I think the idea that if you don't support white supremacy you should get off the site owned and run by a clear white supremacist applies regardless of how elections go.
I recommend _Culture in Nazi Germany_ by Michael H Kater. [0] It is very dry but goes into detail of the culture of the era from late 1920s to end of WWII.
One aspect he highlights at the end is that Fascism was not rejected by the current and former citizens, those that migrated, of Germany. In their mind it was incorrectly implemented. A number of Zionist that migrated from Germany to Palestine were supporters of Fascism. It was not until mid to late 1960s when people start realize and admitted Fascism was bad.
I personally will never fund Elon Musk. Anyone that says empathy is bad is a bad person at heart. Empathy is intelligence and those that lack it lack strong intelligence. There is no way to put yourself in the position others have gone through without empathy.
I recommend _Culture in Nazi Germany_ by Michel H Kater [0] for the fact it examines the complexity of reality during this time. He actually went and talked to the musicians, actors, and writers of the era to have a better understanding of the culture and view points that the people still held after the war. I will take his expertise over those of the modern era that have not engaged with these people that lived through it.
People scoff at the idea _Jews for Hitler_. Reality is that a number of Jewish Germany actually supported Hitler and Fascism in the 1920-1930s and latter. It latches onto the idea that that modern day people would be able to pick out Fascism and reject it ... which has shown to be the opposite with populism.
By the way, I consumed _Mein Kampf_ by Adolf Hilter. It was not to align with his ideology but to understand it and have an independent reference to _like Hilter_ that politicians, the media, and pop culture use, and as a base understand of Fascism. I in fact reject Fascism, Nazism, and Adolf Hitler.
Example is that Hilter's take over of Europe was under the disguise that resources are ours for the taking and are needed to support the country. He states this in his book. This is the same statement that Donald Trump and his executive branch uses against Greenland. Yet history proved Hilter wrong. Technology is what drives the economy not direct resource access. Japan, USA, South Korea proved this after WWII.
He didn't win a majority of the vote, just a plurality. And less than 2 of 3 eligible voters actually voted. So he got about 30% of the eligible population to vote for "yay grievance hate politics!" Which is way more than it should be, but a relatively small minority compared to the voter response after all ambiguity about the hate disappeared. This is why there's been a 20+ point swing in special election outcomes since Trump started implementing all the incompetent corrupt racist asshatery.
A 2025 study... Asking people if they "would have" voted for the winner of the election, a corrupt vindictive racist asshat already in power? Well, I guess that's one way to conduct a study. Fortunately the shift in sentiment is clear, growing, and reflected in special elections.
Your theory is that people who didn't care enough to vote are concerned that Donald Trump is going to come after them if they don't say they would have voted for him, when surveyed anonymously?
And then NPR was duped into credulously reporting on this polling?
I'm saying it doesn't take much for someone to say, "yeah, I would have voted for the guy already in power". I'm surprised it wasn't much higher than that.
So no, you definitely misrepresented my theory. It doesn't take a specific threat of violence for someone to say "sure, I would have cast a vote with the winner." And yet it was only ~1.5% higher than before the election. Are you saying you don't even recognize the bias of saying "yeah, I'm good with the winner"? Or the bias of a honeymoon period? I mean, June 2025 was before 90% of his craziest shit. But you go on.
Oh sorry, you made it sound like "corrupt" and "vindictive" were somehow relevant to the polling results.
The media seemed pretty surprised by the results, which indicates that your hypothesis is perhaps not accurate. But hey, keep doubling down, moving the goalposts, etc. I'll leave you to it.
Nah, just an observation. Or my hypothesis is accurate and they were just taking it at face value like you apparently did (assuming you are posting in good faith). The click bait appeal couldn't have hurt (although I agree with your expectation that they don't usually go for that). But dippy did pull their funding after all.
My goalposts never moved. Sorry you misinterpreted a few accurate adjectives.
