpreting it uncharitably? You're just looking for another way to justify your pre-existing belief when you discovered that the context didn't support it after all. Similar to how conservatives can't seem to agree whether on their cover story: was this taken out of context, or was this a joke?
And to be clear, I'm not accusing you of any malice here; I think it's human nature to be optimistic and to feel discomfort at changing your beliefs, even in response to evidence.
> Maybe you should try to talk to some real-world conservatives to broaden your understanding.
Maybe you should make fewer assumptions about who I have and haven't talked to.
I lived in TN the last 3 years, and recently moved to KY. I have no shortage of conversations with conservatives. And I agree with you in a sense, that a huge problem in the US is that a large portion of the left doesn't understand issues that rural conservatives are trying to address because they view places like this as "flyover states"--that's a literal phrase I've heard people use unironically, and it's horrifically dismissive of human beings, citizens. There are a lot of issues I'm with conservatives on, due to my time in the rural south.
But one thing talking to conservatives will not do, is persuade you that they don't hold any extreme views. A coworker of mine recently said, roughly, that the problem with Biden is he's too weak, and we need a leader like Trump because he'll be more like Putin. A vendor at a farmstand a few weeks back shared his view that Trump is the antichrist, and we needed to elect him so he could take over the world to bring about the second coming of Jesus (bizarre, yes, but I promise you this is what he said). A guy I met online to go rock climbing, told me that letting minorities have the vote was a mistake, because democracy is supposed to be rule of the majority. These are otherwise normal people I met in real life and didn't go out of my way to find.
EDIT: Perhaps the worst example was maybe a year ago when a different coworker said that trans people are pedophiles, and I pointed out that he had a "kill your local pedophile" sticker on his truck, and asked if that meant he wanted to kill trans people to which he responded, "Yeah. But you can't just say that nowadays or people get uppity."
If anything, I'd say that if you aren't aware of the number of conservatives who are actually quite on board with authoritarianism, perhaps its you who should talk to more real-world conservatives.
And that's the conservative base, not leadership. The GOP has plenty of history of actively undermining the democratic process, from trying to stop the...
> I take heart in the US case that nearly 10 years into the Trump era the Democrats are being beaten back from "Nazi" to "Weird". My hope is that in another 5 years they'll retreat to "well we just don't agree with some of this".
This seriously minimizes the issue of the dichotomy to the point of bad faith.
Reading this with sincerity is near impossible. I sympathize with the people who complain that it takes a disproportionate amount of energy to refute nonsense. This page is full of just-so things we are supposed to take at face value and I can’t take it seriously. It’s written in a tragic comedy sort of way lacking self reflection of the situation.
I’m done pretending to play along with these narratives. This is just another propaganda piece.
Reading this with sincerity is near impossible. I sympathize with the people who complain that it takes a disproportionate amount of energy to refute nonsense. This post is full of just-so things we are supposed to take at face value and I can’t take it seriously. It’s written in a tragic comedy sort of way lacking self reflection of the situation.
I’m done pretending to play along with these narratives. This is just another propaganda post.
Would you care to elaborate a bit? It looks like you have to get quite a bit into the article before Trump is mentioned, and the article is clearly not just talking about America.
As far as I can see the biggest authoritarian conflict at play in the Americas right now is in Venezuela, not the US. Trump might model much of his behavior on Venezuelan dictators but he's currently out of power and unlikely to be elected this year. I'm more worried about 2028 when someone like DeSantis, who's policies and tendencies are already significantly more authoritarian, could be leading the Republican ticket.
There is value in educating Americans on the benefits of Democracy and the cost of giving it up regardless of who the wannabe dictator is.
Because I get enough end-of-democracy content from just about everywhere else these days and I come here for something different. It's exhausting to have to read titles like this and filter it myself, and "flag" better communicates that I think this is not just something I'm uninterested in but also something I feel violates the guidelines and shouldn't have been posted in the first place.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity.
I see no evidence that discussion on this article will evolve to be better than discussion on most political submissions, so I see no reason for it to remain on the front page.
> > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
Most.
> > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity.
Personally, I don't really consider an article talking about threats to democratic societies as a political or ideological battle. I suppose I can see why some people would though.
> I see no evidence that discussion on this article will evolve to be better than discussion on most political submissions, so I see no reason for it to remain on the front page.
Several comments on this thread, and many discussions on many political posts in the past, seem to indicate that political discussions on this site are constructive.
> It's exhausting to have to read titles like this and filter it myself
As an aside, isn't it more exhausting to go and flag it then? (Leaving alone that reading an article title is, you know, not very difficult)
Nah, flagging and hiding are just a button press away.
Coming into the article and commenting on it in response to people wondering why it got flagged is harder, but I feel like I owe it to the rest of the community to explain that there are flaggers who aren't Trump fans and just have strong opinions about what should and shouldn't go on HN.
The Orwell article isn't really about fascism, it's about the word fascism. I just found it interesting that it was already a meaningless slur by the 1940s.
I'll grant that I have posted political articles, mostly those that offer alternate perspectives to those offered by recent political articles that stayed on the front page. As you say, "most" are off-topic, and I have no problem with people disagreeing with me about which ones are and aren't. If that disagreement leads to almost all politics being purged, that's probably for the best.
There are quite a few accounts on HN that flag comments and articles that could be considered critical of Trump. They abuse the guidelines like "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle." as a censorship tool.
I'll happily flag articles that are critical of Harris and Biden too, but they seem to get flagged to death long before I get to them.
Based on what I've seen, I suspect it's more accurate to say that there are a few accounts that are consistent in flagging all political content, while a majority will only flag if they disagree with it. If you notice Trump-critical articles getting flagged more often that probably says more about your politics than the state of HN.
> If you notice Trump-critical articles getting flagged more often that probably says more about your politics than the state of HN.
How does this work? If more Trump-critical articles are being flagged... that's certainly saying something about the state of HN. I'm not sure what it indicates about my own politics?
I didn't say more Trump-critical articles are flagged, I said if you (or rather, OP) notice them more. HN leans left, but not left enough that the Harris-critical articles don't get posted at all—you just don't have an emotional reaction to them getting flagged to death and so they don't register.
I will say that Trump-critical articles definitely last longer and so you'll very likely see more of them before they disappear, which means you're likely to notice them disappear more regularly. That is part of the state of HN, so I'll grant you that—right-wing politics disappear faster than left-wing.
Well I do appreciate you telling me how I react to things, but what I really have a reaction to is posts that aren't about silly political rivalries - and that raise good points about threats to democratic societies - being flagged.
The parties follow what the voters support. If you want unpopular economic policy to have a party we need third parties to be relevant. There’s an economically progressive group in the house but they don’t have much support and in fact some of their members are defecting as they realize the stance isn’t politically relevant.
42 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 102 ms ] threadI take heart in the US case that nearly 10 years into the Trump era the Democrats are being beaten back from "Nazi" to "Weird". My hope is that in another 5 years they'll retreat to "well we just don't agree with some of this".
From my perspective, only one group wants to marginalize groups of people and roll back decades of social progress. For the people being unjustly targeted, it is becoming a fight to the death for them if they want to maintain their dignity, autonomy, and quality of life.
Not to mention the whole electing a dictator thing. Kinda weird.
There was a time when the two parties had a very different dynamic and could, at times, work together when a given policy was in line with both. I think this degraded and then the tea-party conservatives broke it for good, opting for a much more confrontational style where democrats ceased being people with a different opinion and started being 'the enemy' with whom no compromise would be entertained. This trend continued, even strengthened into MAGA trumpism. Biden's bipartisan immigration bill for example, which had many components which conservatives wanted, was rejected because Trump thought it would be seen as 'a win' for 'the other side'. I can't think of an example where a bipartisan bill was rejected by the democrats for similar reasoning.
From what I've witnessed many people see democrats being "rotten to their core" which makes the discussion not about values or policies, but fundamental stance on how to govern a country. Who cares about good points of democrats if those points are perceived to push a hidden agenda, while whatever you don't agree with is them "pushing agenda in plain view!".
The Republicans are human being who do, on a fair number of issues, have good points.
The problem is they also literally are saying:
"Christians, get out and vote! Just this time – you won’t have to do it any more!"[1]
"Get out – you gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not gonna have to vote."[1]
And they aren't afraid to put physical violence behind those words. They literally broke into the capital building.
So, the fate of the country is actually on the line.
Meanwhile, you don't seem to take any issue with Republicans saying their opponents are socialists, nazis, and communists, somehow all at once, because we want to do something as benign as provide healthcare for poor people. Is it only okay to say the fate of the country is at stake when Republicans do it?
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/27/trum...
EDIT: I'd be interested in hearing where downvoters think I'm wrong.
Of course, everyone understands this wasn't the intended meaning, so nobody really cares.
Trump is legitimately pretty terrible and says and does all sorts of bad things, so focusing on these type of "gotcha" intentional misinterpretations seems unnecessary. You might have a more compelling argument if you picked any of the many things he's said where the actual intended meaning was horrible.
When Fox News started the lie you're repeating[1], they didn't say what the context was because the context doesn't change anything about the meaning. The context, cited from a conservative news source[2]:
"We have to win this election, most important election ever. We want a landslide that’s too big to rig. If you want to save America, get your friends, get your family, get everyone you know and vote. Vote early, vote absentee, vote on Election Day. I don’t care how, but you have to get out and vote. And again, Christians, get out and vote just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what? It’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.
"I love you, Christians. I'm a Christian. I love you, get out, you gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don't have to vote again, we'll have it fixed so good you're not going to have to vote."
So, what about that context changes anything?
> Of course, everyone understands this wasn't the intended meaning, so nobody really cares.
False. It's my firm belief that the intended meaning was, in fact, "There won't be any voting anymore after I'm elected." The only people who don't understand it that way are the less extreme conservatives who are willing to give Trump an absurd amount of benefit of doubt.
Note that when asked, Trump reiterated the statement and refused to clarify.[3] It would have cost him nothing to say "I believe in democracy" or something like that, but he didn't, because he knows that a lot of his extremist base is actually on board with a dictatorship.
> Trump is legitimately pretty terrible and says and does all sorts of bad things, so focusing on these type of "gotcha" intentional misinterpretations seems unnecessary. You might have a more compelling argument if you picked any of the many things he's said where the actual intended meaning was horrible.
Then why bother defending him? Is defending someone who "is legitimately pretty terrible and says and does all sorts of bad things" really the hill you want to die on? Aren't there better people you could be defending?
[1] I'm calling this a lie because it is a lie. However, I'm not accusing you of lying--you probably believe what you're saying. Fox News on the other hand, is lying.
[2] https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/202...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/30/us/politics/trump-christi...
>When Fox News started the lie you're repeating
I don't watch Fox News, nor do I really consume any rightwing media that would repeat their messaging, so, I don't believe I'm "repeating" anything of theirs.
>So, what about that context changes anything?
He's trying to convince apathetic, disinterested non-voters to go out and vote, by making an appeal that this one-time act will fix things. This is an appealing claim to many people who believe voting doesn't matter, nothing ever gets fixed or meaningfully changes and so don't believe it's worth their effort. It's not a long-term commitment to becoming more political involved or a requirement to vote in every primary, ballot initiative, etc, it's a one-time ask.
> It's my firm belief that the intended meaning was, in fact, "There won't be any voting anymore after I'm elected."
That's unfortunate. Maybe you should try to talk to some real-world conservatives to broaden your understanding. Or at least recognize that your belief is a fringe, extremist interpretation not held by 99% of people.
>really the hill you want to die on? Aren't there better people you could be defending?
I don't believe I'm dying on a hill here? My stance is basically that Trump is terrible, and that there's no need to engage in hyperbole or dishonesty against him, and that doing so is in fact counterproductive, because it just makes it easier for the MAGA folks to ignore legitimate criticisms because they get used to tuning out the false "boy who cried wolf" ones.
In simple terms, I'm not trying to "defend" Trump here. I'm saying let's focus on the real problems, not against some strawman from an ambiguous statement. Of course, if we're a dictatorship in a few years, I'll be eating crow and I'll try to send you an apology. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
While I admire your optimism, this is quite a stretch. He literally said "In four years, you don't have to vote again, we'll have it fixed so good you're not going to have to vote." It's certainly more hopeful to believe he's openly abandoning the future of his party to their faces than that he's a wannabe dictator, but that's simply not plausible. He's speaking to his base, he's telling them what he thinks they want to hear. He surely doesn't think that they want to hear isn't "I don't care whether the Republicans win the 2028 election".
And, notably, this is a pretty significant change from your initial claim that I took what Trump said out of context. First it was out of context, now I'm just interpreting it uncharitably? You're just looking for another way to justify your pre-existing belief when you discovered that the context didn't support it after all. Similar to how conservatives can't seem to agree whether on their cover story: was this taken out of context, or was this a joke?
And to be clear, I'm not accusing you of any malice here; I think it's human nature to be optimistic and to feel discomfort at changing your beliefs, even in response to evidence.
> Maybe you should try to talk to some real-world conservatives to broaden your understanding.
Maybe you should make fewer assumptions about who I have and haven't talked to.
I lived in TN the last 3 years, and recently moved to KY. I have no shortage of conversations with conservatives. And I agree with you in a sense, that a huge problem in the US is that a large portion of the left doesn't understand issues that rural conservatives are trying to address because they view places like this as "flyover states"--that's a literal phrase I've heard people use unironically, and it's horrifically dismissive of human beings, citizens. There are a lot of issues I'm with conservatives on, due to my time in the rural south.
But one thing talking to conservatives will not do, is persuade you that they don't hold any extreme views. A coworker of mine recently said, roughly, that the problem with Biden is he's too weak, and we need a leader like Trump because he'll be more like Putin. A vendor at a farmstand a few weeks back shared his view that Trump is the antichrist, and we needed to elect him so he could take over the world to bring about the second coming of Jesus (bizarre, yes, but I promise you this is what he said). A guy I met online to go rock climbing, told me that letting minorities have the vote was a mistake, because democracy is supposed to be rule of the majority. These are otherwise normal people I met in real life and didn't go out of my way to find.
EDIT: Perhaps the worst example was maybe a year ago when a different coworker said that trans people are pedophiles, and I pointed out that he had a "kill your local pedophile" sticker on his truck, and asked if that meant he wanted to kill trans people to which he responded, "Yeah. But you can't just say that nowadays or people get uppity."
If anything, I'd say that if you aren't aware of the number of conservatives who are actually quite on board with authoritarianism, perhaps its you who should talk to more real-world conservatives.
And that's the conservative base, not leadership. The GOP has plenty of history of actively undermining the democratic process, from trying to stop the...
This seriously minimizes the issue of the dichotomy to the point of bad faith.
I’m done pretending to play along with these narratives. This is just another propaganda piece.
I’m done pretending to play along with these narratives. This is just another propaganda post.
Edit: Bit interesting that even this comment is being downvoted, with few replies.
This sort of political rhetoric has a distinct smell that is very obvious.
There is value in educating Americans on the benefits of Democracy and the cost of giving it up regardless of who the wannabe dictator is.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity.
I see no evidence that discussion on this article will evolve to be better than discussion on most political submissions, so I see no reason for it to remain on the front page.
Most.
> > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity.
Personally, I don't really consider an article talking about threats to democratic societies as a political or ideological battle. I suppose I can see why some people would though.
> I see no evidence that discussion on this article will evolve to be better than discussion on most political submissions, so I see no reason for it to remain on the front page.
Several comments on this thread, and many discussions on many political posts in the past, seem to indicate that political discussions on this site are constructive.
> It's exhausting to have to read titles like this and filter it myself
As an aside, isn't it more exhausting to go and flag it then? (Leaving alone that reading an article title is, you know, not very difficult)
Coming into the article and commenting on it in response to people wondering why it got flagged is harder, but I feel like I owe it to the rest of the community to explain that there are flaggers who aren't Trump fans and just have strong opinions about what should and shouldn't go on HN.
I'll grant that I have posted political articles, mostly those that offer alternate perspectives to those offered by recent political articles that stayed on the front page. As you say, "most" are off-topic, and I have no problem with people disagreeing with me about which ones are and aren't. If that disagreement leads to almost all politics being purged, that's probably for the best.
Based on what I've seen, I suspect it's more accurate to say that there are a few accounts that are consistent in flagging all political content, while a majority will only flag if they disagree with it. If you notice Trump-critical articles getting flagged more often that probably says more about your politics than the state of HN.
How does this work? If more Trump-critical articles are being flagged... that's certainly saying something about the state of HN. I'm not sure what it indicates about my own politics?
I will say that Trump-critical articles definitely last longer and so you'll very likely see more of them before they disappear, which means you're likely to notice them disappear more regularly. That is part of the state of HN, so I'll grant you that—right-wing politics disappear faster than left-wing.
Content is well organized. High level outline, lists authors who influence their work.
Sidebar for Journalists reveals the community this is written for.
Since it is written in 2022, I wonder if the publisher still believes the work is accurate.
Sure theres differences on social policy eg Gender rights, abortion etc.
Both Parties are captured by the Donor class.
Govt funded medical care? That doesn't have public support?