Big C said:
BearGoggles said:
Big C said:
Holocaust Harris said:
bear2034 said:
Doug Emhoff impregnated his nanny.
I think this election is going to be all about voter turnout.
This has been true for the last 20 years when the country has been basically evenly divided. Thank you captain obvious.
Voter enthusiasm for their candidate (or hate of the other candidate) drives turnout. Also $$ helps when it comes to election day turnout drives and more questionable acts like ballot harvesting.
Like it or not, Trump has a very motivated base that blindly supports him. Independents are also trending toward trump.
In stark contrast, there is no real enthusiasm for Biden or Harris - Harris may be the dumbest and least qualified candidate in the history of the republic. The media is trying hard to pump her up, but she is utterly uninspiring and until recently was being hidden awa. So instead the dems have focused on getting their base to hate trump, often with lies about Project 2025 and abortion rights. It worked in 2022 (when Trump wasn't even on the ballot). We shall see this year.
There is a reason Harris has emerged from protective custody to do more media. And that reason is because her people think she's losing. It is clearly not because her people think she's great with media.
BearGoggles, even though you may not actually have respect for me, you might show some, even just for politeness' sake, by capitalizing my name. Have I ever called you "beargoggles"?
True, some of Trump's base is more fervent, but counteracting that is the fact that Harris' more educated base might be more likely to vote than the "non-college-educated" masses that make up Trump's following*. And while some Trump supporters are very enthusiastic, the rally-goers we see, and their ilk, only account for a small percentage of those who will vote for him. Which gets back to Captain Obvious' point about voter turnout.
"Harris may be the dumbest and least qualified candidate in the history of the republic." Seriously?!? What were Trump's qualifications in 2016? And while Harris may not be the brightest bulb on the Xmas tree, Trump -- who I actually think has a certain genius -- has sounded lately like the schoolyard bully who is getting all F's. Dumb? Be honest, how do you like Trump's tarriff ideas? So maybe you are lashing out in frustration. In any event, that sucking sound we hear is your credibility rushing out the window, based on that one sentence alone.
- Captain Obvious
* When a candidate's support among the educated steadily erodes over eight years, does that perhaps tell us something? Hmmm...
What are Harris' qualifications? How many primary votes did she receive in 2020 and 2024? What are her major accomplishments in academia, business, the law, or politics? Point me to one extemporaneous speech of hers - without a teleprompter - that makes any sense or speaks to unique ideas. Why did she fail the bar exam after attending a law school that, at the time, had a 80%+ passage rate? What are Kamala's credentials and accomplishments other than using Willie Brown to achieve political power in CA? Why is she afraid to hold a press conference or take questions from a hostile reporter/crowd?
I stand by what I said - she is dumb. Her inability to campaign or speak contemporaneously reveals that. And she's a terrible retail politician, which is why she's never earned one vote in an election outside of California.
Despite your attempts to make it about Trump, he is largely irrelevant. I never claimed he was a genius or well qualified by historical standards. However, in 2016 and 2020, he actually campaigned and won a primary without having his party rig the results (incidentally, without my support or vote),. He won the 2016 election. He takes questions from a hostile press and doesn't duck venues that are unfriendly to him. He has agreed to debates on CNN/NBC/ABC - Kamala won't go on Fox or any other conservative venue.
The rest of your post evidences your elitism of which you are ironically so proud. What you fail to see is that the establishment "educated" are the targets of Trump's populism - that is one reason why they tend to not vote for him. And many of Trump's voters support him precisely because they are tired of the elitism and bad policies of the "educated" - people like you who look down on the "stupid people".
In terms of tariffs, I'll first point out that Biden/Harris maintained many of the Trump tariffs. I wonder why? Maybe they are lashing out in frustration?
My Cal degree in economics tells me that - from an
economic/wealth perspective - tariffs are bad. What we've learned in the last 40 years is that ignores the social impacts/costs (i.e., an inequality in how the increased wealth is distributed) on the middle and lower class. It also ignores potential national security implications when food production/manufacturing is exported to hostile foreign countries. It also ignores that a country like China does not reciprocate its free trade policies and instead seeks to exploit them.
So, personally, I'm in favor of tariffs directed at China because: (i) they don't compete fairly (e.g., steel and solar panels) or offer foreign countries an even chance to compete in China; (ii) they don't abide by international norms of free trade (e.g., protection of IP); (iii) China is a lawbreaker in facilitating the manufacture of fentanyl; and (iv) from a national security perspective, it is bad to be so reliant on a country like China that is a global adversary.
If there is a war, the USA will be screwed when it can't get produce many items, including basic/generic medicines. The CHIPS act was a step in the right direction - kudos to Biden/Harris for that - though I do have concerns as to whether the government can effectively execute/manage the program. But it is good national security policy to adopt policies that reduce reliance on China.
Yes - the tariffs reduce wealth in the USA (at least as an economist would measure wealth). But I think that reduction is a price worth paying in the case of China. And, I think Trump would say that the only way to get China to
MAYBE change its behavior is tariffs. I'm not sure that is the case, but I would support the tariffs even if that's not the goal.
For the record, absent geopolitical concerns (e.g., Russia or Iran), I am generally not in favor of tariffs for other "friendly" countries as long as they engage in reciprocal free trade.
I'll be curious to hear if/why you think tariffs on China should be lifted.
