I think the split is between those who recognize it as true, and those who recognize it as true, but are mad you called it out. Because "politics on hn" or "dear leader during war time".

Also, he's 79, and turning 80 this year. I'd be good with a limit of 75, which would mean no one in office at 80+.

Well, if the original article is political, the replies are likely to be political as well.

I can see the logic in the age limit, but I think the most likely scenario is that Trump stays in power until death.

No. People turned to Trump because the other side is equally ludicrous, refusing to address things as simple as urban crime and propagating meaningless feel-good solutions.

While I agree with you about the pattern of impotent feel-good solutions, let us be clear that urban crime is a municipality, or possibly state-level problem. People turned to Grump because they wanted simple answers to complex problems (validating their own egos), and they doubled down (refusing listen to their fellow citizens) out of pure mass-media-induced spite.

I don't agree at all. Both sides present simple answers. Mass media reflects liberal sentiment.

Mass media reflects top down sentiment. The red media machine frames this as "liberal" to market themselves as some alternative when the reality is that they are openly in the pocket of big business rather than even having to make a show of caring about individuals.

They both present overly simplistic answers. The blue simplistic answers generally fall short and fizzle, as they're framed in disempowering ways and neutered by corporate lobbying. The red simplistic answers cause active harm by rejecting reality and the idea of second order effects. Grump's policies are basically what the grassroots red tribe has been lusting after for decades, and the results have been disaster after disaster - regardless what one thinks effective policy should look like.

(the only two political philosophies I've been able to find that match Grumpism are anarcho-capitalism and religious fundamentalism. I used to have more of an ancap perspective, but I moved past that thanks to Yarvin's writings)

In my hometown, a seventh grade boy was strangled to death by his mom's boyfriend, who had been deported twice and convicted multiple times. It's comical to me you think people abandoned liberals out of 'pure mass-media-induced' spite. I hate this site.

For sure, that is a tragedy with failures of multiple institutions. But a single anecdote doesn't form a general argument! I would say that the main result of putting emphasis on such anecdotes is to make people crave overly simplistic solutions - that exact "mass-media-induced spite" I am talking about.

In this instance, if the murderer had been prevented from reentering the country, this murder would not have happened. Everyone can agree this would have been a much better outcome.

But we can easily imagine a slightly different situation where the mother gets deported, the kid stays here in the "care" of the boyfriend, and then gets subsequently strangled by the citizen-but-criminal boyfriend.

Without data and a logical model, we're hopelessly lost in the weeds. Data for putting in context how prevalent various types of these occurrences actually are. And a logical model that keeps the focus on the relevant details. For instance, the [presumably criminal] convictions seem much more relevant here than the immigration status. And the immigration status seems like a red herring that feeds into those simplistic answers.

It's disturbing to me that you think one criminal is representative of all immigrants. Especially considering immigrants as a whole commit fewer crimes than citizens. The immigrants, especially undocumented, mostly try to keep a low profile and work. But you, rando new account, are trying to imply they are all bloodthirsty criminals because of one tragic case you read about in the news.

Years back, there were people on this site with investments in Tesla that would mass down vote any comments negative comments about Tesla or Musk. There are people on this site currently working on DRM and online ads and regularly defend efforts to defeat ad block efforts. There are immigrants that advocate for pulling up the ladder behind them and advocate for very racist policies.

Don't take the down votes personally, just know there's really scummy people out there

> There are immigrants that advocate for pulling up the ladder behind them and advocate for very racist policies.

If you listen to the immigrants supporting "pulling up the ladder", you wouldn't be making such bad faith attacks. Typically the arguments come from legal immigrants that took no benefits, attacking policies of mass immigration or illegal immigrants and giving social benefits to immigrants. This isn't pulling up the ladder, this is a fiscally conservative view that someone who pays taxes can hold and is a reasonable policy to have.

You made up an argument to post a bunch of text. I've gone through the legal immigration process before.

You can look through my replies to find people who are not like your straw man.

I didn't downvote you, but I don't agree that he's unpredictable.

At least to me, he is very predictable. He has an MO, and he never deviates very far from it. And he publishes his stream of consciousness on social media, which exposes a lot about what he's thinking at any given moment.

I disagree.

If his decision to attack Iran was predicted, the markets would have prepared beforehand.

Nation states would have prepared.

Instead we have economic chaos the world over.

I agree with you, but most average people in the US were blindsided by his obsession with Panama, Canada, and Greenland. Remember, most average people in the US aren't thinking about other countries. Maybe Mexico. I know many older people who love Trump but don't know anything about Iran. It's very confusing, and seemingly counter to his America First and 'I only end wars' comments.