I think Harris will win. I will vote for Trump, strictly on his empirical record. The fundamentally ad hominem arguments against him (which you perpetuate here) don't matter to me. Also, claims he is a fascist or a Nazi or will "use the military against political opponents" is pure projection by those who do not know what those words mean, and a demand to interpret his political rhetoric not only literally, but according to the most hostile interpretation you can come up with.
Yet those people can excuse and apologize for "put him in the crosshairs" [Biden] or "slit his throat" [Carville]." And I can't think of much more evil than the comment I heard while spending time with a Democratic friend of mine to the attempted assassination: "too bad he missed." I know these are good people, so I don't assume they really feel this way - but those kinds of comments aren't funny. And no Republican or Trump Supporter I know would ever say them had that happened to Biden or Harris.
I know that many likely to read this will want to attack this position, and I don't have time to prepare prebuttals nor to answer such attacks -- but based strictly on objective criteria, Trump is so much better than either Obama or Biden (and by extension, Kamala, who will be Obama turned up one louder but without the smooth articulation) that there is no comparison.
I will add that I have no personal animus against Harris. In fact, I find the name-calling and ad hominem in both directions to be puerile. I might well prefer to have Harris over for dinner compared to Trump (and would say the same about Biden and Obama). But she won't be able to filibuster me at my own dinner table.
Perhaps no Republican or Trump Supporter YOU know would ever say them is true, but need I remind you how both Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson have been lamenting on camera that no one has tried to assassinate Harris or Walz?
Clearly nothing that is factual-based will matter to you. We don't need your vote. Good luck to you regardless of the outcome.
"Clearly nothing that is factual will matter to you."
It's almost like you didn't read my posting. I don't care about the ad hominem BS. It is not relevant. I am ONLY looking at the empirical results of Trump's presidency and the empirical results of Biden's presidency, and the likely empirical results of Harris' presidency (which I predict will be as bad or worse than Biden's).
My point is that that kind of political rhetoric shouldn't be used by ANYONE, but it cannot be taken literally (plus, saying "why hasn't anyone shot at Harris or Walz" is NOT equivalent to saying "too bad they missed" if they missed," or reveling in a successful attempt). But the campaign against Trump is based on not only interpreting such language literally but demanding that the most extreme hostile interpretation must be applied.
I have nothing against Kamala Harris. I will not be happy if she is elected, but I will survive. And she may even surprise me and do better than Biden. But I doubt it. When her first impulse is to introduce "anti-gouging" legislation, that betrays profound economic ignorance and a strongly socialistic ideation. Everyone else in the West abandoned socialism no later than 1972; why on Earth would anyone want to bring it back? The government sticking its nose in the pricing mechanism NEVER ends well, and holding a price below market levels always means SHORTAGES.
I grew up in a 50-50 D-R family, so politics were discussed often and loudly, but NEVER created the bizarre schism and tendency to describe Republicans as "fascists" and "Nazis" (which started with Eisenhower, the man most directly responsible for destroying fascism).
Perhaps you should consider reading dissonant comments as if the poster was a friend or family member, rather than an enemy. I am a friend, but I am loaded for bear when it comes to the current political conflicts.😉
Empirical results? What can you possibly point to? Empirical definition= based on, concerned with, verifiable by observation rather than theory
Compare: Dow Jones Nov 2020= 29,000
Now 2024=42,000
Unemployment Nov 2020=6.7%
Now=4.1%
US FY deficit Nov 2020=3.1 trillion
US FY deficit 2024=1.83 trillion
The current US economy is considered the envy of the developed world. Despite the Covid-caused inflation rate in the US, our rate is lower than other first world countries and has declined.
As to socialism, to state that Harris is socialist is opinion, not fact. Harris has never advocated socialism. Further, the Nordic countries for which the model is a blend of capitalism and socialism are often graded as having the most satisfied populations.
Social Security, on which many people depend, is within a socialist model. Same for Medicare. These are cherished, even if socialist, institutions in our country today.
Abortion was, in fact, a right, as decided by SCOTUS, in the US until recent times. What a former SCOTUS justice said after the fact is irrelevant. It is no longer a right, as decided by SCOTUS. Hence, a right removed.
As to the need for emotional support...good on you that you don't need it. But as we all know, emotions are personal, and to each his/her own. Who's to decide what emotional support others might need or want? For myself, when a person who is a candidate for president uses phrases that call to mind the Nazi regime, one of history's preeminent atrocities -"poisoning the blood"- I could use a bit of emotional support to strengthen me in the fight to keep that candidate from gaining the power to institute his vision.
We don't yet know just how Harris might try to bring down prices. Price fixing collusion by companies is illegal. Perhaps she will advise Justice to look at that. Perhaps public shaming. I would love to hear some shaming of the corps whose CEO's bragged about increasing their prices beyond inflation on publicly available conference calls.
My understanding is that the employers in Springfield, Ohio are very pleased to have enthusiastic workers. Disruptions might occur with a large influx of immigrants, but disruptions can be managed and alleviated, as they seemed to do in Springfield, before MAGA came to town.
I do not intend to continue with this discussion - too many other, more important, things to do. When I see the word empirical used instead of 'my opinion' I want to set the record straight.
Ah, someone doesn't like dissonant feedback. The word "empirical" is the correct word and has nothing to do with my opinion. But I'm glad you asked.
Compare: cumulative inflation 2017-2020 <8%, versus 24% to date for 2021-2024.
Compare: real income growth 9% (>14% for the first quintile a/k/a "the poor") 2017-2020, versus -1% to 1% 2021-2024.
Compare: fuel price averages 2017-2020 averaged $2.31 per gallon, versus $3.61 for 2021-2024 Q2.
Compare: energy costs 2017-2020 between 25-35% lower than levels between 2021-2024.
I can keep going. These are indeed measurable quantities
As to your claims:
1. The DJIA is not a reliable indicator of economy to anyone but stock traders.
2. Trump's average unemployment rate was lower than Biden's until Q2 2020 and COVID, and such unemployment as did occur was ENTIRELY the result of state-level business lockdowns (something the federal government has no power to enforce or prevent).
3. "The current US economy..." is considered a fail by over 60% of Americans who are worse off than they were four years ago.
"As to socialism..."
I didn't say Harris was a socialist. I said government attempts to interfere in the systemic process of price coordination is SOCIALISTIC. Do you understand, or must I explain further?
"Nordic countries..."
If you tell a Swede or a Norwegian they are socialist or "hybrid" countries, you're likely to get punched in the face. Sweden was the last Western nation to abandon socialism in 1972. The rest got sick of it long before that.
".... are often graded as having the most satisfied populations."
Satisfaction is not a quantity.
"Social security..."
FICA is now and has always been a Ponzi scheme with current revenues paying current benefits. A private sector retirement plan that did that would be in the dock for RICO violations.
FICA has $175 trillion in unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years. No combination of benefit cuts or income limit increases can EVER fund these liabilities, and increasing the FICA tax to cover them will require a rate over 35% (it's currently 15.3%). In other words, the FICA Ponzi Scheme WILL collapse..
Also it is perverse to claim a program is a success "because many people depend on it." I am on the verge of depending on it, but anyone who is NOT living in a wolkenkuckuckscheim understands that Social Security and Medicare must either be discontinued or they will collapse.
A social safety net is a place to fall, not a place to live the rest of your life.
Abortion was never a right. It was legislation from the bench - something Democrats seem to believe they're entitled to because of their advanced sensibilities. This vulnerability was RBG's point if you'd bother to find her interviews in _The Atlantic_ and other publications, attempting to create a federal right out of whole cloth in direct DEFIANCE of the Constitution. The 9th amendment says enumerated rights are not all rights there are, and the 10th amendments say other rights are up to the states to codify. RBG understood this, and was consistent that Roe was vulnerable on that basis. She recommended a 14th amendment appeal, but even that is flawed: in the end, if you want a federal right to abortion you need to pass a Constitutional amendment.
Dobbs was correct to overturn the Roe decision. I am a supporter of abortion rights and I can see this clearly.
If anyone is so upset by this election that they are in need of some special level of support, I suggest they should be in a long term care facility and barred from voting.
"I would love to hear the shaming...."
Because, forgive me, you are economically ignorant. Prices have NOTHING to do with human intentions. There is no collusion. Price coordination occurs systemically based on supply and demand. ANY attempt to forcefully interfere with that will solve no problems at all and will make the situation worse.
As far as "increasing prices beyond the rate of inflation," inflation is only one component of price increases. If the price of eggs is $2 per dozen and there are enough eggs to supply 100 people a dozen a week, and suddenly 200 people demand a dozen eggs a week, then the price is going to increase to something closer to $4 per dozen, whether the inflation rate is 0% or 15%.
And if there were plenty of eggs for 200 people the price will drop again closer to $2 per dozen--because even if I intended to continue to charge $4 per dozen, any number of other suppliers would say "I can take his business at $3.75," and at that point the price would start to come down. The fact you can't comprehend WHY prices behave the way they do does not imply nefarious human actions are at work. The economy is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and CANNOT be intentionally manipulated to produce prescribed outcomes.
I hear all the time that 1) What trump says is taken out of context or 2) even if he means what he says, there are guard rails in place.
You will survive a Harris victory. As a 70+ yo white woman living a comfortable life in suburbia, I will survive a trump victory (with the caveat that he doesn't tank the economy).
However, I also worry about Americans who will not be fine. I worry about trump's own rhetoric, and his downright meanness to people who aren't his supporters. He made a joke at one of his rallies this cycle about the attack on Paul Pelosi, to raucous laughter and applause. I fail to see what's so funny about any 80+ yo person being attacked with a hammer simply because someone disagreed with the political views of his wife.
I worry about our daughters and granddaughters not only having fewer rights than my generation did, but also faced with punitive measures or denied medical care to save their lives after having a miscarriage because doctors are chilled by the legal repercussions they will face if they in fact take medical steps to save their lives.
I worry for legal immigrants in this country. I worry for passionate people exercising their right to protest.
I won't convince you, and you won't convince me, so we can respectfully agree to disagree.
You raise a good point, but I think your argument is disingenuous.
An example, Trump said "Mexico is not sending its best [...] they're sending rapists." This was promulgated by Democrats as "Trump said Mexicans are rapists." Of course not even Mexicans believed that, and more voted for Trump than had voted for Bush 43 (who was very popular with Hispanics).
Another example, Trump said [paraphrased] "if you beat up those hecklers I'll pay your legal bills!" This was promulgated by Democrats as "Trump urges crowd to assault hecklers." Of course, he didn't, and everyone in the crowd got the joke: the hecklers were NOT assaulted. In fact they were studiously ignored until they got sad and left of their own volition.
Now, let me throw some other quotes at you:
"Stay in the streets and stay confrontational" - Harris to BLM crowd the day of a riot that did $100 million in property damage and killed five people.
"Get in [Republicans'] face and make them know they're not welcome here or anywhere." - Maxine Waters to DC crowd who subsequently went roaming the city looking for Trump officials to harass.
"[...] cut their god---n throats because that was what was at stake" - James Carville about Trump and Trump supporters.
"Time to put Trump in a bullseye" - Biden, days before the first assassination attempt on Trump.
Now, you will RIGHTLY argue that none of these statements was actually a call to violence (I would say Maxine water's comment was the closest thing to actual incitement I've heard, far more so than anything Trump has said). But you are literally arguing that such statements must be taken in context and according to the intent of the person making them.
Yet when referring to Trump you not only insist on a literal interpretation, but a hostile interpretation, and reject any attempt to contextualize the remarks.
"Having fewer rights..."
Abortion was never a federal right. I encourage you to read Ruth Bader Ginsburg's comments on this issue: she always said Roe was vulnerable. If you want abortion to be a federal right, you need to pass an amendment. By the way, I will vote for it: I oppose abortion in principle, but I do not support abortion bans or heartbeat restrictions. The mother must always have priority over the unborn child.
"I worry for legal immigrants..."
Don't worry for us. We are doing great. Illegal aliens on the other hand need to be trebucheted back to where they came from [if you assume I actually mean that literally, I will be very disappointed]. I can tell you that the only people who are surprised that legal immigrants despise illegal immigrants are the New York Times (who wrote a story about this "surprise" in 2018 I believe).
Perhaps you reference Springfield, but those aliens are NOT "legal." They have been given an time- and place-limited administrative exemption from immigration law, but the law says there are here illegally. What's more, the issue is not whether "cats and dogs are being eaten," but the FACT that introducing tens of thousands of immigrants from a very different cultural background into a town of tens of thousands of people has caused massive disruption. And essentially none of it has anything to do with racism.
I understand how good it feels to cast the arguments of your opponents in the most hostile possible light, but it is not a path to truth.
I agree. I have lived in Texas for the past 45 years. Most of my friends here have been life-long Republicans. We spent many of those years engaged in political discourse with each other through almost every election cycle. Many voted for trump in 2016, some again in 2020, and fewer now in 2024. They are good, good people, as I assume Andy is as well.
Just yesterday I wrote a list of tactics for mutual emotional support, to share with my adult children. Like ‘taking turns being the strong one’. Kind of a buddy survival system. It might be needed regardless of election outcome . . . Carville wrote in NYT that he is certain Harris will win.
Why on Earth would children, much less adults, need "emotional support" as a result of an election outcome? The message we should be conveying to our minor AND adult children is "this is the democratic process we all claim to support, and you will not always get the outcome you want; ignore the hyperbole and the scare tactics, and be gracious in both victory and defeat."
I will vote for Trump. I have no personal qualms with Harris, she simply advocates too many positions I consider wrong-headed. If Harris wins, I will toast to her victory with my Democrat friends. If Trump wins, I will not say or do anything to discomfit Harris voters, but I shall be much more sanguine about our domestic, international, and economic situation. You may feel the opposite, which is your right. That is no reason to have a breakdown if one's candidate loses. The stakes simply AREN'T that high.
Harris and Trump are just as survivable as Bush 43 and Obama (who I must add I supported in 2008).
With all due respect, Andy, therein lies the rub. Most of us do believe the stakes simply ARE that high. You have the right to your opinion and your vote, not trying to dissuade you, but even Economists (both liberal and conservative) say that trump will not only tank our economy, but will likely trigger a world-wide catastrophe.... I don't even have to get into the domestic and international ramifications, but you cannot assert that sending 25 million people into deportation camps, using the US Military to do so, and using the US Military to quash protests around the country means "the stakes simply AREN'T that high".... They most assuredly ARE.
Economists do not say any such thing. I am afraid you are living in an echo chamber, seeking confirmation rather than truth.
Let's take tariffs. Nearly every economist agrees tariffs are a distortion of the pricing mechanism and therefore BAD. Trump keeps talking tariffs, so HE must be bad too, right? Except Trump makes reference to tariffs because our trading partners -- even those with whom we have putative "free trade" agreements, impose direct or indirect tariffs on US goods. China certainly does this. So when Trump imposed a tariff on China, they suddenly became more pliant and started rolling back their tariffs on US goods. Biden came to office and China immediately reversed that policy.
In other words, tariffs ARE bad in much the same way as war is bad - but when someone shoots at you, you shoot back. And when someone penalizes your goods and services, or provides massive subsidies to industries to keep their prices low, you do the same to them. That is Trump's strategy. Not tariffs for tariffs' sake.
On the other hand, Harris has proposed "anti-gouging" legislation, which is also a distortion of the price mechanism. And she offers the justification that grocers or food producers are "gouging" people for groceries. Nope. Grocery prices are up because of inflation, and Biden generated 24% cumulative inflation 2021-2024 versus <8% for Trump 2017-2020 (and 3% of that was in 2020 as a result of COVID stimuli). And no matter what the nasty grocers INTEND, that has no impact on the systemic causation of the market. If grocery prices are going up there are two components: inflation, and supply/demand price coordination.
Price coordination is systemic. Human intention has no part in it (in other words, the fact I want to charge $1,000,000 an hour for my time is irrelevant; it's the fact that the market will only pay me about $250-500 for that hour is all that matters). And when government sets a limit on prices below where that coordination would occur, that ALWAYS creates shortages and/or a diminution of quality.
Neither Trump nor Harris will be a disaster. I am fairly certain based on past performance that Trump will do better than Harris. You disagree. But don't try to make it into an "existential crisis" or "global disaster." That is unfortunately a page from the Democrat playbook dating back at least to the 1930s: declare a "crisis," demand we "do something;" when the "something" doesn't work, appeal to "intentions;" and then extemporize new definitions of "success."
PS - You should read no hostility in my posting, toward you or Democrats in general. I just love to argue. On NR I will sometimes troll our rare "progressives" a little bit, but ultimately I seek a real argument. You mention your experience, and the Arab side of my family, all solid Democrats through the 1990s, have all switched to Independent or Republican. That's only 50 people, so it's not a sufficient sample. But do not assume people you know is representative of anything. I don't. 😉
"Not a disaster?" Tell that to the women bleeding out in parking lots because trump's lackeys on scotus overturned Roe. Or the women forced to carry babies with no skulls or organs growing outside their bodies. Or the little girls forced to give birth to their rapist's babies. trump has ALREADY been a disaster for women and girls in this country.
Katie, outliers are not a basis for any decision, and your logic is badly broken. Women are not "bleeding out in parking lots" because of Dobbs. Roe was ALWAYS activist legislation from the bench--something that happened repeatedly under the Warren, Burger, and even Rehnquist Courts. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was frank in multiple interviews that it was likely to be overturned for that reason.
If you want a federal right to abortion, you need to get passed a Constitutional amendment. I will vote for it (while I despise abortion, it must be the woman's choice).
I also find it hilarious, after I dealt with 50 years of activist courts under Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist, that "progressives" are already throwing epic hissies and calling the Justices "lackeys" because SCOTUS is no longer implementing their social vision from the bench--something that SCOTUS has NEVER had the authority to do in the first place.
What's more, Trump PREVENTED a national anti-abortion plank in the GOP platform in 2024, and has not supported abortion bans and heartbeat laws. So your idea that Trump is somehow advocating for the things you describe is objectively false.
No no, Trump is not your problem, and he has not been a disaster for "women and girls in this country," and more importantly you do not SPEAK for women and girls in this country: appeals to personal circumstances such as "no uterus no opinion" shall be roundly rejected.
You're wrong. This has happened. Women have died. But you clearly think you're better than the rest of us, as you continue to insult everyone who responds to you. I hope you don't have daughters.
OK. The clear daylight sky transmits light at approximately 475nm. What is your point?
Both "Democrat" and "Democratic" are adjectives. I assume you think I was calling it the "Democrat Party" which seems to be a bizarre insecurity among Democrats. After being called "fascist" since Eisenhower (how ironic is that?) Republicans don't get hung up on such things.
One idiot actually said "how would you like it if I say 'Republic Party'" and my response was "I don't care, but Republic is a noun--only Republican is an adjective, so your version is ungrammatical."
No one talks about the elephant in the room--the enormous federal deficit at $35 trillion (that's about $250,000 per working citizen to pay off). This insurmountable debt will be our undoing at some point, either via higher inflation or default. The ONLY advantage I see if Trump wins is if the debt collapses under his watch and takes the economy down so the ill-conceived Republican contingent will go down with it... probably for a long time, like the era that Hoover preceded. I would hate that the economy would fail under the Democrats--most voters are too uninformed to realize both parties have contributed to this mess but especially Republicans with lower tax rates and no compensating reduction in government spending.
My heart says that Harris/Walz will win. My head doesn't know, because I can't know, and neither can anyone else. Everything we hear is just opinion, some more informed from previous experience working in politics, on campaigns, others less so.
What I hold onto is this: Every election since the 2018 midterms, through the 2020 Election, the 2022 midterms, and all of the special elections during that time frame, has shown that a majority of voters are sick and tired of the Crazy, the Clowns, the Dangerous, the Despicable, and the massive threat these people (elected GOP office holders and electorate alike) keep posing to our Democracy.
Until the votes are counted and we know for sure, I am keeping my faith with the vast majority of Americans, who in the end, time and again, have come out and done the right thing.
Make a date to dance in the streets post-election, and in the meantime, hold on to how you felt when you saw that happening after Biden/Harris were called the Winners by the media!
The other thing I hold onto was from a podcast with Stuart Stevens, Matt Dowd, Joe Trippi and Rick Wilson recently. One thing they are pointing to are House races all across the country in districts that lean-Republican (in both Red and Blue states), but in which the Democrat is ahead in the polls. They take that as an indicator that the late-vote will break for Harris/Walz, and might even be strong enough to carry 6 of the 7 battleground states!
I think Harris will win. I will vote for Trump, strictly on his empirical record. The fundamentally ad hominem arguments against him (which you perpetuate here) don't matter to me. Also, claims he is a fascist or a Nazi or will "use the military against political opponents" is pure projection by those who do not know what those words mean, and a demand to interpret his political rhetoric not only literally, but according to the most hostile interpretation you can come up with.
Yet those people can excuse and apologize for "put him in the crosshairs" [Biden] or "slit his throat" [Carville]." And I can't think of much more evil than the comment I heard while spending time with a Democratic friend of mine to the attempted assassination: "too bad he missed." I know these are good people, so I don't assume they really feel this way - but those kinds of comments aren't funny. And no Republican or Trump Supporter I know would ever say them had that happened to Biden or Harris.
I know that many likely to read this will want to attack this position, and I don't have time to prepare prebuttals nor to answer such attacks -- but based strictly on objective criteria, Trump is so much better than either Obama or Biden (and by extension, Kamala, who will be Obama turned up one louder but without the smooth articulation) that there is no comparison.
I will add that I have no personal animus against Harris. In fact, I find the name-calling and ad hominem in both directions to be puerile. I might well prefer to have Harris over for dinner compared to Trump (and would say the same about Biden and Obama). But she won't be able to filibuster me at my own dinner table.
Hi Andy!
Perhaps no Republican or Trump Supporter YOU know would ever say them is true, but need I remind you how both Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson have been lamenting on camera that no one has tried to assassinate Harris or Walz?
Clearly nothing that is factual-based will matter to you. We don't need your vote. Good luck to you regardless of the outcome.
"Clearly nothing that is factual will matter to you."
It's almost like you didn't read my posting. I don't care about the ad hominem BS. It is not relevant. I am ONLY looking at the empirical results of Trump's presidency and the empirical results of Biden's presidency, and the likely empirical results of Harris' presidency (which I predict will be as bad or worse than Biden's).
My point is that that kind of political rhetoric shouldn't be used by ANYONE, but it cannot be taken literally (plus, saying "why hasn't anyone shot at Harris or Walz" is NOT equivalent to saying "too bad they missed" if they missed," or reveling in a successful attempt). But the campaign against Trump is based on not only interpreting such language literally but demanding that the most extreme hostile interpretation must be applied.
I have nothing against Kamala Harris. I will not be happy if she is elected, but I will survive. And she may even surprise me and do better than Biden. But I doubt it. When her first impulse is to introduce "anti-gouging" legislation, that betrays profound economic ignorance and a strongly socialistic ideation. Everyone else in the West abandoned socialism no later than 1972; why on Earth would anyone want to bring it back? The government sticking its nose in the pricing mechanism NEVER ends well, and holding a price below market levels always means SHORTAGES.
I grew up in a 50-50 D-R family, so politics were discussed often and loudly, but NEVER created the bizarre schism and tendency to describe Republicans as "fascists" and "Nazis" (which started with Eisenhower, the man most directly responsible for destroying fascism).
Perhaps you should consider reading dissonant comments as if the poster was a friend or family member, rather than an enemy. I am a friend, but I am loaded for bear when it comes to the current political conflicts.😉
Empirical results? What can you possibly point to? Empirical definition= based on, concerned with, verifiable by observation rather than theory
Compare: Dow Jones Nov 2020= 29,000
Now 2024=42,000
Unemployment Nov 2020=6.7%
Now=4.1%
US FY deficit Nov 2020=3.1 trillion
US FY deficit 2024=1.83 trillion
The current US economy is considered the envy of the developed world. Despite the Covid-caused inflation rate in the US, our rate is lower than other first world countries and has declined.
As to socialism, to state that Harris is socialist is opinion, not fact. Harris has never advocated socialism. Further, the Nordic countries for which the model is a blend of capitalism and socialism are often graded as having the most satisfied populations.
Social Security, on which many people depend, is within a socialist model. Same for Medicare. These are cherished, even if socialist, institutions in our country today.
Abortion was, in fact, a right, as decided by SCOTUS, in the US until recent times. What a former SCOTUS justice said after the fact is irrelevant. It is no longer a right, as decided by SCOTUS. Hence, a right removed.
As to the need for emotional support...good on you that you don't need it. But as we all know, emotions are personal, and to each his/her own. Who's to decide what emotional support others might need or want? For myself, when a person who is a candidate for president uses phrases that call to mind the Nazi regime, one of history's preeminent atrocities -"poisoning the blood"- I could use a bit of emotional support to strengthen me in the fight to keep that candidate from gaining the power to institute his vision.
We don't yet know just how Harris might try to bring down prices. Price fixing collusion by companies is illegal. Perhaps she will advise Justice to look at that. Perhaps public shaming. I would love to hear some shaming of the corps whose CEO's bragged about increasing their prices beyond inflation on publicly available conference calls.
My understanding is that the employers in Springfield, Ohio are very pleased to have enthusiastic workers. Disruptions might occur with a large influx of immigrants, but disruptions can be managed and alleviated, as they seemed to do in Springfield, before MAGA came to town.
I do not intend to continue with this discussion - too many other, more important, things to do. When I see the word empirical used instead of 'my opinion' I want to set the record straight.
Best regards.
Ah, someone doesn't like dissonant feedback. The word "empirical" is the correct word and has nothing to do with my opinion. But I'm glad you asked.
Compare: cumulative inflation 2017-2020 <8%, versus 24% to date for 2021-2024.
Compare: real income growth 9% (>14% for the first quintile a/k/a "the poor") 2017-2020, versus -1% to 1% 2021-2024.
Compare: fuel price averages 2017-2020 averaged $2.31 per gallon, versus $3.61 for 2021-2024 Q2.
Compare: energy costs 2017-2020 between 25-35% lower than levels between 2021-2024.
I can keep going. These are indeed measurable quantities
As to your claims:
1. The DJIA is not a reliable indicator of economy to anyone but stock traders.
2. Trump's average unemployment rate was lower than Biden's until Q2 2020 and COVID, and such unemployment as did occur was ENTIRELY the result of state-level business lockdowns (something the federal government has no power to enforce or prevent).
3. "The current US economy..." is considered a fail by over 60% of Americans who are worse off than they were four years ago.
"As to socialism..."
I didn't say Harris was a socialist. I said government attempts to interfere in the systemic process of price coordination is SOCIALISTIC. Do you understand, or must I explain further?
"Nordic countries..."
If you tell a Swede or a Norwegian they are socialist or "hybrid" countries, you're likely to get punched in the face. Sweden was the last Western nation to abandon socialism in 1972. The rest got sick of it long before that.
".... are often graded as having the most satisfied populations."
Satisfaction is not a quantity.
"Social security..."
FICA is now and has always been a Ponzi scheme with current revenues paying current benefits. A private sector retirement plan that did that would be in the dock for RICO violations.
FICA has $175 trillion in unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years. No combination of benefit cuts or income limit increases can EVER fund these liabilities, and increasing the FICA tax to cover them will require a rate over 35% (it's currently 15.3%). In other words, the FICA Ponzi Scheme WILL collapse..
Also it is perverse to claim a program is a success "because many people depend on it." I am on the verge of depending on it, but anyone who is NOT living in a wolkenkuckuckscheim understands that Social Security and Medicare must either be discontinued or they will collapse.
A social safety net is a place to fall, not a place to live the rest of your life.
Abortion was never a right. It was legislation from the bench - something Democrats seem to believe they're entitled to because of their advanced sensibilities. This vulnerability was RBG's point if you'd bother to find her interviews in _The Atlantic_ and other publications, attempting to create a federal right out of whole cloth in direct DEFIANCE of the Constitution. The 9th amendment says enumerated rights are not all rights there are, and the 10th amendments say other rights are up to the states to codify. RBG understood this, and was consistent that Roe was vulnerable on that basis. She recommended a 14th amendment appeal, but even that is flawed: in the end, if you want a federal right to abortion you need to pass a Constitutional amendment.
Dobbs was correct to overturn the Roe decision. I am a supporter of abortion rights and I can see this clearly.
If anyone is so upset by this election that they are in need of some special level of support, I suggest they should be in a long term care facility and barred from voting.
"I would love to hear the shaming...."
Because, forgive me, you are economically ignorant. Prices have NOTHING to do with human intentions. There is no collusion. Price coordination occurs systemically based on supply and demand. ANY attempt to forcefully interfere with that will solve no problems at all and will make the situation worse.
As far as "increasing prices beyond the rate of inflation," inflation is only one component of price increases. If the price of eggs is $2 per dozen and there are enough eggs to supply 100 people a dozen a week, and suddenly 200 people demand a dozen eggs a week, then the price is going to increase to something closer to $4 per dozen, whether the inflation rate is 0% or 15%.
And if there were plenty of eggs for 200 people the price will drop again closer to $2 per dozen--because even if I intended to continue to charge $4 per dozen, any number of other suppliers would say "I can take his business at $3.75," and at that point the price would start to come down. The fact you can't comprehend WHY prices behave the way they do does not imply nefarious human actions are at work. The economy is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and CANNOT be intentionally manipulated to produce prescribed outcomes.
I hear all the time that 1) What trump says is taken out of context or 2) even if he means what he says, there are guard rails in place.
You will survive a Harris victory. As a 70+ yo white woman living a comfortable life in suburbia, I will survive a trump victory (with the caveat that he doesn't tank the economy).
However, I also worry about Americans who will not be fine. I worry about trump's own rhetoric, and his downright meanness to people who aren't his supporters. He made a joke at one of his rallies this cycle about the attack on Paul Pelosi, to raucous laughter and applause. I fail to see what's so funny about any 80+ yo person being attacked with a hammer simply because someone disagreed with the political views of his wife.
I worry about our daughters and granddaughters not only having fewer rights than my generation did, but also faced with punitive measures or denied medical care to save their lives after having a miscarriage because doctors are chilled by the legal repercussions they will face if they in fact take medical steps to save their lives.
I worry for legal immigrants in this country. I worry for passionate people exercising their right to protest.
I won't convince you, and you won't convince me, so we can respectfully agree to disagree.
You raise a good point, but I think your argument is disingenuous.
An example, Trump said "Mexico is not sending its best [...] they're sending rapists." This was promulgated by Democrats as "Trump said Mexicans are rapists." Of course not even Mexicans believed that, and more voted for Trump than had voted for Bush 43 (who was very popular with Hispanics).
Another example, Trump said [paraphrased] "if you beat up those hecklers I'll pay your legal bills!" This was promulgated by Democrats as "Trump urges crowd to assault hecklers." Of course, he didn't, and everyone in the crowd got the joke: the hecklers were NOT assaulted. In fact they were studiously ignored until they got sad and left of their own volition.
Now, let me throw some other quotes at you:
"Stay in the streets and stay confrontational" - Harris to BLM crowd the day of a riot that did $100 million in property damage and killed five people.
"Get in [Republicans'] face and make them know they're not welcome here or anywhere." - Maxine Waters to DC crowd who subsequently went roaming the city looking for Trump officials to harass.
"[...] cut their god---n throats because that was what was at stake" - James Carville about Trump and Trump supporters.
"Time to put Trump in a bullseye" - Biden, days before the first assassination attempt on Trump.
Now, you will RIGHTLY argue that none of these statements was actually a call to violence (I would say Maxine water's comment was the closest thing to actual incitement I've heard, far more so than anything Trump has said). But you are literally arguing that such statements must be taken in context and according to the intent of the person making them.
Yet when referring to Trump you not only insist on a literal interpretation, but a hostile interpretation, and reject any attempt to contextualize the remarks.
"Having fewer rights..."
Abortion was never a federal right. I encourage you to read Ruth Bader Ginsburg's comments on this issue: she always said Roe was vulnerable. If you want abortion to be a federal right, you need to pass an amendment. By the way, I will vote for it: I oppose abortion in principle, but I do not support abortion bans or heartbeat restrictions. The mother must always have priority over the unborn child.
"I worry for legal immigrants..."
Don't worry for us. We are doing great. Illegal aliens on the other hand need to be trebucheted back to where they came from [if you assume I actually mean that literally, I will be very disappointed]. I can tell you that the only people who are surprised that legal immigrants despise illegal immigrants are the New York Times (who wrote a story about this "surprise" in 2018 I believe).
Perhaps you reference Springfield, but those aliens are NOT "legal." They have been given an time- and place-limited administrative exemption from immigration law, but the law says there are here illegally. What's more, the issue is not whether "cats and dogs are being eaten," but the FACT that introducing tens of thousands of immigrants from a very different cultural background into a town of tens of thousands of people has caused massive disruption. And essentially none of it has anything to do with racism.
I understand how good it feels to cast the arguments of your opponents in the most hostile possible light, but it is not a path to truth.
Andy is one of my friends from National Review.
It's nice to have some cross-pollination.
I agree. I have lived in Texas for the past 45 years. Most of my friends here have been life-long Republicans. We spent many of those years engaged in political discourse with each other through almost every election cycle. Many voted for trump in 2016, some again in 2020, and fewer now in 2024. They are good, good people, as I assume Andy is as well.
Are you LC's mom? As you know you have a great son. My best friend has similar views and I'm pretty sure LC and I would be good friends IRL.
He'll just lose a lot of arguments. But then again, so will I. 😉
No. I had a dog in the 90's/early 2000's who was named Moose. That's her picture in my avatar(?)....
Hello LC,
Last week I wrote you a direct message asking if you still think Harris is going to win? (And I was hoping to hear that you thought she would.)
You and Travis, a fellow Bulwark subscriber, always seemed to me to be among the most grounded Bulwarkers in the community.
Anyway, thank you for writing this. We are indeed the ones we’ve been waiting for.
I saw the notification but I needed to download the app to see it and I don't like the app.
Yes, I still think Harris is going to comfortably win.
Just yesterday I wrote a list of tactics for mutual emotional support, to share with my adult children. Like ‘taking turns being the strong one’. Kind of a buddy survival system. It might be needed regardless of election outcome . . . Carville wrote in NYT that he is certain Harris will win.
Why on Earth would children, much less adults, need "emotional support" as a result of an election outcome? The message we should be conveying to our minor AND adult children is "this is the democratic process we all claim to support, and you will not always get the outcome you want; ignore the hyperbole and the scare tactics, and be gracious in both victory and defeat."
I will vote for Trump. I have no personal qualms with Harris, she simply advocates too many positions I consider wrong-headed. If Harris wins, I will toast to her victory with my Democrat friends. If Trump wins, I will not say or do anything to discomfit Harris voters, but I shall be much more sanguine about our domestic, international, and economic situation. You may feel the opposite, which is your right. That is no reason to have a breakdown if one's candidate loses. The stakes simply AREN'T that high.
Harris and Trump are just as survivable as Bush 43 and Obama (who I must add I supported in 2008).
With all due respect, Andy, therein lies the rub. Most of us do believe the stakes simply ARE that high. You have the right to your opinion and your vote, not trying to dissuade you, but even Economists (both liberal and conservative) say that trump will not only tank our economy, but will likely trigger a world-wide catastrophe.... I don't even have to get into the domestic and international ramifications, but you cannot assert that sending 25 million people into deportation camps, using the US Military to do so, and using the US Military to quash protests around the country means "the stakes simply AREN'T that high".... They most assuredly ARE.
Economists do not say any such thing. I am afraid you are living in an echo chamber, seeking confirmation rather than truth.
Let's take tariffs. Nearly every economist agrees tariffs are a distortion of the pricing mechanism and therefore BAD. Trump keeps talking tariffs, so HE must be bad too, right? Except Trump makes reference to tariffs because our trading partners -- even those with whom we have putative "free trade" agreements, impose direct or indirect tariffs on US goods. China certainly does this. So when Trump imposed a tariff on China, they suddenly became more pliant and started rolling back their tariffs on US goods. Biden came to office and China immediately reversed that policy.
In other words, tariffs ARE bad in much the same way as war is bad - but when someone shoots at you, you shoot back. And when someone penalizes your goods and services, or provides massive subsidies to industries to keep their prices low, you do the same to them. That is Trump's strategy. Not tariffs for tariffs' sake.
On the other hand, Harris has proposed "anti-gouging" legislation, which is also a distortion of the price mechanism. And she offers the justification that grocers or food producers are "gouging" people for groceries. Nope. Grocery prices are up because of inflation, and Biden generated 24% cumulative inflation 2021-2024 versus <8% for Trump 2017-2020 (and 3% of that was in 2020 as a result of COVID stimuli). And no matter what the nasty grocers INTEND, that has no impact on the systemic causation of the market. If grocery prices are going up there are two components: inflation, and supply/demand price coordination.
Price coordination is systemic. Human intention has no part in it (in other words, the fact I want to charge $1,000,000 an hour for my time is irrelevant; it's the fact that the market will only pay me about $250-500 for that hour is all that matters). And when government sets a limit on prices below where that coordination would occur, that ALWAYS creates shortages and/or a diminution of quality.
Neither Trump nor Harris will be a disaster. I am fairly certain based on past performance that Trump will do better than Harris. You disagree. But don't try to make it into an "existential crisis" or "global disaster." That is unfortunately a page from the Democrat playbook dating back at least to the 1930s: declare a "crisis," demand we "do something;" when the "something" doesn't work, appeal to "intentions;" and then extemporize new definitions of "success."
PS - You should read no hostility in my posting, toward you or Democrats in general. I just love to argue. On NR I will sometimes troll our rare "progressives" a little bit, but ultimately I seek a real argument. You mention your experience, and the Arab side of my family, all solid Democrats through the 1990s, have all switched to Independent or Republican. That's only 50 people, so it's not a sufficient sample. But do not assume people you know is representative of anything. I don't. 😉
"Not a disaster?" Tell that to the women bleeding out in parking lots because trump's lackeys on scotus overturned Roe. Or the women forced to carry babies with no skulls or organs growing outside their bodies. Or the little girls forced to give birth to their rapist's babies. trump has ALREADY been a disaster for women and girls in this country.
Katie, outliers are not a basis for any decision, and your logic is badly broken. Women are not "bleeding out in parking lots" because of Dobbs. Roe was ALWAYS activist legislation from the bench--something that happened repeatedly under the Warren, Burger, and even Rehnquist Courts. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was frank in multiple interviews that it was likely to be overturned for that reason.
If you want a federal right to abortion, you need to get passed a Constitutional amendment. I will vote for it (while I despise abortion, it must be the woman's choice).
I also find it hilarious, after I dealt with 50 years of activist courts under Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist, that "progressives" are already throwing epic hissies and calling the Justices "lackeys" because SCOTUS is no longer implementing their social vision from the bench--something that SCOTUS has NEVER had the authority to do in the first place.
What's more, Trump PREVENTED a national anti-abortion plank in the GOP platform in 2024, and has not supported abortion bans and heartbeat laws. So your idea that Trump is somehow advocating for the things you describe is objectively false.
No no, Trump is not your problem, and he has not been a disaster for "women and girls in this country," and more importantly you do not SPEAK for women and girls in this country: appeals to personal circumstances such as "no uterus no opinion" shall be roundly rejected.
You're wrong. This has happened. Women have died. But you clearly think you're better than the rest of us, as you continue to insult everyone who responds to you. I hope you don't have daughters.
I don't either, was just giving background.
OK. The clear daylight sky transmits light at approximately 475nm. What is your point?
Both "Democrat" and "Democratic" are adjectives. I assume you think I was calling it the "Democrat Party" which seems to be a bizarre insecurity among Democrats. After being called "fascist" since Eisenhower (how ironic is that?) Republicans don't get hung up on such things.
One idiot actually said "how would you like it if I say 'Republic Party'" and my response was "I don't care, but Republic is a noun--only Republican is an adjective, so your version is ungrammatical."
No one talks about the elephant in the room--the enormous federal deficit at $35 trillion (that's about $250,000 per working citizen to pay off). This insurmountable debt will be our undoing at some point, either via higher inflation or default. The ONLY advantage I see if Trump wins is if the debt collapses under his watch and takes the economy down so the ill-conceived Republican contingent will go down with it... probably for a long time, like the era that Hoover preceded. I would hate that the economy would fail under the Democrats--most voters are too uninformed to realize both parties have contributed to this mess but especially Republicans with lower tax rates and no compensating reduction in government spending.
My heart says that Harris/Walz will win. My head doesn't know, because I can't know, and neither can anyone else. Everything we hear is just opinion, some more informed from previous experience working in politics, on campaigns, others less so.
What I hold onto is this: Every election since the 2018 midterms, through the 2020 Election, the 2022 midterms, and all of the special elections during that time frame, has shown that a majority of voters are sick and tired of the Crazy, the Clowns, the Dangerous, the Despicable, and the massive threat these people (elected GOP office holders and electorate alike) keep posing to our Democracy.
Until the votes are counted and we know for sure, I am keeping my faith with the vast majority of Americans, who in the end, time and again, have come out and done the right thing.
Make a date to dance in the streets post-election, and in the meantime, hold on to how you felt when you saw that happening after Biden/Harris were called the Winners by the media!
Love ya, Mom. It looks dark, but it's going to be ok...and I'll be the loudest goddamned I told you so'er around. I'm going to be insufferable.😉
The other thing I hold onto was from a podcast with Stuart Stevens, Matt Dowd, Joe Trippi and Rick Wilson recently. One thing they are pointing to are House races all across the country in districts that lean-Republican (in both Red and Blue states), but in which the Democrat is ahead in the polls. They take that as an indicator that the late-vote will break for Harris/Walz, and might even be strong enough to carry 6 of the 7 battleground states!
I would expect nothing less LC