Trump won because the majority of the electorate (out of those who made the effort to cast a vote) didn't feel any of Trump's previous transgressions disqualified him from holding office again. That's the real issue here. You keep talking about a woulda-coulda-shoulda scenario based on razor thin margins, and I'm here saying that in a sane society, a race against Trump shouldn't even be close in the first place, and when it is, that's the real problem.

I would say the real problem is that people were more willing to accept his previous transgressions than accept the policy Democrats were pushing . It really bugs me that Democrats gloss over this fact. Biden's policies were unpopular, and Harris accepted the exact same mantra and was just as unpopular. Much of Trump's current agenda is still relatively popular: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcis.org%2FArthur%2FDeporta...
Most of it fails in the extreme and haphazard/illegal/unconstitutional manner in which he's implementing it. That's what people don't like. They like what he's doing, just not how he's doing it. For instance, if he was in solidarity with our allies and only trade warring China, or if he was deporting people constitutionally, he'd be the most popular president ever.

To me, it reads like a large portion of the country were glad that somebody, anybody, finally was willing to do something about the blaise attitude previous presidents have been taking on issues like the border and illegal entries. Similar with issues like being tough on China, govt debt spending, DEI overreach, etc. These are all issues a good chunk of the country cares about that Democrats continue to be on the wrong side of every administration, and in this two party govt, people are always forced to choose the lesser evil. In this case, people looked at Trump's mostly benign first term and believed the tradeoff was worth the risk. And now they're finding out that's not the case. And my proof of this is that the swing voters have all changed their mind about him: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Ftru...

No they are not. EV owners are taxed at a higher rate. There are plenty of rich people who only drive ICE vehicles.

It's like you're not even reading the words I write. A far greater number of higher income people drive EV vehicles than poor people: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.parking-mobility.o.... That's a fact. " About 60% of EV owners have an annual income of more than $100,000, while only 20% have an annual income of less than $50,000."

By taxing EVs, you're hitting far more high income individuals than lower income.

That's not what DEI is. That's what right-wing media has told you DEI is. DEI tends to involve things like removing names from applications and resumes so that people don't choose, consciously or unconsciously, based on the perceived racial/ethnic background of the applicant. It's things like making sure outreach and recruiting efforts aren't skipping over underrepresented areas

That's not what DEI is. That's what left-wing media has told you DEI is.

In reality, it's both . The "good DEI concepts" went way too far and started adopting things like defacto quotas (see modern day college admissions, or "Biden: the next Supreme Court member will be a black woman, nobody else need bother to apply"). And the current Republican govt is overreacting and labelling all DEI bad, instead of just the overreach. If the Dems ran DEI on equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome, they wouldn't get nearly as much pushback. The resume concept is actually solid practice, but that's like a very small percentage of the whole of what DEI is doing.

In other words, you think a tax increase for everyone is okay, because other people who are not you will be taxed even more.

I never said it was "okay". I said it wasn't regressive . Our current income tax brackets for instance are progressive because rich people are taxed at higher rates than poor people. Similarly, this is a progressive tax.

More accurately it's "everything bad you accuse us of doing we feel Democrats have already done so we are absolutely justified in doing 10x worse"

100% this. And it's a damn shame the Democrats gave them this out. When Clinton happened, Dems around the country shrugged and went "meh". Now, the exact same thing happens with Trump and Dems are losing their minds (and rightfully so), and the hypocrisy on both sides is staggering in giving their side a pass.

while Mexican workers are far more expensive than Chinese ones

That's untrue. Mexico has had a wage advantage over China for at least a decade or more: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftacna.net%2Fmanufacturin...

That advantage will likely only increase in the long term since Mexico's workforce is growing, whereas China's is shrinking.

How has the national highway system functioned so long before now without a national registration tax?

Traditionally from gas taxes, which is a slowing and soon declining income source, if the future of automobiles is to be electric. You need some other source of revenue as that gas tax income goes away over time. Moreover, the EV owners should be contributing something to road maintenance. Since they don't pay gas tax, they effectively aren't contributing at all. And they're some of the heaviest vehicles on the road as well, as compared to ICE vehicles.

How has the national highway system functioned so long before now without a national registration tax? They are not just proposing a tax on EVs, they are proposing a new tax on everyone.

Per the referenced article, the EV fee is $200/yr (starting now) and the ICE fee is $20/yr (starting in 2030). So from a realistic perspective looking at those numbers, this is an EV-only tax. Which I still label as not regressive

Just like the tariffs, just another regressive tax proposal brought to you by republicans.

How exactly is this regressive? EV ownership is significantly correlated with high income. Moreover, EVs generally dodge alot of road repair fees they should be paying anyways since the transportation budget largely comes from gas taxes. This fee makes sense.

In no way are the Democrats left-wing. They are overwhelmingly of the centre. It is center/right Democrats vs far-right Republicans. Calling the Democrats left-wing is just nonsense

You sound like an asshole when you make statements like this. When people refer to "left"/"right", it's relative to the country, not the globe. And you know it.

And if you really want to play those games, I guess America doesn't have any poor people. You know, since our poor are richer on average than most European nations? Since that's your yardstick, be consistent. You solved poverty. Good job.

Had a second person hit the jackpot, wouldn't they have netted a substantial loss?

I mean, if both China and USA decide to piss off the entire world, what's the world REALLY going to do about it? EU sure as heck isn't going to handle it. They can't even handle their own backyard problems with Russia without needing America involved. If EU does ramp up their military, it will have to come at a cost to something else in their budget. Hard to have a good military and lavish social systems at the same time. Things are expensive.

I mean they absolutely can handle their backyard problems. They just choose not to. Like you said, they decide where their budget goes.

Ask yourself this question: where is the refining of rare earths conducted, for basically the entire world? Answer: China. Because it's spectacularly polluting and China doesn't give a fuck.

Where's all the green eco-nuts I always see popping up on Slashdot every day. Why aren't they dancing in the streets over this?

It really only takes one side to destroy a relationship. You can have a great relationship with someone and then punch them in the face and see what happens.

Incorrect analogy. What you're saying is that one of your friends punches you in the face, therefore you hate all your friends. Or an abusive husband punches you, therefore you hate all men. Some amount of lasting damage will be done to the US relationship for sure, as guaranteed reliability will no longer be a foregone conclusion, but these countries aren't going to wholesale abandon the US just because one individual went full asshole. They're not that stupid. For instance, there's 340 million people in this country -- only 28% of them supported Canada tariffs: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fnews%2F...

In another example, even Zelensky recognizes that he has the support of the US people even though he doesn't have the administration on his side. That's why he goes out of his way to thank the citizens specifically in his interviews.

Wages are much lower than when we were kid

That's a decade(s) old talking point that's no longer true: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffred.stlouisfed.org%2Fse...

Fun fact if you're over 40 80% of your college was paid for by the government. If you're under 40 it's 30%.

Do you have a cite for this? Genuinely curious.

In a few short months that Trump has undone about 80 years of goodwill from the rest of the world

If it's truly as easy as you claim to achieve such a feat, that relationship was pretty weak to begin with.