2024

The odds are excellent that you will leave this forum hating someone.
Farfromgeneva
Posts: 23808
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2019 10:53 am

Re: 2024

Post by Farfromgeneva »

MDlaxfan76 wrote: Fri Jun 07, 2024 3:03 pm
OuttaNowhereWregget wrote: Fri Jun 07, 2024 1:59 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Fri Jun 07, 2024 12:08 pm
OuttaNowhereWregget wrote: Fri Jun 07, 2024 10:42 am What does life beginning at conception have to do with dogma?
yes, dogma.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... MC7245522/

I think it is scientifically fair to say that the process of creating new 'life' begins with two cells joining, however this does not mean that an independent human being exists at this stage. This is where the dogma matters, as you claim "murder" when the process of further development from 'conception' is terminated prior to the existence of an independent being.

Only through dogma do we create the notion that a zygote, embryo, fetus are imbued with independent being, a soul, etc.

Honest, ethical people disagree and science has no perfect answers.
I have never understood this line of reasoning. Just because science can't confirm whether this human life has a soul is justification to kill it?

"Independent human being" is also a smokescreen. A newborn baby is not an independent human being. If babies are left alone without constant care and supervision, they will die. There are also severely handicapped human beings who are not independent. There are elderly human beings who also fit in the category of not independent. If any of these categories of human beings are not cared for they will die--hence, not independent.

If a human life is left alone in the womb, it will naturally, over time, barring sickness or unnatural death, become an independent human being.
You may not recognize it as such, but your "not understanding" position is due to your dogma.
And I have no issue with your faith position as it applies to you and your personal decisions.

I'd simply suggest that you read what I linked as it addresses the topic pretty well.

One can debate the ethics to the cows come home, but where I land, ethically, is that, absent an issue of life of the mother or great pain and suffering to the potential child or mother, the point of independent viability from the mother is sufficient time for making an alternative choice about the future of the unborn. Which is Roe. Basically 22-24 weeks. Might be shorter as we learn how to successfully support the life of a premature birth earlier. But viability. And I trust mothers, with their doctors' counsel, to determine the choice they make.

Certainly not government.

But then again, I'm a "conservative" in that sense of limiting government power. I certainly don't want to substitute my faith-based views onto someone else.
Catching up but man your threshold is so high.

Let the turkey keep thinking every morning is feeding time. The day before thanksgiving will come soon enough.
Now I love those cowboys, I love their gold
Love my uncle, God rest his soul
Taught me good, Lord, taught me all I know
Taught me so well, that I grabbed that gold
I left his dead ass there by the side of the road, yeah
Farfromgeneva
Posts: 23808
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2019 10:53 am

Re: 2024

Post by Farfromgeneva »

MDlaxfan76 wrote: Fri Jun 07, 2024 3:03 pm
OuttaNowhereWregget wrote: Fri Jun 07, 2024 1:59 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Fri Jun 07, 2024 12:08 pm
OuttaNowhereWregget wrote: Fri Jun 07, 2024 10:42 am What does life beginning at conception have to do with dogma?
yes, dogma.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... MC7245522/

I think it is scientifically fair to say that the process of creating new 'life' begins with two cells joining, however this does not mean that an independent human being exists at this stage. This is where the dogma matters, as you claim "murder" when the process of further development from 'conception' is terminated prior to the existence of an independent being.

Only through dogma do we create the notion that a zygote, embryo, fetus are imbued with independent being, a soul, etc.

Honest, ethical people disagree and science has no perfect answers.
I have never understood this line of reasoning. Just because science can't confirm whether this human life has a soul is justification to kill it?

"Independent human being" is also a smokescreen. A newborn baby is not an independent human being. If babies are left alone without constant care and supervision, they will die. There are also severely handicapped human beings who are not independent. There are elderly human beings who also fit in the category of not independent. If any of these categories of human beings are not cared for they will die--hence, not independent.

If a human life is left alone in the womb, it will naturally, over time, barring sickness or unnatural death, become an independent human being.
You may not recognize it as such, but your "not understanding" position is due to your dogma.
And I have no issue with your faith position as it applies to you and your personal decisions.

I'd simply suggest that you read what I linked as it addresses the topic pretty well.

One can debate the ethics to the cows come home, but where I land, ethically, is that, absent an issue of life of the mother or great pain and suffering to the potential child or mother, the point of independent viability from the mother is sufficient time for making an alternative choice about the future of the unborn. Which is Roe. Basically 22-24 weeks. Might be shorter as we learn how to successfully support the life of a premature birth earlier. But viability. And I trust mothers, with their doctors' counsel, to determine the choice they make.

Certainly not government.

But then again, I'm a "conservative" in that sense of limiting government power. I certainly don't want to substitute my faith-based views onto someone else.
Goes back to when he pissed on my leg and I made the point that the recevier in a legitmate conversation has some obligations as well.
Now I love those cowboys, I love their gold
Love my uncle, God rest his soul
Taught me good, Lord, taught me all I know
Taught me so well, that I grabbed that gold
I left his dead ass there by the side of the road, yeah
Seacoaster(1)
Posts: 5190
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am

Re: 2024

Post by Seacoaster(1) »

They are telling us how they intend to "govern:"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... itutional/

"A battle-tested D.C. bureaucrat and self-described Christian nationalist is drawing up detailed plans for a sweeping expansion of presidential power in a second Trump administration. Russ Vought, who served as the former president’s budget chief, calls his political strategy for razing long-standing guardrails “radical constitutionalism.”

Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter.
He has helped craft proposals for Donald Trump to deploy the military to quash civil unrest, seize more control over the Justice Department and assert the power to withhold congressional appropriations — and that’s just on Trump’s first day back in office.

Vought, 48, is poised to steer this agenda from an influential perch in the White House, potentially as Trump’s chief of staff, according to some people involved in discussions about a second term who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.

Since Trump left office, Vought has led the Center for Renewing America, part of a network of conservative advocacy groups staffed by former and potentially future Trump administration officials. Vought’s rise is a reminder that if Trump is reelected, he has said he will surround himself with loyalists eager to carry out his wishes, even if they violate traditional norms against executive overreach.

We are living in a post-Constitutional time,” Vought wrote in a seminal 2022 essay, which argued that the left has corrupted the nation’s laws and institutions. Last week, after a jury convicted Trump of falsifying business records, Vought tweeted: “Do not tell me that we are living under the Constitution.”

Vought aims to harness what he calls the “woke and weaponized” bureaucracy that stymied the former president by stocking federal agencies with hardcore disciples who would wage culture wars on abortion and immigration. The proposals championed by Vought and other Trump allies to fundamentally reset the balance of power would represent a historic shift — one they see as a needed corrective.

“The president has to be able to drive the bureaucracy instead of being trapped by it,” said Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker who led the GOP’s 1994 takeover of Congress.

Vought did not respond to interview requests and a detailed list of questions from The Washington Post. This account of his plans for Trump’s potential first day back in office and the rest of a second term comes from interviews with people involved in the planning, a review of Vought’s public remarks and writings, and Center for Renewing America correspondence obtained by The Post.

The Trump campaign has distanced itself from the extensive planning. Campaign managers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita said in a statement, “Unless a message is coming directly from President Trump or an authorized member of his campaign team, no aspect of future presidential staffing or policy announcements should be deemed official.”

But in a sign of Vought’s status as a key adviser, Trump and the Republican National Committee last month named him policy director for the 2024 platform committee — giving him a chance to push a party that did not adopt a platform in 2020 further to the right. Trump personally blessed Vought’s agenda at a Mar-a-Lago fundraiser for his group and said Vought would “do a great job in continuing our quest to make America great again.”

Some of Vought’s recommendations, such as bucking the Justice Department’s tradition of political independence, have long percolated in the conservative movement. But he is taking a harder line — and seeking to empower a presidential nominee who has openly vowed “retribution,” alarming some fellow conservatives who recall fighting against big government alongside Vought long before Trump’s election.

“I am concerned that he is willing to embrace an ends-justify-the-means mentality,” said Marc Short, formerly chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, who has said he won’t endorse Trump. Vought, Short added, is embracing “tactics of growing government and using the levers of power in the federal bureaucracy to fight our political opponents.”

Vought’s long career as a staffer in Congress and at federal agencies has made him an asset to Project 2025, an initiative led by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, to lay the groundwork for a second Trump term. Vought wrote the chapter on the executive office of the president in Project 2025’s 920-page blueprint, and he is developing its playbook for the first 180 days, according to the people involved in the effort.

“We’re going to plant the flags now,” Vought told Trump’s former strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, on his far-right podcast. “It becomes a new governing consensus of the Republican Party.”

From fiscal hawk to MAGA warrior

Vought was raised in Trumbull, Conn., the son of an electrician and a teacher and the youngest of seven children. Brought up in what he has characterized as a “very strong, Bible-preaching, Bible-teaching church,” he attended Christian camps every summer. He received a bachelor’s degree from Wheaton College, an evangelical Christian school in Illinois, and headed to Capitol Hill near the end of the Clinton administration.

Vought mastered the federal budget working for fiscal conservatives, including Sen. Phil Gramm and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, both Texas Republicans, while getting his law degree from George Washington University.

Years before the Freedom Caucus enforced right-wing ideology on Capitol Hill, Vought was the bomb-throwing executive director of the conservative House Republican Study Committee. His prime targets: big government and entitlement spending. He worked under Pence, then a congressman, who called him “one of the strongest advocates for the principles that guide us” in 2010.

That year, as the populist tea party movement was surging, Vought joined the Heritage Foundation’s new lobbying arm. From a Capitol Hill townhouse dubbed the “frat house,” Vought and his other brash, young male colleagues tormented Republican leaders by grading their fealty to fiscal conservatism.

“Russ was determined to make our scorecard tougher than others out there,” said Republican strategist Tim Chapman, who worked closely with Vought at Heritage Action. “He wanted to separate the wheat from the chaff.”

Joining the Trump transition allowed Vought to put his principles to paper. Later, Pence cast the tiebreaking vote for his confirmation in 2018 as deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget. Vought ascended to the top post in 2019.

But instead of slashing spending as Vought and other budget officials recommended, Trump resisted significant reductions to domestic programs and backed trillions in emergency pandemic assistance. The national debt ballooned by more than $8 trillion.

Vought blamed Congress. And he stood by Trump throughout his tumultuous presidency, as a procession of other Cabinet officials balked at breaching what they viewed as ethical and legal boundaries. “A bunch of people around him who were constantly sitting on eggs and saying, ‘Oh my gosh, he’s getting me to violate the law,’” was how Vought later described them at a Heritage Foundation event.

By contrast, Vought found workarounds to fulfill the president’s ambitions that tested legal limits and his own record opposing executive overreach and deficit spending.

When Congress blocked additional funding for Trump’s border wall, the budget office in early 2020 redirected billions of dollars from the Pentagon to what became one of the most expensive federal infrastructure projects in U.S. history. And it was Vought’s office that held up military aid to Ukraine as Trump pressed the government to dig up dirt on Joe Biden, prompting the president’s first impeachment. Vought defied a congressional subpoena during the impeachment inquiry, which he mocked as a “#shamprocess.” The Government Accountability Office concluded that his office broke the law, a claim Vought disputed.

Near the end of Trump’s presidency, Vought helped launch his biggest broadside at the “deep state” — an order to strip the civil service protections of up to tens of thousands of federal employees. The administration did not have time to fully implement the order.

After the 2020 election, as Trump refused to concede, Biden officials complained that Vought was impeding the transition. Vought rejected that accusation — but wrote that his office would not “dismantle this Administration’s work.” He was already planning ahead; bylaws for what would become the Center for Renewing America were adopted on the day of Biden’s inauguration, records show.

“There’s a marriage of convenience between Russ and Trump,” said Chapman, senior adviser at Pence’s group, Advancing American Freedom. “Russ has been pursuing an ideological agenda for a long time and views Trump’s second term as the best way to achieve it, while Trump needs people in his second term who are loyal and committed and adept at using the tools of the federal government.”

Radical constitutionalism

Since Biden took office, Vought has turned the Center for Renewing America into a hub of Trump loyalists, including Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department lawyer later charged in Georgia with trying to overturn Biden’s victory in 2020. Vought called Clark, who has pleaded not guilty, “a patriot who risked his career to help expose voter fraud.”

“I think the election was stolen,” Vought said in a 2022 interview with Trump activists Diamond and Silk. He is no longer in touch with Pence, his longtime patron, who has said Trump’s efforts to overturn the vote disqualified him from serving as president again, according to people familiar with the relationship who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a sensitive topic.

The Center for Renewing America is among several pro-Trump groups incubated by the Conservative Partnership Institute, founded in 2017 by former senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). The center, a tax-exempt group that is not required to publicly disclose its donors, raised $4.75 million in 2023, according to its annual report.

As Vought and other Trump allies work on blueprints for a second term, he is pushing a strategy he calls “radical constitutionalism.” The left has discarded the Constitution, Vought argues, so conservatives need to rise up, wrest power from the federal bureaucracy and centralize authority in the Oval Office.

“Our need is not just to win congressional majorities that blame the other side or fill seats on court benches to meddle at the margins,” he wrote in the 2022 essay. “It is to cast ourselves as dissidents of the current regime and to put on our shoulders the full weight of envisioning, articulating, and defending what a Radical Constitutionalism requires in the late hour that our country finds itself in, and then to do it.”

In practice, that could mean reinterpreting parts of the Constitution to achieve policy goals — such as by defining illegal immigration as an “invasion,” which would allow states to use wartime powers to stop it.

“We showed that millions of illegal aliens coming across, and Mexican cartels holding operational control of the border, constitute an invasion,” Vought wrote. “This is where we need to be radical in discarding or rethinking the legal paradigms that have confined our ability to return to the original Constitution.”

Vought also embraces Christian nationalism, a hard-right movement that seeks to infuse Christianity into all aspects of society, including government. He penned a 2021 Newsweek essay that disputed allegations of bias and asked, “Is There Anything Actually Wrong With ‘Christian Nationalism?’” He argued for “an institutional separation between church and state, but not the separation of Christianity from its influence on government and society.”

Looking at immigration through that lens, Vought has called for “mass deportation” of illegal immigrants and a “Christian immigration ethic” that would strictly limit the types of people allowed entry into the United States. At a 2023 conference organized by Christian and right-wing groups, he questioned whether legal immigration is “healthy” because, in a politically polarized climate, “immigration only increases and exasperates the divisions that we face in the country.”

In a podcast interview last year, Vought said it’s appropriate to question whether immigrants “have any sense of the Judeo-Christian worldview that this country was founded on,” adding, “And that doesn’t mean we don’t give religious liberty, but it does mean — are they wanting to come here and assimilate?”

Vought’s views amount to a kind of Anglo-Protestant cultural supremacism, said Paul D. Miller, a Georgetown University professor who published a book critiquing Christian nationalism.

“The Civil War taught us that America is big and broad and strong enough to include non-Christians and non-Whites,” Miller wrote in an email to The Post. “It also should have taught us that the greatest threat to the American vision are racial and religious supremacists.”

Planning for 2025

Vought’s playbook for Trump’s first 180 days, the final phase of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, has not been publicly released. But a review of his proposals so far suggests that a second Trump term could breach even more political norms than the first.

Vought argues that protocols intended to shield criminal cases from political influence, which were adopted in the wake of the Watergate scandal, have allowed unelected prosecutors to abuse their power. Even as Trump vows to “go after” Biden and his family without providing clear evidence of alleged crimes, Vought wants to gut the FBI and give the president more oversight over the Justice Department.

“Department of Justice is not an independent agency,” he said at a Heritage Foundation event last year. “If anyone brings it up in a policy meeting in the White House, I want them out of the meeting.”

Echoing Trump, Vought supports prosecuting officials who investigated the president and his allies. “It can’t just be hearings,” he told right-wing activist Charlie Kirk on his podcast. “It has to be investigations, an army of investigators that lead to firm convictions.”

Vought favors boosting White House control over other federal agencies that operate somewhat independently, such as the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces consumer protection laws, and the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates television and internet companies. Trump’s never-implemented order from his first term making it easier to fire government employees would allow the White House to excise policymakers who resist the will of the elected chief executive.

“It really concerns me, and I know it concerns Russ, that these agencies have turned on the very people they are supposed to serve,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who led a House panel that Vought pushed for on the alleged “weaponization” of government.

Vought also recommends reviving presidential “impoundment” power to withhold funding appropriated by Congress; the practice was outlawed after President Richard M. Nixon left office, but Vought calls that move “unconstitutional.” And he supports invoking the Insurrection Act, a law last updated in 1871 that allows the president to deploy the military for domestic law enforcement.

On abortion policy, Vought calls for Congress to outlaw the drugs used in medical abortions — a hard-line stance at odds with some Republicans, who are sidestepping an issue that has galvanized Democrats in recent elections.

“My personal story has fortified my beliefs,” Vought told antiabortion activists in 2020, describing how his younger daughter, now 10 years old, was born with cystic fibrosis. The chronic illness can cause severe digestive and breathing problems and require intense, daily treatment; patients’ average life span is 37 years, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Vought said in that speech that 87 percent of fetuses diagnosed with the disease are “tragically aborted” — though the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the ACOG and other health organizations told The Post they were not aware of any research of that nature.

Vought proposes in his Project 2025 chapter a new special assistant to the president to ensure “implementation of policies related to the promotion of life and family.” To Vought, that means curbing abortion — and boosting the birthrate. “The families of the West are not having enough babies for their societies to endure,” he wrote in a Center for Renewing America policy paper.

When Trump said this spring that abortion limits should be left to the states and was silent on a national ban, disappointing some antiabortion leaders, Vought urged them not to lose faith. “Trust the man who delivered the end of Roe when all the other pro life politicians could not,” he said.

Even fellow critics of the federal bureaucracy said some of Vought’s proposals would face legal challenges and other hurdles. Michael Glennon, a Tufts University constitutional law professor who wrote a book that Vought cites as a formative critique, said in an interview that the framers were wary of concentrating too much power in the presidency.

“If conservatives trash long-held political norms to move against liberals, what will protect them when liberals retake power?” Glennon asked.

Bannon, the former Trump strategist ordered this week to serve a four-month prison term for contempt of Congress, touted Vought and his colleagues as “madmen” ready to upend the U.S. government at a recent Center for Renewing America event.

“No institution set up within its first two years [has] had the impact of this organization,” Bannon said. “We’re going to rip and shred the federal government apart, and if you don’t like it, you can lump it.”
ggait
Posts: 4416
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 1:23 pm

Re: 2024

Post by ggait »

FWIW, 538s electoral college forecast was initially published today.

Unlike just showing the poll percentages, 538 attempts to break it down into EC outcomes which, of course, is how the president is actually elected. Who knows if this is right, but useful/interesting to see how the race trends fluctuate over time.

Even though Trump is ahead in most swing state polls, 538 has it 53 Biden win probability, 47 Trump.

A bit surprising, but the overall message is what we all are expecting -- this election is currently close AF.

The base case scenario has Biden winning the popular vote by 2.5 points over Trump, RFK Jr. getting 8 points, and Biden winning the EC 276-262.

Biden gets to 270 if he wins PA, WI, Mich.

Buckle up!!!!





https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... -forecast/
Boycott stupid. If you ignore the gator troll, eventually he'll just go back under his bridge.
JoeMauer89
Posts: 2009
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2020 10:39 pm

Re: 2024

Post by JoeMauer89 »

ggait wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2024 5:24 pm FWIW, 538s electoral college forecast was initially published today.

Unlike just showing the poll percentages, 538 attempts to break it down into EC outcomes which, of course, is how the president is actually elected. Who knows if this is right, but useful/interesting to see how the race trends fluctuate over time.

Even though Trump is ahead in most swing state polls, 538 has it 53 Biden win probability, 47 Trump.

A bit surprising, but the overall message is what we all are expecting -- this election is currently close AF.

The base case scenario has Biden winning the popular vote by 2.5 points over Trump, RFK Jr. getting 8 points, and Biden winning the EC 276-262.

Biden gets to 270 if he wins PA, WI, Mich.

Buckle up!!!!





https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... -forecast/

It's interesting because both of these guys have already been President. My question to you, is what will there be to complain about if Biden wins the election?
Even with a loss in this election, Trump is still going to being to talked about as this existential threat. What will take for you not to worry so much about him? :lol: :lol:

Joe
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 34033
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: 2024

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

JoeMauer89 wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2024 6:40 pm
ggait wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2024 5:24 pm FWIW, 538s electoral college forecast was initially published today.

Unlike just showing the poll percentages, 538 attempts to break it down into EC outcomes which, of course, is how the president is actually elected. Who knows if this is right, but useful/interesting to see how the race trends fluctuate over time.

Even though Trump is ahead in most swing state polls, 538 has it 53 Biden win probability, 47 Trump.

A bit surprising, but the overall message is what we all are expecting -- this election is currently close AF.

The base case scenario has Biden winning the popular vote by 2.5 points over Trump, RFK Jr. getting 8 points, and Biden winning the EC 276-262.

Biden gets to 270 if he wins PA, WI, Mich.

Buckle up!!!!





https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... -forecast/

It's interesting because both of these guys have already been President. My question to you, is what will there be to complain about if Biden wins the election?
Even with a loss in this election, Trump is still going to being to talked about as this existential threat. What will take for you not to worry so much about him? :lol: :lol:

Joe
I really hope Trump wins

Ahead of america’s election in November, company bosses, financiers and diplomats are busy calling on Donald Trump’s allies, trying to divine the economic policies that the former president will pursue if he is re-elected. But there is one man in Mr Trump’s orbit who holds more sway than most and who, for now, is virtually inaccessible. That is because he is inmate number 04370-510 in the Federal Correctional Institution of Miami.

Peter Navarro, a leading economic adviser in Mr Trump’s first administration, is more than halfway through a four-month sentence for contempt of Congress. He bristles with indignation at the justice system, disdains Joe Biden’s record and longs to steer America towards hardline protectionism. In written correspondence with The Economist, Mr Navarro has laid out how he thinks Mr Trump should approach trade—from turning up the heat on China to slapping tariffs on just about everyone else. It is a dark, angry vision for the global economy. As polls stand, it is one Mr Navarro may shortly be able to promote from inside the White House.

Amid the chaos of the previous Trump administration, Mr Navarro stood out as especially disruptive, acerbic and vengeful. At various points the former economics professor was sidelined from trade negotiations, investigated for abusing colleagues and publicly castigated. But throughout it all Mr Navarro managed to remain in Mr Trump’s favour. His position was only bolstered after he demonstrated complete loyalty by refusing to comply with a subpoena from the House of Representatives committee investigating the Capitol riot of January 6th 2021. It was that refusal that landed the wiry 74-year-old in prison in March.

To gauge the influence of Mr Navarro’s ideas, consider how Mr Trump has praised his latest book. “The New maga Deal” is due out on July 16th, almost perfectly coinciding with its author’s release from prison. “What he says should be highly respected,” reads a dustjacket quote from Mr Trump. “Peter Navarro is a Patriot who has been treated very badly, but he continues forward. In the end, there will be Victory!”

Back in 2016 Mr Navarro’s appeals for protectionism made him an outlier, even among Republicans. Now he is much closer to the mainstream, as shown by Mr Biden’s recent decision to slap hefty tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles (evs), solar panels and more. It is the triumph of “the Trumpian principle that economic security is national security”, says Mr Navarro. “The debate is over.”

Not that he has anything nice to say about Bidenomics. In Mr Navarro’s view, Mr Biden messed up by making industrial policy heavy on subsidies for evs. Not only did that “spike the federal deficit” in America, it also, perversely, encouraged China to produce more ev batteries. “If Trump had been president, this never would have happened,” he says. As with many of Mr Navarro’s claims, this is highly debatable: Mr Biden’s subsidies require battery components to be made in America or by free-trade partners, and Mr Trump’s tax cuts add even more to the deficit. But it is true that Chinese producers dominate the global ev market, and that they are investing abroad in a bid to dodge American tariffs.

Mr Navarro’s prescription is to prevent third countries from being used as conduits for Chinese goods. “Vietnam is a major shadow export platform for ‘Made in China’ and invites a crackdown,” he says. He also warns that Mexico may imperil the free-trade agreement between it, America and Canada if it accepts too much Chinese investment. “Mr Trump simply won’t tolerate a Communist Chinese beachhead on America’s southern flank,” he says.

One way Mr Biden has distinguished his trade strategy from Mr Trump’s is by trying to mend ties with allies, to form a united front against China. Some diplomats still complain that Mr Biden’s policies boil down to the same favouritism for America, albeit via subsidies rather than tariffs and couched in politer language. But Mr Navarro’s harsh analysis is a bracing reminder that the differences are substantial. “Too many European nations are compromised by Communist Chinese influence to ever project a united front,” he says. Britain? Addicted to Chinese capital. Greece and Italy? Their ports are mortgaged to China. Germany? Too dependent on China for its exports. In Mr Navarro’s Manichaean universe, Trumpian America stands alone in its righteousness.

Even leaving China aside, Mr Navarro considers America a victim. “When it comes to steel and aluminium, the us has no allies, only competitors that cheat and dump,” he says. (The suggestion is that, as president, Mr Trump might consider reinstating his controversial steel and aluminium tariffs, rolled back by Mr Biden.) Mr Navarro also hopes to see passage of the Reciprocal Trade Act, which would allow the president to mirror the tariffs and non-tariff barriers of any country that refuses to lower its own to the level of America’s. He calls it common sense and a priority for Mr Trump. As for the World Trade Organisation (wto), rendered increasingly irrelevant by America’s crippling of its appellate body, Mr Navarro’s solution is simple: boot out China, for breaking the wto “with its ruthless economic aggression”.

In practice many of these proposals would be hard to implement and could harm America. Steel tariffs are costly for the many industries that use the metal, and so end up hurting, not helping, domestic manufacturers. Screening Chinese investments abroad would be both arduous and awkward, requiring explicit meddling in other countries’ politics. Reciprocal tariffs may sound sensible but would leave American policy looking bizarre, since each country has a blend of high and low tariffs for different sectors (which in fact allows for the compromises that make most trade deals possible). America, for instance, has hefty levies on imports of pick-up trucks and lumber. Expelling China from the wto would be nearly impossible.

But focusing on such details may miss the point. When Mr Trump was in the White House, Robert Lighthizer, a lawyer who served as United States Trade Representative, helped design America’s new tariffs and spearheaded the investigations that formed their legal basis. “Lighthizer was more the brains of the operation, whereas Navarro was the heart and the gusto, the front-line warrior willing to get sullied and dirtied,” says Dan Ikenson, a trade-policy scholar. Mr Navarro’s main official role was to lead the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy in the White House, a body created by Mr Trump with few actual staffers.

Some speculate that Mr Lighthizer may be treasury secretary if Mr Trump is re-elected, a perch from which he could remake American economic policy beyond just trade. Mr Navarro, by contrast, is not much of a manager. But his pugnaciousness appeals to Mr Trump. In a statement to the Wall Street Journal last month, Mr Trump said he would “absolutely have Peter back” in a new administration. Another sign of Mr Navarro’s good standing: Donald Trump junior, the former president’s son, recently visited him in prison.

Located at the southern tip of Miami, his low-security jail sits next to the municipal zoo and not far from a safari park. That may sound pleasant as far as detentions go, but it is still prison, with a strict curfew, restrictions on movement and little privacy in a dorm-style room. In late May there was a bloody brawl between Puerto Rican and Mexican gangs in the prison directly next to Mr Navarro’s. “It is no country for old men,” he observes.

The only thing that seems to exercise Mr Navarro more than China’s mercantilism is his belief that the Democratic Party is using the legal system to persecute Mr Trump, conspiring to prevent him from regaining power. He describes the hush-money trial that ended last month with Mr Trump’s conviction as a ploy to exhaust his funds and keep him tied up in court instead of on the campaign trail.

“Under Joe Biden’s lawfare tyranny, America is nothing more than a banana republic and the world, particularly Communist China, is laughing at us,” he says. That makes for quite the contrast with Republicans’ more usual depiction of Mr Biden as a doddering fool. Like many of Mr Navarro’s extreme views, this one has scant basis in reality. But one thing is all too clear: no one should be laughing at him, or the prospect of his ideas once more holding sway in the White House.

I can’t wait for these people to get back in office.
“I wish you would!”
User avatar
youthathletics
Posts: 15777
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:36 pm

Re: 2024

Post by youthathletics »

Typical Lax Dad wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2024 6:53 pm
JoeMauer89 wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2024 6:40 pm
ggait wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2024 5:24 pm FWIW, 538s electoral college forecast was initially published today.

Unlike just showing the poll percentages, 538 attempts to break it down into EC outcomes which, of course, is how the president is actually elected. Who knows if this is right, but useful/interesting to see how the race trends fluctuate over time.

Even though Trump is ahead in most swing state polls, 538 has it 53 Biden win probability, 47 Trump.

A bit surprising, but the overall message is what we all are expecting -- this election is currently close AF.

The base case scenario has Biden winning the popular vote by 2.5 points over Trump, RFK Jr. getting 8 points, and Biden winning the EC 276-262.

Biden gets to 270 if he wins PA, WI, Mich.

Buckle up!!!!





https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... -forecast/

It's interesting because both of these guys have already been President. My question to you, is what will there be to complain about if Biden wins the election?
Even with a loss in this election, Trump is still going to being to talked about as this existential threat. What will take for you not to worry so much about him? :lol: :lol:

Joe
I really hope Trump wins

Ahead of america’s election in November, company bosses, financiers and diplomats are busy calling on Donald Trump’s allies, trying to divine the economic policies that the former president will pursue if he is re-elected. But there is one man in Mr Trump’s orbit who holds more sway than most and who, for now, is virtually inaccessible. That is because he is inmate number 04370-510 in the Federal Correctional Institution of Miami.

Peter Navarro, a leading economic adviser in Mr Trump’s first administration, is more than halfway through a four-month sentence for contempt of Congress. He bristles with indignation at the justice system, disdains Joe Biden’s record and longs to steer America towards hardline protectionism. In written correspondence with The Economist, Mr Navarro has laid out how he thinks Mr Trump should approach trade—from turning up the heat on China to slapping tariffs on just about everyone else. It is a dark, angry vision for the global economy. As polls stand, it is one Mr Navarro may shortly be able to promote from inside the White House.

Amid the chaos of the previous Trump administration, Mr Navarro stood out as especially disruptive, acerbic and vengeful. At various points the former economics professor was sidelined from trade negotiations, investigated for abusing colleagues and publicly castigated. But throughout it all Mr Navarro managed to remain in Mr Trump’s favour. His position was only bolstered after he demonstrated complete loyalty by refusing to comply with a subpoena from the House of Representatives committee investigating the Capitol riot of January 6th 2021. It was that refusal that landed the wiry 74-year-old in prison in March.

To gauge the influence of Mr Navarro’s ideas, consider how Mr Trump has praised his latest book. “The New maga Deal” is due out on July 16th, almost perfectly coinciding with its author’s release from prison. “What he says should be highly respected,” reads a dustjacket quote from Mr Trump. “Peter Navarro is a Patriot who has been treated very badly, but he continues forward. In the end, there will be Victory!”

Back in 2016 Mr Navarro’s appeals for protectionism made him an outlier, even among Republicans. Now he is much closer to the mainstream, as shown by Mr Biden’s recent decision to slap hefty tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles (evs), solar panels and more. It is the triumph of “the Trumpian principle that economic security is national security”, says Mr Navarro. “The debate is over.”

Not that he has anything nice to say about Bidenomics. In Mr Navarro’s view, Mr Biden messed up by making industrial policy heavy on subsidies for evs. Not only did that “spike the federal deficit” in America, it also, perversely, encouraged China to produce more ev batteries. “If Trump had been president, this never would have happened,” he says. As with many of Mr Navarro’s claims, this is highly debatable: Mr Biden’s subsidies require battery components to be made in America or by free-trade partners, and Mr Trump’s tax cuts add even more to the deficit. But it is true that Chinese producers dominate the global ev market, and that they are investing abroad in a bid to dodge American tariffs.

Mr Navarro’s prescription is to prevent third countries from being used as conduits for Chinese goods. “Vietnam is a major shadow export platform for ‘Made in China’ and invites a crackdown,” he says. He also warns that Mexico may imperil the free-trade agreement between it, America and Canada if it accepts too much Chinese investment. “Mr Trump simply won’t tolerate a Communist Chinese beachhead on America’s southern flank,” he says.

One way Mr Biden has distinguished his trade strategy from Mr Trump’s is by trying to mend ties with allies, to form a united front against China. Some diplomats still complain that Mr Biden’s policies boil down to the same favouritism for America, albeit via subsidies rather than tariffs and couched in politer language. But Mr Navarro’s harsh analysis is a bracing reminder that the differences are substantial. “Too many European nations are compromised by Communist Chinese influence to ever project a united front,” he says. Britain? Addicted to Chinese capital. Greece and Italy? Their ports are mortgaged to China. Germany? Too dependent on China for its exports. In Mr Navarro’s Manichaean universe, Trumpian America stands alone in its righteousness.

Even leaving China aside, Mr Navarro considers America a victim. “When it comes to steel and aluminium, the us has no allies, only competitors that cheat and dump,” he says. (The suggestion is that, as president, Mr Trump might consider reinstating his controversial steel and aluminium tariffs, rolled back by Mr Biden.) Mr Navarro also hopes to see passage of the Reciprocal Trade Act, which would allow the president to mirror the tariffs and non-tariff barriers of any country that refuses to lower its own to the level of America’s. He calls it common sense and a priority for Mr Trump. As for the World Trade Organisation (wto), rendered increasingly irrelevant by America’s crippling of its appellate body, Mr Navarro’s solution is simple: boot out China, for breaking the wto “with its ruthless economic aggression”.

In practice many of these proposals would be hard to implement and could harm America. Steel tariffs are costly for the many industries that use the metal, and so end up hurting, not helping, domestic manufacturers. Screening Chinese investments abroad would be both arduous and awkward, requiring explicit meddling in other countries’ politics. Reciprocal tariffs may sound sensible but would leave American policy looking bizarre, since each country has a blend of high and low tariffs for different sectors (which in fact allows for the compromises that make most trade deals possible). America, for instance, has hefty levies on imports of pick-up trucks and lumber. Expelling China from the wto would be nearly impossible.

But focusing on such details may miss the point. When Mr Trump was in the White House, Robert Lighthizer, a lawyer who served as United States Trade Representative, helped design America’s new tariffs and spearheaded the investigations that formed their legal basis. “Lighthizer was more the brains of the operation, whereas Navarro was the heart and the gusto, the front-line warrior willing to get sullied and dirtied,” says Dan Ikenson, a trade-policy scholar. Mr Navarro’s main official role was to lead the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy in the White House, a body created by Mr Trump with few actual staffers.

Some speculate that Mr Lighthizer may be treasury secretary if Mr Trump is re-elected, a perch from which he could remake American economic policy beyond just trade. Mr Navarro, by contrast, is not much of a manager. But his pugnaciousness appeals to Mr Trump. In a statement to the Wall Street Journal last month, Mr Trump said he would “absolutely have Peter back” in a new administration. Another sign of Mr Navarro’s good standing: Donald Trump junior, the former president’s son, recently visited him in prison.

Located at the southern tip of Miami, his low-security jail sits next to the municipal zoo and not far from a safari park. That may sound pleasant as far as detentions go, but it is still prison, with a strict curfew, restrictions on movement and little privacy in a dorm-style room. In late May there was a bloody brawl between Puerto Rican and Mexican gangs in the prison directly next to Mr Navarro’s. “It is no country for old men,” he observes.

The only thing that seems to exercise Mr Navarro more than China’s mercantilism is his belief that the Democratic Party is using the legal system to persecute Mr Trump, conspiring to prevent him from regaining power. He describes the hush-money trial that ended last month with Mr Trump’s conviction as a ploy to exhaust his funds and keep him tied up in court instead of on the campaign trail.

“Under Joe Biden’s lawfare tyranny, America is nothing more than a banana republic and the world, particularly Communist China, is laughing at us,” he says. That makes for quite the contrast with Republicans’ more usual depiction of Mr Biden as a doddering fool. Like many of Mr Navarro’s extreme views, this one has scant basis in reality. But one thing is all too clear: no one should be laughing at him, or the prospect of his ideas once more holding sway in the White House. "

I can’t wait for these people to get back in office.
Edited your post in italics and quotes, to show it was cited from another source to avoid any trouble...

from the Economist: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-e ... ehind-bars
A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
~Livy


“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” -Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 27053
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: 2024

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

JoeMauer89 wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2024 6:40 pm
ggait wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2024 5:24 pm FWIW, 538s electoral college forecast was initially published today.

Unlike just showing the poll percentages, 538 attempts to break it down into EC outcomes which, of course, is how the president is actually elected. Who knows if this is right, but useful/interesting to see how the race trends fluctuate over time.

Even though Trump is ahead in most swing state polls, 538 has it 53 Biden win probability, 47 Trump.

A bit surprising, but the overall message is what we all are expecting -- this election is currently close AF.

The base case scenario has Biden winning the popular vote by 2.5 points over Trump, RFK Jr. getting 8 points, and Biden winning the EC 276-262.

Biden gets to 270 if he wins PA, WI, Mich.

Buckle up!!!!





https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... -forecast/

It's interesting because both of these guys have already been President. My question to you, is what will there be to complain about if Biden wins the election?
Even with a loss in this election, Trump is still going to being to talked about as this existential threat. What will take for you not to worry so much about him? :lol: :lol:

Joe
Boy, that's a pretty darn easy question, Joe.

Answer: Trump and MAGA losing ignominiously and the GOP coming to its senses and realizing again that wholehearted embracing Christian Nationalist fascists and bigots is a losing strategy as well as morally reprehensible. Refocus on competent governance from the middle not the fringe. Compromise not a dirty word.

We can then go back to worrying about Dems flirting with lefty extremists.
JoeMauer89
Posts: 2009
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2020 10:39 pm

Re: 2024

Post by JoeMauer89 »

MDlaxfan76 wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2024 9:11 pm
JoeMauer89 wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2024 6:40 pm
ggait wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2024 5:24 pm FWIW, 538s electoral college forecast was initially published today.

Unlike just showing the poll percentages, 538 attempts to break it down into EC outcomes which, of course, is how the president is actually elected. Who knows if this is right, but useful/interesting to see how the race trends fluctuate over time.

Even though Trump is ahead in most swing state polls, 538 has it 53 Biden win probability, 47 Trump.

A bit surprising, but the overall message is what we all are expecting -- this election is currently close AF.

The base case scenario has Biden winning the popular vote by 2.5 points over Trump, RFK Jr. getting 8 points, and Biden winning the EC 276-262.

Biden gets to 270 if he wins PA, WI, Mich.

Buckle up!!!!





https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... -forecast/

It's interesting because both of these guys have already been President. My question to you, is what will there be to complain about if Biden wins the election?
Even with a loss in this election, Trump is still going to being to talked about as this existential threat. What will take for you not to worry so much about him? :lol: :lol:

Joe
Boy, that's a pretty darn easy question, Joe.

Answer: Trump and MAGA losing ignominiously and the GOP coming to its senses and realizing again that wholehearted embracing Christian Nationalist fascists and bigots is a losing strategy as well as morally reprehensible. Refocus on competent governance from the middle not the fringe. Compromise not a dirty word.

We can then go back to worrying about Dems flirting with lefty extremists.
If Trump loses this election he isn't running again in 2028. If you think otherwise you're not seeing things clearly.

Joe
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 27053
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: 2024

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

JoeMauer89 wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2024 9:12 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2024 9:11 pm
JoeMauer89 wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2024 6:40 pm
ggait wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2024 5:24 pm FWIW, 538s electoral college forecast was initially published today.

Unlike just showing the poll percentages, 538 attempts to break it down into EC outcomes which, of course, is how the president is actually elected. Who knows if this is right, but useful/interesting to see how the race trends fluctuate over time.

Even though Trump is ahead in most swing state polls, 538 has it 53 Biden win probability, 47 Trump.

A bit surprising, but the overall message is what we all are expecting -- this election is currently close AF.

The base case scenario has Biden winning the popular vote by 2.5 points over Trump, RFK Jr. getting 8 points, and Biden winning the EC 276-262.

Biden gets to 270 if he wins PA, WI, Mich.

Buckle up!!!!





https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... -forecast/

It's interesting because both of these guys have already been President. My question to you, is what will there be to complain about if Biden wins the election?
Even with a loss in this election, Trump is still going to being to talked about as this existential threat. What will take for you not to worry so much about him? :lol: :lol:

Joe
Boy, that's a pretty darn easy question, Joe.

Answer: Trump and MAGA losing ignominiously and the GOP coming to its senses and realizing again that wholehearted embracing Christian Nationalist fascists and bigots is a losing strategy as well as morally reprehensible. Refocus on competent governance from the middle not the fringe. Compromise not a dirty word.

We can then go back to worrying about Dems flirting with lefty extremists.
If Trump loses this election he isn't running again in 2028. If you think otherwise you're not seeing things clearly.

Joe
I agree. Not sure how I gave any impression otherwise.

Even without Trump, though, I'm concerned about the MAGA thing having serious legs...but I do think Trump losing badly would be a wake up call and embolden those who've been just treading water while the cult stuff got frenzied to step up and push the nutcases and extremists out of the party. Clean up the act. Get serious about governance again...from the center right, not the far right. Earn trust again from reasonable people who would prefer at least some center right policies, but ain't in a rush to crush the opposition.

But you're right, losing again would not invite a return by Trump. And the opponent the following time is going to a younger guy or gal, so no Joe to complain is too old.

And without the cult aspect of Trump, seems to me MAGA loses a ton of energy. Sure hope so.
User avatar
NattyBohChamps04
Posts: 2787
Joined: Tue May 04, 2021 11:40 pm

Re: 2024

Post by NattyBohChamps04 »

Honest question - if he loses, why would Trump not run in 2028? Getting the nomination is one thing, but I don't see a downside for him to throw his hat in the ring.

Only thing I could see preventing him would be a serious chronic health issue or death. If alive, I could easily see him pushing Ivanka or someone else to run as his proxy.
njbill
Posts: 7498
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:35 am

Re: 2024

Post by njbill »

Oh, I think he will run in 2028. He’ll continue to run (like Harold Stassen) until he’s buried next to Ivana off the second fairway.

As long as he runs, he can continue the grift.
JoeMauer89
Posts: 2009
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2020 10:39 pm

Re: 2024

Post by JoeMauer89 »

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2024 9:29 pm Honest question - if he loses, why would Trump not run in 2028? Getting the nomination is one thing, but I don't see a downside for him to throw his hat in the ring.

Only thing I could see preventing him would be a serious chronic health issue or death. If alive, I could easily see him pushing Ivanka or someone else to run as his proxy.
His support would be lacking in 2028. Non-factor.

Joe
User avatar
NattyBohChamps04
Posts: 2787
Joined: Tue May 04, 2021 11:40 pm

Re: 2024

Post by NattyBohChamps04 »

JoeMauer89 wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2024 9:48 pm
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2024 9:29 pm Honest question - if he loses, why would Trump not run in 2028? Getting the nomination is one thing, but I don't see a downside for him to throw his hat in the ring.

Only thing I could see preventing him would be a serious chronic health issue or death. If alive, I could easily see him pushing Ivanka or someone else to run as his proxy.
His support would be lacking in 2028. Non-factor.

Joe
That's not stopping him from running and he doesn't really care about his support. Heck, he only had like ~25% of the Republican base in 2016 at the start of the primaries. 75% of Republicans wanted someone else. Unfortunately all their votes got diluted with the large field and first-past-the-post system.

I just don't see anything that deters him from trying to run. Hopefully Republicans grow a spine if he does lose and reject him outright. They did for a few days after January 6th.
Seacoaster(1)
Posts: 5190
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am

Re: 2024

Post by Seacoaster(1) »

Tom Nichols in The Atlantic. Trump's gibberish on sharks, electric motors, windmills...and the 2024 election:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... 00015b661b

"Perhaps the greatest trick Donald Trump ever pulled was convincing millions of people—and the American media—to treat his lapses into fantasies and gibberish as a normal, meaningful form of oratory. But Trump is not a normal person, and his speeches are not normal political events.

For too long, Trump has gotten away with pretending that his emotional issues are just part of some offbeat New York charm or an expression of his enthusiasm for public performance. But Trump is obviously unfit—and something is profoundly wrong with a political environment in which he can now say almost anything, no matter how weird, and his comments will get a couple of days of coverage and then a shrug, as if to say: Another day, another Trump rant about sharks.

Wait, what?

Yes, sharks. In Las Vegas on Sunday, Trump went off-script—I have to assume that no competent speechwriter would have drafted this—and riffed on the important question of how to electrocute a shark while one attacks. He had been talking, he claims, to someone about electric boats: “I say, ‘What would happen if the boat sank from its weight and you’re in the boat, and you have this tremendously powerful battery, and the battery’s now underwater, and there’s a shark that’s approximately 10 yards over there?’”

As usual, Trump noted how much he impressed his interlocutor with his very smart hypothetical: “And he said, ‘Nobody ever asks this question,’ and it must be because of MIT, my relationship to MIT. Very smart.” (MIT? Trump’s uncle taught there and retired over a half century ago, when Trump was in his 20s, and died in 1985. Trump often implies that his uncle passed on MIT’s brainpower by genetic osmosis or something.)

This ramble went on for a bit longer, until Trump made it clear that given his choice, he’d rather be zapped instead of eaten: “But you know what I’d do if there was a shark or you get electrocuted? I’ll take electrocution every single time. I’m not getting near the shark. So we’re going to end that, we’re going to end it for boats, we’re going to end it for trucks.”

Hopefully, this puts to rest any pressing questions among Americans about the presumptive Republican nominee’s feelings on electric vehicles and their relationship to at least two gruesome ways to die.

Sure, it seems funny—Haha! Uncle Don is telling that crazy shark story again!—until we remember that this man wants to return to a position where he would hold America’s secrets, be responsible for the execution of our laws, and preside as the commander in chief of the most powerful military in the world. A moment that seems like oddball humor should, in fact, terrify any American voter, because this behavior in anyone else would be an instant disqualification for any political office, let alone the presidency. (Actually, a delusional, rambling felon known to have owned weapons would likely fail a security check for even a visit to the Oval Office.)

Nor was the Vegas monologue the first time: Trump for years has fallen off one verbal cliff after another, with barely a ripple in the national consciousness. I am not a psychiatrist, and I am not diagnosing Trump with anything. I am, however, a man who has lived on this Earth for more than 60 years, and I know someone who has serious emotional problems when I see them played out in front of me, over and over. The 45th president is a disturbed person. He cannot be trusted with any position of responsibility—and especially not with an nuclear arsenal of more than 1,500 weapons. One wrong move could lead to global incineration.

Why hasn’t there been more sustained and serious attention paid to Trump’s emotional state?

First, Trump’s target audience is used to him. Watch the silence that descends over the crowds at such moments; when Trump wanders off into the recesses of his own mind, they chit-chat or check their phones or look around, waiting for him to come back and offer them an applause line. For them, it’s all just part of the show.

Second, Trump’s staff tries to put just enough policy fiber into Trump’s nutty verbal soufflés that they can always sell a talking point later, as if his off-ramps from reality are merely tiny bumps in otherwise sensible speeches. Trump himself occasionally seems surprised when these policy nuggets pop up in a speech; when reading the teleprompter, he sometimes adds comments such as “so true, so true,” perhaps because he’s encountering someone else’s words for the first time and agreeing with them. Thus, they will later claim that questions about sharks or long-dead uncles are just bad-faith distractions from substance. (These are the same Republicans who claim that every verbal stumble from Joe Biden indicates full-blown dementia.)


Third, and perhaps most concerning in terms of public discussion, many people in the media have fallen under the spell of the Jedi hand-waves from Trump and his people that none of this is as disturbing and weird as it sounds. The refs have been worked: A significant segment of the media—and even the Democratic Party—has bought into a Republican narrative that asking whether Trump is mentally unstable is somehow biased and elitist, the kind of thing that could only occur to Beltway mandarins who don’t understand how the candidate talks to normal people.

Such objections are mendacious nonsense and represent a massive double standard. As Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post wrote today: “It is irresponsible to obsess over President Biden’s tendency to mangle a couple of words in a speech while Donald Trump is out there sounding detached from reality.” Biden’s mush-mouthed moments fall well within the range of normal gaffes. Had he or any other American politician said anything even remotely like one of Trump’s bizarre digressions, we’d be flooded with front-page stories about it. Pundits would be solemnly calling for a Much Needed National Conversation about the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.

It is long past time for anyone who isn’t in the Trump base to admit, and to keep talking about, something that has been obvious for years: Donald Trump is unstable. Some of these problems were evident when he first ran, and we now know from revelations by many of his former staff that his problems processing information and staying tethered to reality are not part of some hammy act.

Worse, the people who once managed Trump’s cognitive and emotional issues are gone, never to return. A second Trump White House will be staffed with the bottom of the barrel—the opportunists and hangers-on willing to work for a reprehensible man. His Oval Office will be empty of responsible and experienced public servants if the day comes when someone has to explain to him why war might be about to erupt on the Korean peninsula or why the Russian or Chinese nuclear forces have gone on alert, and he starts talking about frying sharks with boat batteries.

The 45th president is deeply unwell. It is long past time for Americans, including those in public life, to recognize his inability to serve as the 47th."
User avatar
youthathletics
Posts: 15777
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:36 pm

Re: 2024

Post by youthathletics »

A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
~Livy


“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” -Soren Kierkegaard
Seacoaster(1)
Posts: 5190
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am

Re: 2024

Post by Seacoaster(1) »

youthathletics wrote: Thu Jun 13, 2024 9:10 am This is not leadership: https://x.com/JoeBiden/status/1801234404301230386
It is pushback against:

the intensifying efforts to whitewash the assault on the Capitol and disruption of the certification as some garden variety expression of First Amendment rights;

the Horst Wessell-ization of the incident and the then-President's part in it;

the depiction of the people assaulting the Capitol and invading Congressional and Senate offices as political prisoners and hostages; and

the Right's effort to transform this into a Reichstag burning.

Look at the comments:

Your friend #bubblebathgirl: "J6 was a hoax orchestrated by the Democrats."

Others:

"Make no mistake, this is an orchestrated WITCH HUNT against President Trump and the ENTIRE America First movement."

The post by the Biden campaign is correct; there is nothing more sacred than our democracy. The effort to rinse and sanitize the assault on January 6 is a disgrace. But you keep dutifully pushing this stuff for them.
User avatar
youthathletics
Posts: 15777
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:36 pm

Re: 2024

Post by youthathletics »

Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 13, 2024 9:30 am
youthathletics wrote: Thu Jun 13, 2024 9:10 am This is not leadership: https://x.com/JoeBiden/status/1801234404301230386
It is pushback against:

the intensifying efforts to whitewash the assault on the Capitol and disruption of the certification as some garden variety expression of First Amendment rights;

the Horst Wessell-ization of the incident and the then-President's part in it;

the depiction of the people assaulting the Capitol and invading Congressional and Senate offices as political prisoners and hostages; and

the Right's effort to transform this into a Reichstag burning.

Look at the comments:

Your friend #bubblebathgirl: "J6 was a hoax orchestrated by the Democrats."

Others:

"Make no mistake, this is an orchestrated WITCH HUNT against President Trump and the ENTIRE America First movement."

The post by the Biden campaign is correct; there is nothing more sacred than our democracy. The effort to rinse and sanitize the assault on January 6 is a disgrace. But you keep dutifully pushing this stuff for them.
You are proving my point, this is not what Leadership looks like.
A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
~Livy


“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” -Soren Kierkegaard
Seacoaster(1)
Posts: 5190
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am

Re: 2024

Post by Seacoaster(1) »

youthathletics wrote: Thu Jun 13, 2024 9:35 am
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 13, 2024 9:30 am
youthathletics wrote: Thu Jun 13, 2024 9:10 am This is not leadership: https://x.com/JoeBiden/status/1801234404301230386
It is pushback against:

the intensifying efforts to whitewash the assault on the Capitol and disruption of the certification as some garden variety expression of First Amendment rights;

the Horst Wessell-ization of the incident and the then-President's part in it;

the depiction of the people assaulting the Capitol and invading Congressional and Senate offices as political prisoners and hostages; and

the Right's effort to transform this into a Reichstag burning.

Look at the comments:

Your friend #bubblebathgirl: "J6 was a hoax orchestrated by the Democrats."

Others:

"Make no mistake, this is an orchestrated WITCH HUNT against President Trump and the ENTIRE America First movement."

The post by the Biden campaign is correct; there is nothing more sacred than our democracy. The effort to rinse and sanitize the assault on January 6 is a disgrace. But you keep dutifully pushing this stuff for them.
You are proving my point, this is not what Leadership looks like.
This is always your response -- that people are somehow "proving your point." Absolute bullsh*t. I don't even know what your point is, YA, except to show how brain-smothered and mentally shaped you are by the anti-democratic claptrap you read and traffic on social media platforms.

We are in the middle of a presidential campaign. Party nominating conventions are imminent. There is less than five months to election day. The GOP candidate is campaigning on, in part, a promise to "free the political prisoners of J6," and to "pardon the hostages." Biden and his campaign have every right and likely a meaningful need to counterpoint these talking points of the opposition's campaign. But you pathetically suggest this isn't "leadership" enough for the likes of you, and that Biden must accept some mythic highroad to his opponent's relentless campaign of misinformation and proto-authoritarianism, and not meet the GOP's campaign of bullsh*t head on. It'd be funny if you weren't coopted into being a little clerk/assistant in the effort to transmogrify criminals into heroes.
jhu72
Posts: 14445
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: 2024

Post by jhu72 »

MDlaxfan76 wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2024 9:21 pm
JoeMauer89 wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2024 9:12 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2024 9:11 pm
JoeMauer89 wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2024 6:40 pm
ggait wrote: Tue Jun 11, 2024 5:24 pm FWIW, 538s electoral college forecast was initially published today.

Unlike just showing the poll percentages, 538 attempts to break it down into EC outcomes which, of course, is how the president is actually elected. Who knows if this is right, but useful/interesting to see how the race trends fluctuate over time.

Even though Trump is ahead in most swing state polls, 538 has it 53 Biden win probability, 47 Trump.

A bit surprising, but the overall message is what we all are expecting -- this election is currently close AF.

The base case scenario has Biden winning the popular vote by 2.5 points over Trump, RFK Jr. getting 8 points, and Biden winning the EC 276-262.

Biden gets to 270 if he wins PA, WI, Mich.

Buckle up!!!!





https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... -forecast/

It's interesting because both of these guys have already been President. My question to you, is what will there be to complain about if Biden wins the election?
Even with a loss in this election, Trump is still going to being to talked about as this existential threat. What will take for you not to worry so much about him? :lol: :lol:

Joe
Boy, that's a pretty darn easy question, Joe.

Answer: Trump and MAGA losing ignominiously and the GOP coming to its senses and realizing again that wholehearted embracing Christian Nationalist fascists and bigots is a losing strategy as well as morally reprehensible. Refocus on competent governance from the middle not the fringe. Compromise not a dirty word.

We can then go back to worrying about Dems flirting with lefty extremists.
If Trump loses this election he isn't running again in 2028. If you think otherwise you're not seeing things clearly.

Joe
I agree. Not sure how I gave any impression otherwise.

Even without Trump, though, I'm concerned about the MAGA thing having serious legs...but I do think Trump losing badly would be a wake up call and embolden those who've been just treading water while the cult stuff got frenzied to step up and push the nutcases and extremists out of the party. Clean up the act. Get serious about governance again...from the center right, not the far right. Earn trust again from reasonable people who would prefer at least some center right policies, but ain't in a rush to crush the opposition.

But you're right, losing again would not invite a return by Trump. And the opponent the following time is going to a younger guy or gal, so no Joe to complain is too old.

And without the cult aspect of Trump, seems to me MAGA loses a ton of energy. Sure hope so.
... Trump is not the problem. It is his fascist voting block.
Image STAND AGAINST FASCISM
Post Reply

Return to “POLITICS”