|
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.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 07 2024 05:43 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 04:53 Introvert wrote:
I have a bit of anecdata... at work taking to a 30 yr old, devout Catholic Mexican-American woman. She didn't vote, but when I brought it up she said after asking me who I wanted to win, before I even finished volunteered that Kamala was "terrible, like really bad." Said her brother voted Trump because of the economy, one sister and brother in law voted Trump also, and another sister and brother in law were also (?) Dems but undecided. "I asked why were they thinking about voting for her, she is against everything you believe."
Atm, Trump is doing far, far better with Hispanics and Catholics ever before. Sure, much of that is the economy (her brother's vote).
But...
Devout Christians knew she wasn't on their side, knew she'd use the power of the state to coerce their schools and hospitals. It might be why Trump is getting 40% in CA rn.
This actually gives me hope, nit only might we finally witness the end of the "coalition of the ascendant" thst dems have been trying to make happen for two decades now, but it seems like the categorical rejection of Harris really is a blow against Dems lurch to the left on so many social and cultural issues. Some dem senate candidates will win or almost win where Trump won, but they stayed away from Harris like the plague (Rosen in NV and Baldwin in WI). They have to at least appear more moderate. Iirc Casey in PA was running ads about working with Trump. There is no silver lining in the presidential race, she and what people thought she stood for was rejected by the most diverse Republican vote in modern history.
And finally, Trump outran the rest of the GOP everywhere. This again is giving vibes to the last century, the FDR coalition didn't crack all at once (you could argue it's still cracking) but Republicans started winning the South with the presidency before it trickled down. There is a change happening here, and it's fascinating to watch. He is not an anchor, at least not this year.
Of course we have to remember thet much of this is because Kamala Harris sucks, too. Do you believe in the separation of church and state? that the US should be a secular country? Do you think that perhaps these devout Christians actually want a Christian nationalist state that imposes their Christian values on everyone else? And also, Trump is the living embodiment of the 7 deadly sins, he fills every single one of them. lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride. I question any devout Christian that would vote for such a man.
You seem confused, perhaps. I don't know why you are going on about "Christian nationalism" (even Harris had the presence of mind to not say something like that) but I'm saying Catholics know Kamala wasn't on their side. It doesn't have anything to do with a theocracy (you are getting it mixed up because in left-wing discourse it's specifically Evangelicalism that is supposed to bring out a new Christian Nationalism. Conservative Catholics are instead just doing something like "ignoring the history of social justice in the Church"  )
|
On November 07 2024 10:19 Zambrah wrote:Hey look, some Progressive Policies won out in MISSOURI of all hellholes, https://x.com/MorePerfectUS/status/1854026971384033458Show nested quote +BREAKING: Missourians have voted to raise the statewide minimum wage to $15 by 2026 and guarantee paid sick days to workers. Yeah lets commit hard to that centrism lmao, the people hate higher wages and paid sick days
They also passed a "right to abortion" amendment to their constitution while electing Republicans as their Senator and Governor and going for Trump 59-40.
Democrats are desperately out of touch and clueless of how to build a coalition beyond browbeating anyone to their left and basically running a protection racket on people's rights. "Shame if something were to happen to all those nice rights you seem to be enjoyin' over there hun'. Lot a bad guys in this neighborhood just looking for some trouble if you know what I mean doll?"
I'm not going to stop trying but the reality is that Democrats have probably just waited too long to get their act together and they will only continue as a party so long as Republicans find their hollowed out reanimated corpse useful to keep some of their more superficial political opposition sufficiently pacified while they first deal with the more radical elements of those that oppose their fascist takeover.
|
On November 07 2024 10:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 10:20 Billyboy wrote:
I think this is some ways a double edged sword for the Republicans. They have spent a long time blaming the Dems and the "they" for all the problems. Now (especially if they win the house) they are going to have no excuses, as the Dems won't stop them and they have all the power to deal with the "they". These concepts of plans better become executable in a hurry! The double talk will also be hard to keep up, because when in power you can't say multiple different things and people take what they like. They will actually have to do things and those things are unlikely to be popular with large percentages of their current base. Like blue collar rednecks and hard core Christians might both hate" Woke Left Commmies", but outside of that they really do not have a lot in common.
Edit: They are the party of democracy, and believe in it. They will fight within the rules, that is not a bad thing. I'm with uldridge, don't race to the bottom. I always flip back and forth on this kind of thing, because I don't want Democrats to stoop down to the level of Republicans, but keeping the moral high ground while losing the election is just a stupid strategy, because it involves losing the election. I understand the perspective of not wanting a race to the bottom, but perhaps Democrats not properly participating just lets Republicans drag the country down to the bottom anyway.
There is a chance that is right, but I more agree with the rallying behind a message of hope plan that has been floated. This is the excitement Obama generated. I do believe Trump will attack your democracy, but I also believe him and those he holds closest are incompetent. They are prone to infighting and I don't expect the turnover to be less. The US is a big ship it does not get turned instantly and Trump has no way to solve the problems he has been talking about for 8 years. But he has promised to fix them. When we get to Jan 8th and Israel is still at war, North Korea and Russia are still in Ukraine he will have already shown the start of his failures. His supporters are expecting "big food", "big pharma", the Industrial military complex and the "Climate hoax" all to be solved. Most of his promises are impossible even with competent people who had plans in like a decade (or at all) let alone days.
He will keep targeting "they" groups, but it is going to be hard to keep that moving target when your main ones, the Dems, have no power. Guess we will see.
|
Northern Ireland26368 Posts
On November 07 2024 10:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 10:20 Billyboy wrote:
I think this is some ways a double edged sword for the Republicans. They have spent a long time blaming the Dems and the "they" for all the problems. Now (especially if they win the house) they are going to have no excuses, as the Dems won't stop them and they have all the power to deal with the "they". These concepts of plans better become executable in a hurry! The double talk will also be hard to keep up, because when in power you can't say multiple different things and people take what they like. They will actually have to do things and those things are unlikely to be popular with large percentages of their current base. Like blue collar rednecks and hard core Christians might both hate" Woke Left Commmies", but outside of that they really do not have a lot in common.
Edit: They are the party of democracy, and believe in it. They will fight within the rules, that is not a bad thing. I'm with uldridge, don't race to the bottom. I always flip back and forth on this kind of thing, because I don't want Democrats to stoop down to the level of Republicans, but keeping the moral high ground while losing the election is just a stupid strategy, because it involves losing the election. I understand the perspective of not wanting a race to the bottom, but perhaps Democrats not properly participating just lets Republicans drag the country down to the bottom anyway.
They’ll lose, it won’t work.
Here’s a radical idea. Take like 4 socioeconomic issues, that regularly poll 60%+ in terms of the concerns of Americans. Or 3, or 2 or whatever
Nothing else, take those and campaign hard on delivering them.
Aside from other assets his personal charisma, and ultimately it maybe not being ideal, Obama had at least the attempt of Obamacare to really hang his hat on.
‘What’s Obama want to do?’ was never really a question for the non brain-dead. Indeed the Republicans actively helped by claiming more equitable healthcare equated to death camps.
|
On November 07 2024 10:20 Billyboy wrote:
I think this is some ways a double edged sword for the Republicans. They have spent a long time blaming the Dems and the "they" for all the problems. Now (especially if they win the house) they are going to have no excuses, as the Dems won't stop them and they have all the power to deal with the "they". These concepts of plans better become executable in a hurry! The double talk will also be hard to keep up, because when in power you can't say multiple different things and people take what they like. They will actually have to do things and those things are unlikely to be popular with large percentages of their current base. Like blue collar rednecks and hard core Christians might both hate" Woke Left Commmies", but outside of that they really do not have a lot in common.
Edit: They are the party of democracy, and believe in it. They will fight within the rules, that is not a bad thing. I'm with uldridge, don't race to the bottom.
This is always the cope of the losing party. Some of it can be true as far as it goes, but no one can see the future, you'd rather win now and try to win again later.
|
Northern Ireland26368 Posts
On November 07 2024 10:46 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 10:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 07 2024 10:20 Billyboy wrote:
I think this is some ways a double edged sword for the Republicans. They have spent a long time blaming the Dems and the "they" for all the problems. Now (especially if they win the house) they are going to have no excuses, as the Dems won't stop them and they have all the power to deal with the "they". These concepts of plans better become executable in a hurry! The double talk will also be hard to keep up, because when in power you can't say multiple different things and people take what they like. They will actually have to do things and those things are unlikely to be popular with large percentages of their current base. Like blue collar rednecks and hard core Christians might both hate" Woke Left Commmies", but outside of that they really do not have a lot in common.
Edit: They are the party of democracy, and believe in it. They will fight within the rules, that is not a bad thing. I'm with uldridge, don't race to the bottom. I always flip back and forth on this kind of thing, because I don't want Democrats to stoop down to the level of Republicans, but keeping the moral high ground while losing the election is just a stupid strategy, because it involves losing the election. I understand the perspective of not wanting a race to the bottom, but perhaps Democrats not properly participating just lets Republicans drag the country down to the bottom anyway. There is a chance that is right, but I more agree with the rallying behind a message of hope plan that has been floated. This is the excitement Obama generated. I do believe Trump will attack your democracy, but I also believe him and those he holds closest are incompetent. They are prone to infighting and I don't expect the turnover to be less. The US is a big ship it does not get turned instantly and Trump has no way to solve the problems he has been talking about for 8 years. But he has promised to fix them. When we get to Jan 8th and Israel is still at war, North Korea and Russia are still in Ukraine he will have already shown the start of his failures. His supporters are expecting "big food", "big pharma", the Industrial military complex and the "Climate hoax" all to be solved. Most of his promises are impossible even with competent people who had plans in like a decade (or at all) let alone days. He will keep targeting "they" groups, but it is going to be hard to keep that moving target when your main ones, the Dems, have no power. Guess we will see.
I just must say I find it bizarre that a Supreme Court appointment is for life. We’ve many a legislator that’s been there for longer than I’ve been alive. I looked it up and it’s a lot
But you can’t be President more than twice?
I’d love the totality of how those things together make sense explained. They don’t.
I think Barack Obama needed a break for a cycle or two, both for his health and for some of the negative connotations to dissipate
I’m utterly convinced that Barack Obama running for a third term, wins it. I don’t even think it’s that close
|
Northern Ireland26368 Posts
On November 07 2024 10:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 05:43 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 04:53 Introvert wrote:
I have a bit of anecdata... at work taking to a 30 yr old, devout Catholic Mexican-American woman. She didn't vote, but when I brought it up she said after asking me who I wanted to win, before I even finished volunteered that Kamala was "terrible, like really bad." Said her brother voted Trump because of the economy, one sister and brother in law voted Trump also, and another sister and brother in law were also (?) Dems but undecided. "I asked why were they thinking about voting for her, she is against everything you believe."
Atm, Trump is doing far, far better with Hispanics and Catholics ever before. Sure, much of that is the economy (her brother's vote).
But...
Devout Christians knew she wasn't on their side, knew she'd use the power of the state to coerce their schools and hospitals. It might be why Trump is getting 40% in CA rn.
This actually gives me hope, nit only might we finally witness the end of the "coalition of the ascendant" thst dems have been trying to make happen for two decades now, but it seems like the categorical rejection of Harris really is a blow against Dems lurch to the left on so many social and cultural issues. Some dem senate candidates will win or almost win where Trump won, but they stayed away from Harris like the plague (Rosen in NV and Baldwin in WI). They have to at least appear more moderate. Iirc Casey in PA was running ads about working with Trump. There is no silver lining in the presidential race, she and what people thought she stood for was rejected by the most diverse Republican vote in modern history.
And finally, Trump outran the rest of the GOP everywhere. This again is giving vibes to the last century, the FDR coalition didn't crack all at once (you could argue it's still cracking) but Republicans started winning the South with the presidency before it trickled down. There is a change happening here, and it's fascinating to watch. He is not an anchor, at least not this year.
Of course we have to remember thet much of this is because Kamala Harris sucks, too. Do you believe in the separation of church and state? that the US should be a secular country? Do you think that perhaps these devout Christians actually want a Christian nationalist state that imposes their Christian values on everyone else? And also, Trump is the living embodiment of the 7 deadly sins, he fills every single one of them. lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride. I question any devout Christian that would vote for such a man. You seem confused, perhaps. I don't know why you are going on about "Christian nationalism" (even Harris had the presence of mind to not say something like that) but I'm saying Catholics know Kamala wasn't on their side. It doesn't have anything to do with a theocracy (you are getting it mixed up because in left-wing discourse it's specifically Evangelicalism that is supposed to bring out a new Christian Nationalism. Conservative Catholics are instead just doing something like "ignoring the history of social justice in the Church" )
Their question was what ‘Kamala not being on their side’ to paraphrase actually means and you didn’t answer it, not remotely.
|
On November 07 2024 10:56 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 10:20 Billyboy wrote:
I think this is some ways a double edged sword for the Republicans. They have spent a long time blaming the Dems and the "they" for all the problems. Now (especially if they win the house) they are going to have no excuses, as the Dems won't stop them and they have all the power to deal with the "they". These concepts of plans better become executable in a hurry! The double talk will also be hard to keep up, because when in power you can't say multiple different things and people take what they like. They will actually have to do things and those things are unlikely to be popular with large percentages of their current base. Like blue collar rednecks and hard core Christians might both hate" Woke Left Commmies", but outside of that they really do not have a lot in common.
Edit: They are the party of democracy, and believe in it. They will fight within the rules, that is not a bad thing. I'm with uldridge, don't race to the bottom. This is always the cope of the losing party. Some of it can be true as far as it goes, but no one can see the future, you'd rather win now and try to win again later.
There is cope here no doubt about that, I'd rather have had Harris win. But she didn't and I think looking for positives that came come out from it is a lot better cope than pretending you actually won and trying to overthrow the democracy. Would you not agree?
Trump only cares about Trump and right now he is on your team, but he does not have a history of supporting those who support him once they are no longer useful (not just his recent staff but think of all the contractors (small guys) that he has stepped on and boasted about). You are crazy if you think he is going to do things to help Catholics, he has lived his life way closer to a hedonist than to Jesus, that is just fact. I get the winning at all costs strategy and I get that SC thing because of how fucked your system is. But you also have to realize there has been a huge cost to bringing what he brings to get the win. Now we shall find out if the cost was worth it, for just about anyone other than Trump. I mean all the secret service who get to stay in the most expensive Trump hotels while protecting him on his extreme amount of Golf and luxury vacations will almost certainly win (unless they are shot), but that is because it directly helps Trump. Most people can't directly help Trump any more, so I predict they are going to find out what everyone else close to him has found out, that he only cares about him to the extreme.
|
United States43681 Posts
On November 07 2024 10:47 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 10:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 07 2024 10:20 Billyboy wrote:
I think this is some ways a double edged sword for the Republicans. They have spent a long time blaming the Dems and the "they" for all the problems. Now (especially if they win the house) they are going to have no excuses, as the Dems won't stop them and they have all the power to deal with the "they". These concepts of plans better become executable in a hurry! The double talk will also be hard to keep up, because when in power you can't say multiple different things and people take what they like. They will actually have to do things and those things are unlikely to be popular with large percentages of their current base. Like blue collar rednecks and hard core Christians might both hate" Woke Left Commmies", but outside of that they really do not have a lot in common.
Edit: They are the party of democracy, and believe in it. They will fight within the rules, that is not a bad thing. I'm with uldridge, don't race to the bottom. I always flip back and forth on this kind of thing, because I don't want Democrats to stoop down to the level of Republicans, but keeping the moral high ground while losing the election is just a stupid strategy, because it involves losing the election. I understand the perspective of not wanting a race to the bottom, but perhaps Democrats not properly participating just lets Republicans drag the country down to the bottom anyway. They’ll lose, it won’t work. Here’s a radical idea. Take like 4 socioeconomic issues, that regularly poll 60%+ in terms of the concerns of Americans. Or 3, or 2 or whatever Nothing else, take those and campaign hard on delivering them. Aside from other assets his personal charisma, and ultimately it maybe not being ideal, Obama had at least the attempt of Obamacare to really hang his hat on. ‘What’s Obama want to do?’ was never really a question for the non brain-dead. Indeed the Republicans actively helped by claiming more equitable healthcare equated to death camps.
Inflation was a key issue and the administration that just got kicked out delivered the very successful Inflation Reduction Act and achieved the best inflation in the world.
The American voting public literally do not care.
|
They dont care about inflation, they care about prices and prices are still real shitty, Americans just cant tell the fuckin' difference, probably from some combination of ignorance, illiteracy, and Fox News
|
How many total crimes was Trump accused of, across the 4 indictments? Around 88?
It's probably safe to say that no other trials are going to happen or charges resolved, with Trump becoming president again and being able to appoint his own Attorney General (and Aileen Cannon's stalling), right? It looks like the 34 charges that were already decided in 1 of the indictments (100% all guilty, all felony convictions) are going to be all we get closure on. The other 54(?) charges aren't ever really going to be evaluated?
|
On November 07 2024 12:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
How many total crimes was Trump accused of, across the 4 indictments? Around 88?
It's probably safe to say that no other trials are going to happen or charges resolved, with Trump becoming president again and being able to appoint his own Attorney General (and Aileen Cannon's stalling), right? It looks like the 34 charges that were already decided in 1 of the indictments (100% all guilty, all felony convictions) are going to be all we get closure on. The other 54(?) charges aren't ever really going to be evaluated?
Saw something anonymous from MSNBC saying they were basically looking at how to wind down the cases at DOJ but even the 34 felony convictions are probably going to evaporate now.
|
On November 07 2024 12:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 12:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
How many total crimes was Trump accused of, across the 4 indictments? Around 88?
It's probably safe to say that no other trials are going to happen or charges resolved, with Trump becoming president again and being able to appoint his own Attorney General (and Aileen Cannon's stalling), right? It looks like the 34 charges that were already decided in 1 of the indictments (100% all guilty, all felony convictions) are going to be all we get closure on. The other 54(?) charges aren't ever really going to be evaluated? Saw something anonymous from MSNBC saying they were basically looking at how to wind down the cases at DOJ but even the 34 felony convictions are probably going to evaporate now.
What does that mean / How would that happen?
|
On November 07 2024 12:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 12:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2024 12:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
How many total crimes was Trump accused of, across the 4 indictments? Around 88?
It's probably safe to say that no other trials are going to happen or charges resolved, with Trump becoming president again and being able to appoint his own Attorney General (and Aileen Cannon's stalling), right? It looks like the 34 charges that were already decided in 1 of the indictments (100% all guilty, all felony convictions) are going to be all we get closure on. The other 54(?) charges aren't ever really going to be evaluated? Saw something anonymous from MSNBC saying they were basically looking at how to wind down the cases at DOJ but even the 34 felony convictions are probably going to evaporate now. What does that mean / How would that happen?
CNN put it like this:
Whether that sentencing happens at all remains an open question.
The Trump legal team is going to try to make sure the sentencing does not occur. In the past it has been focused on delaying proceedings in the case, but now it is going to try to get it canceled altogether, according to a source familiar with the strategy.
Trump’s attorneys are expected to enter a filing in the coming days arguing that as a president-elect, he is entitled to the same constitutional protections as a sitting president and should be protected from any action by state prosecutors.
The filing is expected before Judge Juan Merchan’s self-imposed deadline of November 12 to decide whether to wipe away Trump’s conviction because of the Supreme Court’s decision this summer granting a president some presidential immunity. If Merchan decides to wipe away the conviction, the charges would be dismissed, and Trump would not be sentenced.
But if the judge decides to keep the conviction intact, the former president’s lawyers are expected to ask Merchan to delay Trump’s sentencing so they can appeal. And if that’s not granted, his attorneys are planning to appeal the immunity decision to state appellate courts and potentially all the way to the US Supreme Court to ask the courts to delay Trump’s sentencing until all appeals are exhausted, which could take months.
www.cnn.com
|
United States43681 Posts
On November 07 2024 11:43 Zambrah wrote:
They dont care about inflation, they care about prices and prices are still real shitty, Americans just cant tell the fuckin' difference, probably from some combination of ignorance, illiteracy, and Fox News
They're really not though. Prices aren't that high outside of rent/real estate which was inflated by Trump's monetary policy. When you bring that many future dollars into the present then those who have access to them will use them to buy real property. It triggered a speculative surge on real estate and stocks. But the price of bread is fine.
|
On November 07 2024 11:01 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 10:42 Introvert wrote:On November 07 2024 05:43 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 04:53 Introvert wrote:
I have a bit of anecdata... at work taking to a 30 yr old, devout Catholic Mexican-American woman. She didn't vote, but when I brought it up she said after asking me who I wanted to win, before I even finished volunteered that Kamala was "terrible, like really bad." Said her brother voted Trump because of the economy, one sister and brother in law voted Trump also, and another sister and brother in law were also (?) Dems but undecided. "I asked why were they thinking about voting for her, she is against everything you believe."
Atm, Trump is doing far, far better with Hispanics and Catholics ever before. Sure, much of that is the economy (her brother's vote).
But...
Devout Christians knew she wasn't on their side, knew she'd use the power of the state to coerce their schools and hospitals. It might be why Trump is getting 40% in CA rn.
This actually gives me hope, nit only might we finally witness the end of the "coalition of the ascendant" thst dems have been trying to make happen for two decades now, but it seems like the categorical rejection of Harris really is a blow against Dems lurch to the left on so many social and cultural issues. Some dem senate candidates will win or almost win where Trump won, but they stayed away from Harris like the plague (Rosen in NV and Baldwin in WI). They have to at least appear more moderate. Iirc Casey in PA was running ads about working with Trump. There is no silver lining in the presidential race, she and what people thought she stood for was rejected by the most diverse Republican vote in modern history.
And finally, Trump outran the rest of the GOP everywhere. This again is giving vibes to the last century, the FDR coalition didn't crack all at once (you could argue it's still cracking) but Republicans started winning the South with the presidency before it trickled down. There is a change happening here, and it's fascinating to watch. He is not an anchor, at least not this year.
Of course we have to remember thet much of this is because Kamala Harris sucks, too. Do you believe in the separation of church and state? that the US should be a secular country? Do you think that perhaps these devout Christians actually want a Christian nationalist state that imposes their Christian values on everyone else? And also, Trump is the living embodiment of the 7 deadly sins, he fills every single one of them. lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride. I question any devout Christian that would vote for such a man. You seem confused, perhaps. I don't know why you are going on about "Christian nationalism" (even Harris had the presence of mind to not say something like that) but I'm saying Catholics know Kamala wasn't on their side. It doesn't have anything to do with a theocracy (you are getting it mixed up because in left-wing discourse it's specifically Evangelicalism that is supposed to bring out a new Christian Nationalism. Conservative Catholics are instead just doing something like "ignoring the history of social justice in the Church" ) Their question was what ‘Kamala not being on their side’ to paraphrase actually means and you didn’t answer it, not remotely.
hmm, I read no such question of any sort (besides the rhetorical kind) but I guess to that I would quickly say
Her refusal to give any quarter to those people or institutions who might disagree with her. as an example, her questioning of Catholic juridical nominees for their membership in a mainstream fraternal organization. And sure, the Al Smith dinner is a hoity-toity event, but she couldn't be bothered to show up there either. With her in charge the DOJ would probably return to the practice of suing nuns. And never mind how the Biden administration has totally thrown the book at people outside abortion clinics while left-wing violence is treated with kid gloves. Overall there's no reason to think Kamala Harris has any room for people of faith.
**
Not sure if people touting the "Inflation Reduction Act" as actually having a meaningful impact on inflation are ignorant (hard to believe) or just being deceptive. Biden, in one of his moments of accidental honesty, said when touting the 'green' parts of the bill "we should have called it what it was." It was a climate spending bill, "Inflation Reduction Act" was, iirc a name Manchin gave it because he thought it would sound better. Very cynical politics that should only work on people ignorant of its contents.
|
United States43681 Posts
On November 07 2024 12:48 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 11:01 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2024 10:42 Introvert wrote:On November 07 2024 05:43 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 04:53 Introvert wrote:
I have a bit of anecdata... at work taking to a 30 yr old, devout Catholic Mexican-American woman. She didn't vote, but when I brought it up she said after asking me who I wanted to win, before I even finished volunteered that Kamala was "terrible, like really bad." Said her brother voted Trump because of the economy, one sister and brother in law voted Trump also, and another sister and brother in law were also (?) Dems but undecided. "I asked why were they thinking about voting for her, she is against everything you believe."
Atm, Trump is doing far, far better with Hispanics and Catholics ever before. Sure, much of that is the economy (her brother's vote).
But...
Devout Christians knew she wasn't on their side, knew she'd use the power of the state to coerce their schools and hospitals. It might be why Trump is getting 40% in CA rn.
This actually gives me hope, nit only might we finally witness the end of the "coalition of the ascendant" thst dems have been trying to make happen for two decades now, but it seems like the categorical rejection of Harris really is a blow against Dems lurch to the left on so many social and cultural issues. Some dem senate candidates will win or almost win where Trump won, but they stayed away from Harris like the plague (Rosen in NV and Baldwin in WI). They have to at least appear more moderate. Iirc Casey in PA was running ads about working with Trump. There is no silver lining in the presidential race, she and what people thought she stood for was rejected by the most diverse Republican vote in modern history.
And finally, Trump outran the rest of the GOP everywhere. This again is giving vibes to the last century, the FDR coalition didn't crack all at once (you could argue it's still cracking) but Republicans started winning the South with the presidency before it trickled down. There is a change happening here, and it's fascinating to watch. He is not an anchor, at least not this year.
Of course we have to remember thet much of this is because Kamala Harris sucks, too. Do you believe in the separation of church and state? that the US should be a secular country? Do you think that perhaps these devout Christians actually want a Christian nationalist state that imposes their Christian values on everyone else? And also, Trump is the living embodiment of the 7 deadly sins, he fills every single one of them. lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride. I question any devout Christian that would vote for such a man. You seem confused, perhaps. I don't know why you are going on about "Christian nationalism" (even Harris had the presence of mind to not say something like that) but I'm saying Catholics know Kamala wasn't on their side. It doesn't have anything to do with a theocracy (you are getting it mixed up because in left-wing discourse it's specifically Evangelicalism that is supposed to bring out a new Christian Nationalism. Conservative Catholics are instead just doing something like "ignoring the history of social justice in the Church" ) Their question was what ‘Kamala not being on their side’ to paraphrase actually means and you didn’t answer it, not remotely. hmm, I read no such question of any sort (besides the rhetorical kind) but I guess to that I would quickly say Her refusal to give any quarter to those people or institutions who might disagree with her. as an example, her questioning of Catholic juridical nominees for their membership in a mainstream fraternal organization. And sure, the Al Smith dinner is a hoighty toighty event, but she couldn't be bothered to show up there either. With her in charge the DOJ would probably return to the practice of suing nuns. And never mind how the Biden administration has totally thrown the book at people outside abortion clinics while left-wing violence is treated with kid gloves. Overall there's no reason to think Kamala Harris has any room for people of faith. ** Not sure if people touting the "Inflation Reduction Act" as actually having a meaningful impact on inflation are ignorant (hard to believe) or just being deceptive. Biden, in one of his moments of accidental honesty, said when touting the 'green' parts of the bill "we should have called it what it was." It was a climate spending bill, "Inflation Reduction Act" was, iirc a name Manchin gave it because he thought it would sound better. Very cynical politics that should only work on people ignorant of its contents.
Is your position that Biden's America didn't achieve better reductions in inflation than any other benchmark nation or is it that they did successfully reduce inflation but that the reduction in inflation was unrelated to the inflation reduction act?
|
From what I remember inflation was largely "reined* in" to the degree it has been by the Fed basically saying they were going to fuck over workers until it wasn't a problem.
|
United States43681 Posts
On November 07 2024 12:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
From what I remember inflation was largely "reigned in" to the degree it has been by the Fed basically saying they were going to fuck over workers until it wasn't a problem.
And yet wages are dramatically up, especially compared to benchmark nations. Also reined. You rein in a horse. You reign in a kingdom.
|
On November 07 2024 12:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 12:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
From what I remember inflation was largely "reined* in" to the degree it has been by the Fed basically saying they were going to fuck over workers until it wasn't a problem. And yet wages are dramatically up, especially compared to benchmark nations.
When you actually talk to workers, particularly under ~$100k/yr, they know their checks aren't going as far as they used to.
There's a variety of ways that a lack of increases in real wages and actual increases in CoL are lost in statistics that try to capture them, but the reality is this economy is shit for a lot of people, even if it could be a lot worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
