Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On October 28 2024 11:46 Introvert wrote: Harris had a left wing voting record in the senate and the primary. Just because she's pretending that didn't happen now doesn't make it not true. At *best* you could say she's unprincipled. And it shows in her flailing around. How can you be asked twice how you are different than Biden and not have an answer? She doesn't think she should have to work for it
On October 28 2024 11:46 Introvert wrote: Harris had a left wing voting record in the senate and the primary. Just because she's pretending that didn't happen now doesn't make it not true. At *best* you could say she's unprincipled. And it shows in her flailing around. How can you be asked twice how you are different than Biden and not have an answer? She doesn't think she should have to work for it
Didn't Trump used to be a Democrat?
Even his record as a Senator was not as liberal as Kamala's, so there was no reason for him to hide/downplay/reverse away from it to appeal to centrist Democrat voters.
On October 28 2024 13:39 BlackJack wrote: It shouldn’t come as a surprise that someone chosen for their sex and race and not their merit is turning out to be a terrible candidate.
How about someone chosen for her resume, her vision for America, her actual substantive policy proposals, and her ability to speak in complete sentences without being so incoherent that the candidate needs to make up an excuse for their absurd rambling (see: Trump's self-proclaimed "weave")?
Why not talk about career prosecutor vs. career criminal? Why not talk about Harris's economic plans vs. how Trump has none? Why not talk about Harris's healthcare plans vs. how Trump has none? Why not talk about how Harris dominated Trump so hard, in their one debate, that even Trump knew not to ask for a rematch?
We really don't need to go down the DEI route again, but if *you* (not the rest of us) want to keep making this about race and sex, how about: Sure, Harris is bi-racial... and Trump is a racist and a fascist who regularly demonizes minorities and people of color. Sure, Harris is a woman... and Trump is a sexist and a rapist who successfully removed the federal right for American women to have bodily autonomy.
Trump's absolute reign of terror, lack of qualifications, criminality, and immorality are consistently overlooked and graded on an insane curve because he's a popular, rich, white guy. Harris isn't the one who's a DEI hire.
On October 28 2024 13:39 BlackJack wrote: It shouldn’t come as a surprise that someone chosen for their sex and race and not their merit is turning out to be a terrible candidate.
How about someone chosen for her resume, her vision for America, her actual substantive policy proposals, and her ability to speak in complete sentences without being so incoherent that the candidate needs to make up an excuse for their absurd rambling (see: Trump's self-proclaimed "weave")?
Why not talk about career prosecutor vs. career criminal? Why not talk about Harris's economic plans vs. how Trump has none? Why not talk about Harris's healthcare plans vs. how Trump has none? Why not talk about how Harris dominated Trump so hard, in their one debate, that even Trump knew not to ask for a rematch?
We really don't need to go down the DEI route again, but if *you* (not the rest of us) want to keep making this about race and sex, how about: Sure, Harris is bi-racial... and Trump is a racist and a fascist who regularly demonizes minorities and people of color. Sure, Harris is a woman... and Trump is a sexist and a rapist who successfully removed the federal right for American women to have bodily autonomy.
Trump's absolute reign of terror, lack of qualifications, criminality, and immorality are consistently overlooked and graded on an insane curve because he's a popular, rich, white guy. Harris isn't the one who's a DEI hire.
Are you disputing that her race and sex are not significant reasons for being chosen to balance the ticket? Are you disputing that she's not terrible anytime she's in front of a microphone unless she's doing a softball interview or has 60 minutes to edit her favorably to delete her word salad responses?
I saw a bit of this Town Hall on CNN the other night
She doesn't even attempt to answer that guy's questions. Everytime she is asked anything about immigration she repeats the same lines over and over. 1. the border has been broken for a long time 2. I'm the only person in this race that has prosecuted yadda yadda 3. Donald Trump would rather run on a problem then fix a problem. After she has exhausted all her clichés she's looking at the clock and wondering how else to kill time so she can get out of there. Anderson Cooper started clocking her so badly that he has said the next day he got a ton of backlash from Harris supporters like "How could you do this" and "This is such a betrayal." He has responded by saying he's going to ask questions he sees fit to get to the truth and "There's a reason I'm not on MSNBC." So credit to Anderson Cooper for not being a partisan hack.
Also still patiently counting down the days until Trump loses so we can here an argument that isn't "But Trump..!"
On October 25 2024 05:00 Ryzel wrote: Good lord, I was 30 pages behind a few days ago and just binged to catch up hoping I’d find something of substance. Man was I sorely mistaken. DPB and Introvert’s discussion was OK, and I think Uldridge tried his best like 10 pages ago with a particularly good question, but I can’t even remember what it was anymore because it’s been drowned in a quagmire of bullshit and bad faith discussions. Bless your heart DPB but if your intent is substantive discussions with people like the avatar of the outrage machine and a guy cosplaying as a lib normie radicalizer, you’re wasting your time.
ChristianS, farv, how much do you guys charge per 1k+ word insightful post? Is it hourly? PM me rates. I wish there was a conservative IgnE for people to engage with in good faith. Introvert is alright but I understand it’s exhausting for one person. DPB deserves better.
I appreciate the shout-out, somehow I missed this the first time. Not sure whether you’d count my recent back and forth with BJ as “insightful” though. Honestly I’ve had a lot of stuff going on in my personal life the last few months that has somewhat constrained my time (and greatly constrained my motivation) to post in the thread.
I do also think, though, that it’s a tough political moment to say anything particularly useful. Seems like we’re pretty decently likely to elect Donald Trump president again, despite his platform consisting almost entirely of promises to commit crimes and atrocities.
I’m not as confident as, say, GH that he’ll win – seems maybe 60-40 or so right now – and it seems a bit premature to start the eulogy or post-mortem.
Supposing Harris wins on Election Day, we can look forward to whatever legal and extralegal maneuvers the Trump folks will try to get into power anyway. They’ve spent a lot of time worming their way into various election administration roles in the last few years, and just generally purging their ranks of anyone who isn’t on-board with stealing the election by any means necessary, so we’ll see if any of that bears fruit. Surely they’ll do a bunch of court cases again, maybe we’ll get a test of the state legislature theory. Maybe there will be another showdown over certifying the election results on January 6th, or even another attempt at forcing a conclusion through mob violence. Maybe all of the above. Republican rhetoric has gotten pretty “Day of the Rope” this cycle, it’s hard to imagine them just standing down with an “aw shucks, better luck next time.”
But hope springs eternal, maybe we get through all that with minimal constitutional crises and a new Harris administration starts. The world is looking, uh, pretty rough. The war in Ukraine, regardless of its conclusion, makes pretty clear that the international order can’t actually stop your powerful neighbors from invading you, and at best can offer money and equipment if your citizens are prepared to pay the high price of fighting off invaders. And even that version of the international order is so much weaker now, with its moral foundation so deeply undermined in Palestine. The immediate consequences are horrific for both Ukraine and Palestine, but the medium-term consequences are maybe even worse if governments all over the world take this as a signal that conquest is back on the menu.
War and desperation create refugees and asylum seekers, which fuel right-wing authoritarian movements, which create more war and desperation, all while climate change destabilizes systems that might otherwise have withstood the war and desperation. We’re not on track for a good 21st century, and I think there’s a real possibility for it to see even worse atrocities than the 20th. But for the moment there’s not a lot to say or do except watch Pennsylvania for who is gonna squeeze out a couple thousand vote margin, because this election still has quite a lot of significance for determining which cliff we’re going to fall off first, and how soon we’ll reach it.
Well, this is what I last said, but I'd agree on roughly 60-40 favoring Trump at this point. It's sort of a silly thing to say though. Just because if the trends hold for the next week or so it could be 90-10 Trump. Then Harris could still inexplicably win and it wouldn't invalidate a theoretical 90-10 prediction for Trump
Huh, I guess I misunderstood you. I kinda figured you were already at maybe a 90-10 or so. + Show Spoiler +
And I mean, yeah, of course, any one outcome can’t prove what the probabilities are going in and we only get the one outcome, but I’m also not a Nate trying to earn credibility on my predictions so that doesn’t matter very much. Happy to concede my 60-40 prediction is not based on anything particularly rigorous or systematic and can be freely disregarded.
I don’t really buy the trendline thing though. I think people have way too automatic an impulse to predict a linear trendline on a graph and assume that’s probably what’s gonna happen even when the system you’re looking at has no reason to behave linearly like that, and in fact you can easily look at past data and see that it almost never does.
But also none of what I just said matters much, I want to resist the impulse to have horse-race discussions about whether it’s 60-40 or 55-45 or whether Trump has “momentum” or not. I’d rather argue with oblade about whether we should care that John Kelly or Mike Pence think Trump’s a fascist (and I don’t particularly want to do that either).
I said
To me the data screams Harris is on track to lose, but even I still lean towards her winning currently.
Pretty tough to understand that to mean 90-10 Trump.
Linear or not Harris is slipping and didn't knock Trump off track, so the numbers cited in my previous post have only gotten worse for Harris (except she has 1 of the top 4 buckets).
Clearly her leaning into appealing to Republicans touring with Cheney didn't stop the bleeding and could end up being a catastrophic error in the final days of her campaign. Could end up costing her what should be an easy win and deliver the end of US Democracy by personally welcoming a fascist into the whitehouse.
If there's any way for Harris to win, it'll be through a reverse Clinton where she slips through and wins MI/PA/WI (or NC I guess) because of opposition malpractice. The narrative makes sense to me, particularly in PA where GOTV infrastructure has been shifted to perpetual grifter and Dunning Kruger victim Elon Musk.
Realistically she should be losing way more than she currently is so kind of small blessings there. Actual disciplined conservatives in other countries have been turfing out incumbent parties with huge swings and obvious polls predicting those swings.
Either way, America is completely cooked. This MSG rally is probably the most cooked thing I've seen, this is not a very healthy country. Gosh I love watermelon jokes with absolutely zero set up and twist are coming back in vogue in 2024, the height of comedy right there.
I dont think there is a way for Harris to win, I stated it rather openly when she replaced Biden. Imo it was election ending choice for the Democrats.
On a side note, I saw two Biden clips, one in MAGA hat, and one where he says I am back in, and I was wondering where was this dude during his campaign. He came across funny, with healthy self distance and likeable. Few more clips like this and debate with Trump would never had to happen. Oddly Democrats decided that literally most powerful white men in the world warning people about dangers of white supremacy would be better...
Biden was toast the second that debate happened, there was just no way he could carry the electorate after that. And even if hypothetically that debate had never occurred, I can’t see some other similar disaster not occurring over the intervening months.
If not Harris, what would your alternative approach have been?
I will say that I think a younger Biden reasonably comfortably bearsTrump, or at least has a much better shot than Harris. Aside from his age the biggest milestone around his neck is was his Presidency as well though. Or more specifically, the perception of the impacts of things that occurred on his watch, regardless of them being within his power to influence all that much.
On the inverse see Trump’s consistent polling reputation for being stronger on the economy.
In a hypothetical world where term limits weren’t a thing, I think Obama of the Barack would cake Trump. But the Dems, if they have an Obama equivalent in the ranks, they haven’t come forward.
I couldn’t quantify it, I have read a lot on the subject but couldn’t be arsed googling again, perhaps in future I need to use bookmarks… people aren’t necessarily honest about these things either, if they are even aware but I do also think Harris being a chick may be a negative on her chances. As it was for Clinton, although obviously she had other flaws too. I think the corresponding uptick in female enthusiasm for a female candidate may have been achieved anyway by the galvanising effect of the repeal of Roe vs Wade
I must stress I find this a regrettable state of affairs, I personally think it is a factor too.
I’m unsure what your point is on the bolded?
I agree with Introvert that Harris have left wing voting record and i think thats her big weakness. I think Biden biggest strength was that he was seen as centre candidate, Kamala isnt and I believe Democrats have now issues with their centre. I would guess many people think that Democratic party needs some sort of reform, but from a centre candidate not left. So my approach would be to use any candidate seen as centrist, promise some restructuring of the party and federal institutions, admit that some things went wrong, and go with that. Thats why I said that if Biden picked Tulsi for VP in 2020, Democrats wouldnt have now orange problem. In all honesty though I think any centre Democrat would do. I disagree with BlackJack though that Newsom would beat Trump, I think what would happen, would be be MAGA guys holding pictures of selected bits of California asking "do you want entire country to look like this?"
“I know what Hitler has done, and I know what a fascist regime looks like. I think, as I have called for over and over again, that the level of conversation, I think we can all dial down the temperature,”
“This is America. This is New York, and I think it’s important that we allow individuals to exercise their right to get their message clear to New Yorkers,” he said. “And our job as a city and as a Police Department is to make sure they can do that in a peaceful, in a peaceful way.”
Combined with Trump rather unfortunate choice of comedian, did more for Democrats than entire Harris campaign.
As for bolded you asked about, I just find it rather ironic, or maybe even in bad taste that most powerful white person in the world warns people about "poison of white supremacy"
On October 28 2024 13:39 BlackJack wrote: It shouldn’t come as a surprise that someone chosen for their sex and race and not their merit is turning out to be a terrible candidate.
How about someone chosen for her resume, her vision for America, her actual substantive policy proposals, and her ability to speak in complete sentences without being so incoherent that the candidate needs to make up an excuse for their absurd rambling (see: Trump's self-proclaimed "weave")?
Why not talk about career prosecutor vs. career criminal? Why not talk about Harris's economic plans vs. how Trump has none? Why not talk about Harris's healthcare plans vs. how Trump has none? Why not talk about how Harris dominated Trump so hard, in their one debate, that even Trump knew not to ask for a rematch?
We really don't need to go down the DEI route again, but if *you* (not the rest of us) want to keep making this about race and sex, how about: Sure, Harris is bi-racial... and Trump is a racist and a fascist who regularly demonizes minorities and people of color. Sure, Harris is a woman... and Trump is a sexist and a rapist who successfully removed the federal right for American women to have bodily autonomy.
Trump's absolute reign of terror, lack of qualifications, criminality, and immorality are consistently overlooked and graded on an insane curve because he's a popular, rich, white guy. Harris isn't the one who's a DEI hire.
Are you disputing that her race and sex are not significant reasons for being chosen to balance the ticket?
I'm disputing your actual post before you tried moving the goalposts from "someone chosen for their sex and race and not their merit" to "Are you disputing that her race and sex are not significant reasons". We've been through this before, where you say she's unqualified and then pivot to something like "but can we at least agree that her sex and race have some significance".
Also still patiently counting down the days until Trump loses so we can here an argument that isn't "But Trump..!"
What part of "How about someone chosen for her resume" and "her vision for America" and "her actual substantive policy proposals" and "Harris's economic plans" and "Harris's healthcare plans" did you miss? If you only want to read the parts where Trump is mentioned, then of course you're going to think everything is about Trump. But Harris isn't only good relative to Trump; she's also solid on experience and substance regardless of who she's up against.
Trump is at least as much as Harris being chosen for his race and gender. If you don't believe it, you've been eating too much right-wing propaganda. If you argue Harris is a Democrat DEI, then you can't deny that Trump is at the very least the mirror example for Republicans. Personally I think he's the same exact phenomenon times ten. He's the roided up right-wing version of DEI.
Look at these graphs. Overwhelmingly Republicans are a pro-white pro-male party, still to this very day. They're still completely dominated by that demographic. Democrats are at least making a solid effort to balance things out. And surprise surprise, Democrats haven't produced a Trump-like candidate in how many decades now? It's almost as if the strategy is kinda working, wouldn't you think!
Meanwhile Republicans have Trump. Became president once and ran two more times since (and was considered several times before). They can't help themselves with their huge white male bias! They're so in love with that one single demographic that they can't find any better candidates than Trump!? After they lost vs Biden they still think he's their best option? Gee, I wonder what exactly qualifies him, it couldn't have anything to do with their overwhelmingly white male voting demographic that they very actively appeal to as much as possible! At the cost of whom? The policies tell a consistent story: black people and women are the ones under the Republican boot. You don't see how that is the right-wing version of DEI? More white men please! We can't have enough of them, no matter how incompetent or destructive they are to the country. Who cares as long as they're from the correct demographic.
If you point at flaws in DEI, by all means go ahead. But if you fail to equally point at the heavy white male bias that is causing rampant harm in US politics, then I'm not sorry to say you have a massive blind spot in your right-wing bias.
On October 28 2024 20:53 Magic Powers wrote: Trump is at least as much as Harris being chosen for his race and gender. If you don't believe it, you've been eating too much right-wing propaganda. If you argue Harris is a Democrat DEI, then you can't deny that Trump is at the very least the mirror example for Republicans. Personally I think he's the same exact phenomenon times ten. He's the roided up right-wing version of DEI.
But you don't understand. Only women and non-white people have a race and gender. Other people are just normal. So they cannot have been chosen for their race or gender.
This is why Harris literally can't win unless she does perfectly. Trump can be racist and misogynist and an anti-democratic criminal, while Harris has to have a spotless record. If Harris wins it's because of DEI. If Harris loses it proves DEI is bad. Can never win, gotta be perfect, and still it's not enough.
On October 28 2024 13:39 BlackJack wrote: It shouldn’t come as a surprise that someone chosen for their sex and race and not their merit is turning out to be a terrible candidate.
How about someone chosen for her resume, her vision for America, her actual substantive policy proposals, and her ability to speak in complete sentences without being so incoherent that the candidate needs to make up an excuse for their absurd rambling (see: Trump's self-proclaimed "weave")?
Why not talk about career prosecutor vs. career criminal? Why not talk about Harris's economic plans vs. how Trump has none? Why not talk about Harris's healthcare plans vs. how Trump has none? Why not talk about how Harris dominated Trump so hard, in their one debate, that even Trump knew not to ask for a rematch?
We really don't need to go down the DEI route again, but if *you* (not the rest of us) want to keep making this about race and sex, how about: Sure, Harris is bi-racial... and Trump is a racist and a fascist who regularly demonizes minorities and people of color. Sure, Harris is a woman... and Trump is a sexist and a rapist who successfully removed the federal right for American women to have bodily autonomy.
Trump's absolute reign of terror, lack of qualifications, criminality, and immorality are consistently overlooked and graded on an insane curve because he's a popular, rich, white guy. Harris isn't the one who's a DEI hire.
Bolded: Here is her career as a prosecutor, by back then her fellows democrats (one of them decided later that she is best choice for VP):
doesnt seem like something to be particularly proud of.
Italic - "plans" of a person somewhat corelate with competence of said person. Here is the link to fox interview you posted (I managed to withstand several minutes of it):
"The first bill, practically within hours of taking the oath, was to fix our immigration system" (also she clearly says "we" before that, so it is not just Biden) (about 2 minutes in) - thats basically admitting incompetence, if you believe there is a border crisis. If her plans for healthcare are as good as the one for the border was, you probably going to run out of space to bury people, same goes for economy.
On October 28 2024 21:37 Magic Powers wrote: This is why Harris literally can't win unless she does perfectly. Trump can be racist and misogynist and an anti-democratic criminal, while Harris has to have a spotless record. If Harris wins it's because of DEI. If Harris loses it proves DEI is bad. Can never win, gotta be perfect, and still it's not enough.
You see this everywhere. Harris gets criticised for her economic plan not being detailed enough. Trump doesn't have one. Harris gets criticised for her health plan, Trump doesn't have one. ect
Democrats have to be perfect, no one cares what Trump does. Its so incredibly stupid to watch from the outside.
On October 28 2024 21:37 Magic Powers wrote: This is why Harris literally can't win unless she does perfectly. Trump can be racist and misogynist and an anti-democratic criminal, while Harris has to have a spotless record. If Harris wins it's because of DEI. If Harris loses it proves DEI is bad. Can never win, gotta be perfect, and still it's not enough.
You see this everywhere. Harris gets criticised for her economic plan not being detailed enough. Trump doesn't have one. Harris gets criticised for her health plan, Trump doesn't have one. ect
Democrats have to be perfect, no one cares what Trump does. Its so incredibly stupid to watch from the outside.
Agreed. Rather than engage with Harris's policy proposals on their merits, it's so much easier to troll with "lol TDS".
On October 28 2024 20:59 oBlade wrote: Trump was not chosen, he was elected; there's a difference.
So if Harris gets elected president next week, she can no longer be considered an unqualified DEI hire by BlackJack and Republicans?
Correct, by that point she will have been ennobled as a Qualified DEI hire, and then after about 4 (realistically probably 1-2) years of governance could be simply known as an enormous fuck-up with no longer any attention paid to her sex or races, just like everyone else.
You know, I was just thinking how far under a rock a person would have to be living not to have absorbed some notion of what Drumpf's economic plan was over 8 years. Far be it for me to say he's perfect, but there's a noticeable difference between plans you don't like and "no plan" which is essentially an excuse not to have to think.
For anyone reading who legitimately wants to know and just takes claims like Drumpf having no economic plan at face value:
The right basically believes rising energy and runaway government spending are the causes of inflation. The latter is certainly the cause of the US being overleveraged. Why energy? Because the cost of energy affects how things run and are shipped, which has next order consequences along the entire supply chain and makes everything more expensive.
So there's two ways forward: Spend less, or get more revenue. Or both. How do you get more revenue? Either tax more, or tax from a larger pool - this is where "growth" comes in. For spend less, Elon thinks, of $10T US spending, $6.5T of which is federal, we can lose $2T. I agree. Some people may not like it, and it may even negatively affect some people, and they will vote against it, but that's not the US's problem because they will get over it and it's not the end of the world.
How do you get a larger pool? Growth, by lowering taxes for the workers - for the middle class, which Drumpf already did (or the lower class, to the extent that they pay any taxes), and lowering taxes for business contingent on doing business or manufacturing in the US - meaning you not only stop offshoring but encourage onshoring/reshoring.
Deregulation. Everything is blocked by bureaucracy and environmental grifters, so nothing can be built. Drumpf wants more US oil and gas and more nuclear energy.
Like you should be able to know Drumpf's plans simply from knowing Harris's because her plans are his from weeks to years ago just repackaged with her name on it, in an insincere bid to lure whatever voters she can by just emptily saying anything and everything. For years we heard "Drumpf's tax cuts!" and what does she propose but tax cuts. The wall was racist and she wants to build it. Hewants to tax tips, she says hey that sounds like a good proposal for the ostensible party of labor to do. She's transparently full of shit and can't speak about what she's been told to represent are good ideas to the public, vs. Drumpf who obviously has a wide and deep knowledge of the issues, and has dealt with them not only in office but his whole life. Note the American people also have a record of this working in his term pre-corona.
What's Harris's healthcare plan? Keep capping insulin to $35 again and again every news cycle, or something more substantial like adding hundreds of billions more to the deficit by forgiving medical debt the same as student loans?
Oh that reminds me of another great Harris economic plan. $20k forgivable loans for black businesses - in other words unconstitutional vote buying that she would never be able to get away with, and that she knows is overtly illegal (or should know as a lawyer, senator, and VP but I wouldn't put it past her not knowing) but promised anyway because please vote.
Haven't seen a single candidate with a plan to reform healthcare. Why do we need "healthcare plans" again? Because we spend too much on it. Drumpf passed price transparency which is important. Well, again, how do you spend less - there's a numerator and denominator. Make it cheaper, or make people need to spend less, or both. Kennedy at least wants to make the US healthy again. Too bad Harris couldn't be arsed to pick up the phone and keep him in her party.
What do we not need? The government making us spend even more on it - a la Obama.
Most of the problem is Medicaid is like 80% harvesting old people's conditions for every test and procedure imaginable on the taxpayer's bill, which is the thing Democrats always accuse Republicans of wanting to cut (out of traditional Democratic untruthfulness), which Republicans never actually want to cut, which Drumpf also doesn't want to cut, which actually all sides should be cutting into tiny pieces.
On October 28 2024 20:59 oBlade wrote: Trump was not chosen, he was elected; there's a difference.
So if Harris gets elected president next week, she can no longer be considered an unqualified DEI hire by BlackJack and Republicans?
Correct
Okay, I appreciate the consistency, even if I reject the notion that winning the election automatically makes you qualified and that losing the election automatically makes you unqualified. I guess "no longer hearing BlackJack and Republicans rant about Harris's race and sex" is yet another reason why I hope Harris beats Trump, since I'm sure that if Harris beats Trump, BlackJack and Republicans will totally stop hyperfocusing on those things.
On October 28 2024 20:59 oBlade wrote: Trump was not chosen, he was elected; there's a difference.
So if Harris gets elected president next week, she can no longer be considered an unqualified DEI hire by BlackJack and Republicans?
Correct, by that point she will have been ennobled as a Qualified DEI hire, and then after about 4 (realistically probably 1-2) years of governance could be simply known as an enormous fuck-up with no longer any attention paid to her sex or races, just like everyone else.
You know, I was just thinking how far under a rock a person would have to be living not to have absorbed some notion of what Drumpf's economic plan was over 8 years. Far be it for me to say he's perfect, but there's a noticeable difference between plans you don't like and "no plan" which is essentially an excuse not to have to think.
For anyone reading who legitimately wants to know and just takes claims like Drumpf having no economic plan at face value:
The right basically believes rising energy and runaway government spending are the causes of inflation. The latter is certainly the cause of the US being overleveraged. Why energy? Because the cost of energy affects how things run and are shipped, which has next order consequences along the entire supply chain and makes everything more expensive.
So there's two ways forward: Spend less, or get more revenue. Or both. How do you get more revenue? Either tax more, or tax from a larger pool - this is where "growth" comes in. For spend less, Elon thinks, of $10T US spending, $6.5T of which is federal, we can lose $2T. I agree. Some people may not like it, and it may even negatively affect some people, and they will vote against it, but that's not the US's problem because they will get over it and it's not the end of the world.
How do you get a larger pool? Growth, by lowering taxes for the workers - for the middle class, which Drumpf already did (or the lower class, to the extent that they pay any taxes), and lowering taxes for business contingent on doing business or manufacturing in the US - meaning you not only stop offshoring but encourage onshoring/reshoring.
Deregulation. Everything is blocked by bureaucracy and environmental grifters, so nothing can be built. Drumpf wants more US oil and gas and more nuclear energy.
Like you should be able to know Drumpf's plans simply from knowing Harris's because her plans are his from weeks to years ago just repackaged with her name on it, in an insincere bid to lure whatever voters she can by just emptily saying anything and everything. For years we heard "Drumpf's tax cuts!" and what does she propose but tax cuts. The wall was racist and she wants to build it. Hewants to tax tips, she says hey that sounds like a good proposal for the ostensible party of labor to do. She's transparently full of shit and can't speak about what she's been told to represent are good ideas to the public, vs. Drumpf who obviously has a wide and deep knowledge of the issues, and has dealt with them not only in office but his whole life. Note the American people also have a record of this working in his term pre-corona.
What's Harris's healthcare plan? Keep capping insulin to $35 again and again every news cycle, or something more substantial like adding hundreds of billions more to the deficit by forgiving medical debt the same as student loans?
Oh that reminds me of another great Harris economic plan. $20k forgivable loans for black businesses - in other words unconstitutional vote buying that she would never be able to get away with, and that she knows is overtly illegal (or should know as a lawyer, senator, and VP but I wouldn't put it past her not knowing) but promised anyway because please vote.
Haven't seen a single candidate with a plan to reform healthcare. Why do we need "healthcare plans" again? Because we spend too much on it. Drumpf passed price transparency which is important. Well, again, how do you spend less - there's a numerator and denominator. Make it cheaper, or make people need to spend less, or both. Kennedy at least wants to make the US healthy again. Too bad Harris couldn't be arsed to pick up the phone and keep him in her party.
What do we not need? The government making us spend even more on it - a la Obama.
Most of the problem is Medicaid is like 80% harvesting old people's conditions for every test and procedure imaginable on the taxpayer's bill, which is the thing Democrats always accuse Republicans of wanting to cut (out of traditional Democratic untruthfulness), which Republicans never actually want to cut, which Drumpf also doesn't want to cut, which actually all sides should be cutting into tiny pieces.
Regarding taxes: the top 1% benefitted the most from the tax cuts. This is not what workers are asking for, especially when coupled with the rising expenses in recent years. They're asking for a more fair distribution and Trump didn't give them that. People don't have more money in their pockets and the top 1% are still not contributing their fair share. Trump is playing ya'll.
EPT
