Factually, that’s what he did during his time in office as well. I’m not sure what they thought had changed.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Sounds about right. The guy is just lazy and petty. And yet, due to the outdated, slavery-era EC and the fact that 30-some percent of this country thinks this dumbphuck is the best choice for office, we just might have him in office anyway, no matter how lazy, inept and stupid he is.

  • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Ever play an arcade video game from the 1980s? I’m talking about the ones in the arcades where you had to pop a quarter into the machine to play.

    Here’s the thing about those games. The first 2 levels or so were usually pretty easy. Weak AI opponents. Easily distinguishable patterns. But then you hit level 3 or 4. And the difficultly skyrockets. With absolutely no warning. You go from “Hey, this game ain’t so bad” to regretting all of your life choices. And if you don’t know what you’re doing, you’re going to get owned, hard. Only a few people could get past a couple of levels, and only the best of the best were skilled enough to be able to play as long as they wanted until they clocked the game.

    That’s where we’re at now. Trump played those first couple of levels. Clinton was a divisive figure in her own right and treated the 2016 race like she could skate to victory too. Biden had weaknesses that Trump could easily exploit. The real game has begun and Trump has absolutely no idea how to actually play. So Trump wants to start the game over. He doesn’t want to make it to level 3 because he knows he’ll never beat level 3. He’s looking for a reset switch like on the Atari 2600 so he could keep playing the first two levels over and over and over. Because he knows how to beat those.

    But he can’t. So he’s essentially stopped playing the game. He’s telling everybody in the arcade how rigged that machine is, the joystick’s broken, and you need to hit the fire button 10, 12, 15 times for it to fire. And he’s getting jealous that all the cool kids in the mall aren’t listening to him, and are circling around the new girl who popped her quarter in and has gotten to levels Trump hasn’t even seen before, while he goes to the corner of the arcade, pops a quarter into the dusty, old Pong machine, and wonders why nobody fucking cares.

    • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      But he lost on level 2. The only candidate he’s beaten is Hillary, who’s one of the least popular politicians in the US.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      It wasn’t like a switch got flipped, no one would keep playing.

      They’d make a tiny segment super hard so you’d have to drop a couple bucks to get past it. Go back to easy for a little. Then hit another hard part.

      It’s basically the whole reason for boss fights.

      • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Once games started developing storylines, plots, etc. it was like that. It was an intentional strategy developed to keep you playing. But early developers weren’t thinking that far ahead. The idea was to give you a couple of easy levels so you feel you got your 5 minutes worth of entertainment worth, then start punishing you at level 3 or 4 so you’d lose and the next person would play.

        And some were made by simple oversight. Space invaders’ increasing difficulty was solely the result of hardware limitations of the time that just happened to result in the exact difficulty spikes they were looking for. As a programmer, I could, for example, set level 1 vs. an opponent that was slow as festering dog shit, but be lazy and just double his speed with every level. As long as the player’s speed stays the same, it would become nearly impossible to win in a couple of levels.

        Either way, the results were the same: 25 cents for about 5 minutes worth of entertainment. That was the goal of the day. As you mentioned, they fine tuned it by the mid 80s with games like Mario and the like. but those early games were meant to get you off the cabinet as quickly as possible so soneone else could pop in their quarter.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          set level 1 vs. an opponent that was slow as festering dog shit, but be lazy and just double his speed with every level. As long as the player’s speed stays the same, it would become nearly impossible to win in a couple of levels.

          Exactly, and long term people would stop playing because they always get stuck about the same time.

          It’s like how humans respond to rewards, a steady consistent reward is kind of motivating, it’s why we go to work in the morning

          But what works a shit ton better is sporadic rewards that have a tiny tiny chance of paying off.

          That’s why people get addicted to slot machines and not working at McDonald’s. If a slot machine paid out 75 cents for every dollar everytime, no one would play.

          Have them win $7.50 every tenth time they put a dollar in tho, and people will flush their entire lives away chasing that 1/10 of a time they “win”.

          So if you really want to exploit gamers, you can’t steadily increase difficulty. Linearly or exponentially, it doesn’t matter. To hook people they need those “wins” and they’ll keep dropping quarters or spinning loot boxes.

          In coin operated video games, that’s when things get easy

          A better example with Space Invaders is once they beat a level, they get to the next one and it’s slow again due to the amount of enemies on the screen. Letting the player get that easy time again hooks them. If the next level they were all as fast as the last one from last level, it wouldn’t have been as addictive

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    I mean, that’s literally how he operated when he was in the White House, how would this be a surprise to anybody? He’s where he is because of a vast propaganda network that’s working tirelessly to put him into power because he’s an incredibly useful idiot that can get people riled up. He’s not given up, he’s just getting complacent because he doesn’t believe elections or democracy matters at all.

  • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    With the Democrats sucking up all the media attention

    This article is desperately trying to change that

  • cultsuperstar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    What worries me is we’ll have a repeat of 2016 where everyone just assumed Hillary was going to win so they didn’t vote. Hopefully people will go out and vote regardless.

    • Cranakis @lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Absolutely. When I saw the headline I thought the same thing. Bad actors will try to sew exactly that thought in liberal circles as long as Dems have the momentum.

      We can’t buy into it and need to resolve ourselves to fight like hell until election day, regardless of what “the polls” or “the experts” say. We need to make Kamala win in an indisputable landslide. We need to send a message that will make Trump and his acolytes political pariahs from now on.

    • Donebrach@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      thats not entirely accurate. Yes there was not as much enthusiasm behind Hillary as there was behind Obama, and she had a lot of (mostly invented) baggage, but she lost beacause she didnt campaign in a meaningful way lost a few swing states by a small margin (because yes, most reasonable people assumed she’d be the next president—and so many reasonable people assumed that eventuality that she won the popular vote by a wide margin).

      Trump is noise and makes money for media outlets so they give him a massive and constant boost of brand recognition. They could’ve all been even mildly responsible in 2020 and just stop talking about the out of office former president but instead they kept him in the zietgeist which allowed him to run again this year.

      I am still finding hope in the fact he did not win reelection the first time against a walking corpse elder statesman, and has not won elections for most of his endorsed down-ballot candidates in the past X years.

      Anyway, people who do not want him in office should go and vote against him.

      (and people who do want to see him in office again, sorry you shouldn’t vote for a lot of reasons but the biggest one being they’ll know who you are and that’s how they get you and also vaccines are mandatory for the polls so you should stay away and they’ll also forcibly swap your genitals and ITS REALLY TRUE FOLLOW ME ON FACETUBE)

    • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      The possibility worries me, but this situation seems closer to Obama’s campaign than Hillary’s. Somewhere inbetween for sure, but people are enthusiastic.

    • Macallan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I didn’t vote for Hillary because she sucked. I voted 3rd party that election. I’m definitely voting Harris/Waltz this time.

          • spongebue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Yes, I figured as much when you said you voted 3rd party. Unless we get ranked choice or some other form of voting, we are going to get a president from one of the two main parties for the foreseeable future. Until then, a vote for the person who shares 90% of your views instead of 75% will help the guy who shares 5% of your views with you. Not to mention that the 75% candidate had about a decade of being dragged through the mud prior to the election to make her seem worse than she really is.

            • Macallan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              I (and a lot of others) are not going to “Toe the line” for whoever the DNC shoves down our throats if we don’t feel like it. The DNC learned a good lesson in 2016. I’m not ashamed that I didn’t vote for Hillary just because she was “better than Trump”. I didn’t like either candidate, so I voted third party to help boost their numbers to help get away from a 2 party system. I’m not sorry for that, and whatever shit you give me isn’t going to change my opinion.

              • Jackie's Fridge@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                “Boosting their numbers” in the single biggest election doesn’t make them a viable party. Third party candidates got an average of 5% of the vote in the 2016 presidential election (unless you include Utah to blow the bell curve to a whopping 7%).

                Getting that party’s candidates established in local governments across the nation so they gain a following, experience, and momentum is what does make them viable. It’s not easy, but it’s the only way. Zero people care who didn’t win the presidential election or why - it’s winner take all. No message is received.

                • Macallan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I don’t care. I didn’t like either candidate and voted accordingly. 2016 wasn’t my fault. Put up a better candidate and I would have voted for them.

  • nkat2112@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    This is an interesting article - thanks for sharing! I found this snippet noteworthy:

    According to one former aide who served in the White House under the former president, Trump has lost the plot.

    “The stakes for Trump this election are arguably the highest they’ve ever been. His criminal cases don’t go away if he loses. Yet he seems to be phoning it in, running a remarkably low-energy, undisciplined campaign,” explained Alyssa Farah Griffin, a former Trump spokesperson. “From spending days off the campaign trail golfing to coming up with frankly weak nicknames like ‘Kamabala,’ it feels like he’s lost his mojo.”

    That is a good point about the criminal cases not going away if he loses, right? It’s interesting how it’s openly stated by the former aide.

    I’m unable to muster any sympathy for the felon’s perpetual state of stewing.

    • APassenger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Between criminal charges, a reinvented and reinvigorated Dem campaign and havi g been grazed by a bullet… I think he he’s cratered.

      To say nothing of his noticeable cognitive decline.

    • anon6789@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      If he loses, I’m very curious to see if people in power still support him. I don’t think he will be very viable again in 4 years, physically or mentally.

      He may become more useful if they let him get eaten by the legal machine. Then they’re able to invoke his image like they do with Reagan all the time, but with some martyrdom thrown in about how those mean libs kicked a former president when he was down, nevermind he got away with the crimes he’d be charged with for about a decade by then.

      He might not ever serve time, but having everyone ignore him as useless as he sunsets might be an almost fitting punishment. We know the right struggles with empathy, so he could be facing some very frosty cold shoulders.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        The best thing that could have happened for Republicans was trump got assassinated and Biden refused to step down.

        Now they’re stuck with trump and Dems cut all their baggage by dropping their elderly infirm candidate.

        trumps only real shot is stepping down to. Letting someone else run, and counting on them to pardon everything possible and the SC to take care of the rest.

        That has a chance at least, but he can’t beat Kamala.

        • anon6789@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’m glad he put in as much effort into this as he did to stopping Covid. I think I’d have preferred Biden to Kamala, but Joe just stopped bringing it, so I was getting nervous. Without years of Sleepy Joe and Brandon memes, Trump just can’t figure it out lately, and barely seems to be trying.

          I’m in Pennsylvania, so I’m going to be voting the hell out of this election, and hopefully we’ll reach Jan 7 without drama. Then we can start getting on Kamala for her less than great positions, but until then, we got bigger things to deal with and I’m not going to crap much on the better of the 2 options. Post election is another story.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Without years of Sleepy Joe and Brandon memes,

            Fuck man…

            Are neoliberals doing that thing again where they insist their candidate is perfect and if anyone tries to point out that there are valid flaws with neoliberal politicians it’s because they fell for Republican misinformation?

            Anyone that was or is going to vote D doesn’t care what Republicans say.

            Dem voters didn’t want Biden to run against trump, Republicans did

            That should tell you all you need to know about how good of a candidate Biden was.

            • anon6789@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              I don’t believe any of it swayed any votes, but I do believe it got a significant amount of people that either wouldn’t vote or wouldn’t promote a candidate to do so. From a hype and marketing viewpoint, I don’t think one could argue MAGA has not been a tremendous success for Republicans. I don’t recall a candidate of either party owning the media or having so much merch-aganda as Trump, and it’s going to hurt them when he’s gone. No one’s going to be sporting I’m going HAM for Lindsey Graham stuff.

              I said in my original comment I’m all for getting in any candidate not doing the best thing. There were things I didn’t like about Biden, and there are a number of things about Kamala I’m not excited about, but that is hopefully next January’s problem.

              The concept of Biden as a candidate was viable, but the man himself no longer was. The Republican average Joe that was the real mass behind the MAGA movement no longer knows what to do though now that the Lock Her Up, Sleepy Joe’s Got To Go, etc is gone. It’s not just Trump with the wind knocked out of his sails, but a lot of supporters as well. Trump spoke their language, but now he’s at a loss for words, and I’m happy to see it.

              EDIT: Not me that downvoted you. I don’t downvote for disagreeing, just for misinformation or bigoted crap and you haven’t done anything like that.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                but I do believe it got a significant amount of people that either wouldn’t vote or wouldn’t promote a candidate to do so.

                No, Biden flaws made people not want to vote for him or promote him

                Harris doesn’t have that baggage, so as soon as she took over people were willing to do those things for the Dem candidate.

                They say the same shit about Kamala as Joe.

                It’s just when they said stuff about Joe, some of it was true and what anyone could tell from his incredibly limited public appearances.

                He did the lowest amount of press conferences as any president since Reagan…

                https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/21/us/politics/biden-public-appearances-media.html

                Do you really need me to tell you what common trait president Reagan and President Biden share?

                • anon6789@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  The Rs fired up for Trump and the Ds bummed at Biden are 2 separate groups. Whoever minimizes the damages from their own respective group is going to come out on top. I don’t see undecideds as a factor with as divergent as both parties are. They both had sagging bases, but the Kamala swap got one group fired up, but the other side just seems caught unprepared, and that’s why polling is flipping.

                  Whoever doesn’t think Kamala has baggage isn’t paying attention. There’s reasons she was hardly anyone’s choice last time around, and anyone reading any articles other than the kiss up ones now is already getting a reminder of those reasons. Lemmy was full of articles about dropping the anti-death penalty stance from the platform this week, for example. But there isn’t any good to come out of beating up on her about that unless she’s elected first.

        • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          The Republicans couldn’t even elect a House Speaker, you think they’ll be able to agree on a new Presidential candidate this late in the game? Trump is the only thing holding the GOP together. Without him they’ve got nothing.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Seriously?

            The one defining feature of Republican voters is their willingness to fall in line and vote for anyone with an R by their name.

            There’s some diehard Trumpers who are voting specifically for trump, but Republican turnout is fairly steady (obviously population changes in four years). What decides elections is how good a candidate Dems put forward.

            We’re the party that needs a good candidate to vote for and has to keep it’s voters happy

  • Spaceballstheusername@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Two things that are just so indictive of the Republican party are 1) the aid said trump hasnt come up with a good nickname for Harris and that’s really hurting him, like the future of democracy comes down to being able to call someone a funny name. It’s so childish and so accurate to conservative voters. 2) the blatant admitting that him getting elected is the only way he can get out of his legal troubles, admitting that he’s guilty and only if he gets special treatment by being president will he be able to avoid consequences.

  • Myxomatosis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Trump is really weak, old and tired. I prefer the younger, energetic Kamala rather than a whining, fat old man.

  • KrankyKong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Honestly, dude clearly doesn’t want this. He just doesn’t want the shame that would come with stepping down at this point.

  • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Either it’s a demotivated Trump, or it’s a Trump who figures that if he’s going on the offensive now, then the Harris campaign will still have time for a comeback.

    Friends don’t let friends get lazy, remind everyone to vote!

  • 800XL@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    That’s because he only cares about when the election happens. He has plans in place to deny the results and to send his chud army out to terrorize. That’s all he is waiting for.

    • bluemellophone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah… this feels right. He seems to have checked out because the real campaign starts once he has lost. They’d rather use their dollars shielding him from further judicial consequence and preparing to set the country on fire once he loses.

  • JaggedRobotPubes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    He knows his best shot is cheating and maybe just enough tactically deployed violence. The bigger the gap of his popular vote defeat, the more their cheating has to overcome.

    Vote.