A "huge proportion" is about 10%. Republicans are 30% of the population, and only about 1/3 of Republicans self-identify as MAGA. A majority of independents vote Republican, but a negligible fraction of those identify as MAGA.
10% of the US is still huge in absolute terms, though.
> 10% of the US is still huge in absolute terms, though.
Exactly. 'Proportion' doesn't imply majority, and in a country of about 350M people, that's 35M people that look at what's happening and go "I like this!"
Considering the situation in the US with how political representation is calculated, gerrymandering, non-proportional representation of high and low-population states, that 10% of the population can easily have outsized representative power at the federal and state levels. Which is exactly what we see right now.
What the Trump presidency is doing now is exactly what they said they would do, so anyone who voted for Trump in the last presidential election directly approved of these policies. Nothing good comes from obfuscating the relationship between voting for him and supporting him.
The OP said "cheered for". Most people I know who voted for Trump claim to have done so "because the alternative is worse". They weren't cheering for Trump before or after the election.
Then the Republican party should have lost as soon as they chose Trump. He's not stable or electable. The US already had 4 years of him, and he was transparent about how he intended to run the country. Those who voted Republic knew what they were voting for, and decided that someone with fascist tendencies was who they wanted.
Yes, as far as I can tell, the marginal trump voters are less concerned about his fascism and more concerned that he's destroying the economy. I disagree, but...
> Most people I know who voted for Trump claim to have done so "because the alternative is worse".
Worse in what way exactly?
This kind of statement is a lot like the old "states' rights" pretense where the right in question was slavery -- the dishonesty is clear under even the barest comparative scrutiny.
Anyone who voted Republican knew who they were voting for. This isn't even like last time, they had 4 years of Trump, they can't claim ignorance of what he is. Trump winning the Republican leadership should have meant the GOP throwing in the towel on the election. Regardless of who the Democrats had, he should be unelectable.
I live relatively close to a fairly red-voting area of the state, and have talked to some of the people at those town halls. I got the impression that for many, their rage isn't that Trump's admin is doing these things, but that they're doing these things to them. The subtext of course is that it'd be fine if it was only happening to other people, as long as their lives weren't affected.
Anecdotally, only one person I talked to was willing to admit that they would have voted differently if they knew what was actually to come (which they should have given the first take at his presidency.) Also anecdotally, many that do seem to be raging at what's happening at the federal level don't have much concern with their local politicians being cut from more or less the same cloth. Granted the local ones, especially in lower-population areas, know they might actually have to face their constituents in their day-to-day lives, so tend to spout rhetoric without acting much on it, so there's less to rage about at them.
> I've said all along I think the MAGA cult thing is going to blow up in the faces of the people making this happen.
Maybe, but unfortunately we're all in the last radius.
> Anecdotally, only one person I talked to was willing to admit that they would have voted differently if they knew what was actually to come (which they should have given the first take at his presidency.)
One interesting thing that showed up before the US election in 2008 was the bizarrely small number of people claiming to have voted for Bush. It was a big enough effect that it messed up the polling to some extent. Some unhappy Trump voters are likely claiming not to have voted, now.
And Canada seriously (and for good reason) considering militarizing our northern/their southern border. We're run by abject morons (see the Signal Corps running our military and lying to Congress while knowing full well the reporter has receipts). A 100+ year relationship being destroyed.
Carney is now reviewing Canada's F-35 order. They'd be fools to buy from us.
Unfortunately the F35 thing is similar to many other things that are unfortunate about this relationship.
We'd be a fool to buy them, but we will be absolutely punished if we don't. Last time this was under question Bombardier -- one of our largest companies, and employers -- started to "suddenly" lose contracts in the US and the Canadian gov't backpedaled (for other reasons as well) and went ahead with the F35. They're worried that will happen again
That and so much money and time have already been invested on this, and the alternatives are not super compelling.
To people who voted for Harris, "convicted felon" expands to "see - he's unqualified!"
To people who voted for Trump, it expands to "see - he's the victim of partisan/predatory prosecution." Furthermore, it emboldens them to use the courts to advance their own partisan agenda.
It feels like the robe of impartiality has been falling away from the justice system in an alarming way. People look the other way when the lack-of-impartiality leans the direction they want (SCOTUS making up the right to an abortion in Roe v Wade), but it's scary when it goes the other way.
I dislike "convicted felon" as a descriptor for Trump. It serves as a dogwhistle rather than a helpful shorthand. He's an asshat, but he also got charged with a rare felony so his detractors could go around calling him by a name usually reserved for rapists and murderers. It doesn't signal anything meaningful, except that you're in the opposition, and it potentially riles up his adherents to also use the courts for revenge.
Lord Jesus F Christ. The author writes a complete electronics book and gives it away for free, and your entitled rectum moans about having to type $0 to get it for free?
It's not about the book's merit or its price, it's about good faith. Bushwhacking the reader with unexpected hassles won't make them feel good about clicking the link, "free" or not.
While it does come off as self-entitled, it is worth considering that there are a lot of people in the world who are competing for our attention. Sometimes legitimately, sometimes not. Even in the legitimate cases, it is enough to overload most people.
Perhaps it is better to make the point using more considerate words, something to the effect of: hey, we should be thankful that the author is providing the option to get the book for free.
I'll give Typescript yet another go. I really like it and wish I could use it. It's just that any project I start, inevitably the sourcemap chain will go wrong and I lose the ability to run the debugger in any meaningful way.
This is exactly like when you're teaching a new game to a group and you play an "open test round" - cards up and everyone can see all card/secrets and the sole purpose is for everyone to learn the game.
