Kamala does suck, but I dunno about your footnotes. Hillary beat Sanders without superdelegates, Google the company didn't donate to Kamala's campaign in any meaningful way (it's their employees, who donate a lot because they are liberal, have a ton of disposable income, and there's a lot of them), and while I'm open to missing something the tax brackets almost certainly didn't shift enough to explain a 15% shift in take-home pay.
I agree with the radical centrist beneath me. Last time round, Donald promised to mess everything up really badly, and didn't. He was fine as a president.
To find a vote for him this time, you must believe he is lying to everybody's face all over again. Don't get me wrong. This is a distinct possibility. These are politicians after all, but doesn't that seem like a weird way to decide a ruler? That doesn't sit well with me. Not being American, I don't get a vote in all this. I don't really care what happens, but this really is an election between two candidates who both refuse to say anything at all, because I think by this point everybody just assumes the orange man is lying, which invalidates most things he says, and Kamala legitimately just doesn't say anything/
In this way, it's one of the weirdest elections I've ever observed. Donald is unable to credibly commit to anything, due to all the broken promises of last time around, and Kamala refuses to credibly commit to anything. Like you mentioned, I have not found a single credible commitment from either side to anything. What kind of election is that?
I think anybody who committed to anything would've won an election against Donald Trump easily, and I think the same of virtually any opponent against Kamala Harris, but both parties engaged in this race to the bottom, for reasons that I (a foreigner) don't really understand. Why would you do this as a political party?
Foreign Policy: no mention of Ukraine and two state solution in Mideast
Immigration: No difference in substance of southern border policy (except the suspicion based on his sabotage of the recent House bill that Trump wants and issue, not a solution). Trump unlikely to significantly increase high skill/education/entrepreneurial immigrants. Deporting estblished immigrants will cause economic damage to the people they are currently doing business with: employers, customers, and suppliers.
Fiscal policy: Highly unlikely that Trump is serious about reducing spending, especially on things that should be cut like farm subsidies. Without significant tax increases, it's not going to happen
Tariffs/increased restriction on international trade: Bad as Democrat are, Trump is worse.
To support Trump, you have to believe he will not or cannot do ANY of the things he says he wants to do (except maintain the status quo at the southern border).
I jammed this through to publish before it got too late last night after writing all day.
Foreign policy: The current administration had ample opportunity to broker a deal between Russia/Ukraine, a deal which would have given Russia less territory than they've actually claimed by now, but would have required the prospects of Ukraine joining NATO being stifled. They did not come to any agreement, and instead we continue to send billions to fund Ukraine. Middle East is more complicated with the religious zealotry, but again, the current administration's efforts have amounted to rhetoric seeking to appease both sides. Trump has a fine relationship with Bibi and has experience in brokering complex peace deals in the region.
Immigration: The difference is that the current administration has stood by as illegal crossings have ballooned. Only after it became a welll-known issue did the current admin take action. And I don't want to hear about how congress wouldn't pass their bill--they tried to backdoor a bunch of other untenable policy items (and unrelated to immigration) into that bill.
Fiscal policy: Highly unlikely he's serious about cutting spending? Why should farm subsidies be cut that would be dramatically inflationary for Americans. There are going to be tax increases when TCJA expires in 2025, barring any new legislation.
Tarff pundits are missing the point: He made the same general threats in 2016, used them as leverage in negotiating international trade, and was a catalyst for bringing investment in jobs (manufacturing, etc) back to the US. It's safe to assume he'll use them similarly this time round.
On immigration especially, now that illegal crossings have finally become a public issue, perhaps the democrats in congress will be willing to take substantive steps toward stemming the flow. A border wall is necessary (at least to some extent), and after 8+ years the dems have finally come around on that idea which they ridiculed Trump for from the outset.
One more thing, deregulation is inherently disinflationary, although I think gov't spending (which has been the majority of actual GDP gains over the past five quarters under current admin) must be cut, which will cause lower growth, all else equal. But it needs to happen. Our economy must be driven by the consumer, not government spending or else the nat'l debt will continue to balloon.
I'm not truly qualified to speak on American politics, but I sincerely agree with the Radical Centrist on his take that conservative governments worldwide have some work to do to gain back faith that they are serious about reducing spending. Mostly, conservative governments work to bankrupt states and cities by offloading federal programs onto them, and then laud the reductions in federal spending. Most of the time, a bailout of the now bankrupt city/state is then required, eliminating all gains made. They don't fool anybody.
No climate commitment is credible unless the government commits to going after big oil. This truth is clear and obvious, but North Americans tend to look through it, because our countries are run by big oil.
What is the problem that Americans have with illegal immigration? I've heard enough to know that (for some reason) Americans really seem to care about this, but honestly. Who cares? Is American culture really in that much trouble? It's not an economic issue. It's been known since at least the 1980s that even massive influxes of immigrants don't reduce wages. The housing crisis reverts back to the issues with big oil pulling the strings. Immigration has nothing to do with that. Therefore, I judge that the issue with illegal immigrants much be a cultural one, and I just don't see it. What is the point of arguing about this? Unless we're willing to admit that racism is a big part of the issue (which I'm not well versed enough in American culture to assert), it just seems pointless.
The issue with farm subsidies, William, is that all they do is prop up inherently unprofitable businesses. That sounds anti-American to me. You guys are all about letting the weak die, unless (for some reason) the weak operate a farm, in such case we will tolerate all their inefficiencies, no matter what. I'm also a big fan of cutting farm subsidies in my homeland. It's not inflationary. However, it does turn farming into a real business, rather than handout central like it is now. Once again, I thought Americans weren't fans of handouts? Why are farmers different? There are plenty of places on Earth where farmers have to operate real businesses, and it's not a dystopia. They'll be fine.
I also don't have the time to explain why deregulation is NOT inherently disinflationary, but just know that it isn't. Us Canadians know that too well. We had to bankrupt ourselves to get out of the horrible 1980s inflation the deregulatory conservatives brought us.
Great analysis! Kamala is a snake in the grass.
Excellent breakdown of the major truths that should be obvious to everyone this election cycle!
Did I miss an interview with DT on the Howard Stern podcast?
I don’t think he ever went on Stern. At least I didn’t see it
Kamala does suck, but I dunno about your footnotes. Hillary beat Sanders without superdelegates, Google the company didn't donate to Kamala's campaign in any meaningful way (it's their employees, who donate a lot because they are liberal, have a ton of disposable income, and there's a lot of them), and while I'm open to missing something the tax brackets almost certainly didn't shift enough to explain a 15% shift in take-home pay.
My income was $70k at the time and I did indeed see that 15% bump.
Are you saying that Bernie’s movement wasn’t circumvented in the primaries?
What’s worse? Google the company being pro-Kamala or numerous Google employees (who operate the company) being pro-Kamala?
I agree with the radical centrist beneath me. Last time round, Donald promised to mess everything up really badly, and didn't. He was fine as a president.
To find a vote for him this time, you must believe he is lying to everybody's face all over again. Don't get me wrong. This is a distinct possibility. These are politicians after all, but doesn't that seem like a weird way to decide a ruler? That doesn't sit well with me. Not being American, I don't get a vote in all this. I don't really care what happens, but this really is an election between two candidates who both refuse to say anything at all, because I think by this point everybody just assumes the orange man is lying, which invalidates most things he says, and Kamala legitimately just doesn't say anything/
In this way, it's one of the weirdest elections I've ever observed. Donald is unable to credibly commit to anything, due to all the broken promises of last time around, and Kamala refuses to credibly commit to anything. Like you mentioned, I have not found a single credible commitment from either side to anything. What kind of election is that?
I think anybody who committed to anything would've won an election against Donald Trump easily, and I think the same of virtually any opponent against Kamala Harris, but both parties engaged in this race to the bottom, for reasons that I (a foreigner) don't really understand. Why would you do this as a political party?
Strange conclusions.
Foreign Policy: no mention of Ukraine and two state solution in Mideast
Immigration: No difference in substance of southern border policy (except the suspicion based on his sabotage of the recent House bill that Trump wants and issue, not a solution). Trump unlikely to significantly increase high skill/education/entrepreneurial immigrants. Deporting estblished immigrants will cause economic damage to the people they are currently doing business with: employers, customers, and suppliers.
Fiscal policy: Highly unlikely that Trump is serious about reducing spending, especially on things that should be cut like farm subsidies. Without significant tax increases, it's not going to happen
Tariffs/increased restriction on international trade: Bad as Democrat are, Trump is worse.
To support Trump, you have to believe he will not or cannot do ANY of the things he says he wants to do (except maintain the status quo at the southern border).
I jammed this through to publish before it got too late last night after writing all day.
Foreign policy: The current administration had ample opportunity to broker a deal between Russia/Ukraine, a deal which would have given Russia less territory than they've actually claimed by now, but would have required the prospects of Ukraine joining NATO being stifled. They did not come to any agreement, and instead we continue to send billions to fund Ukraine. Middle East is more complicated with the religious zealotry, but again, the current administration's efforts have amounted to rhetoric seeking to appease both sides. Trump has a fine relationship with Bibi and has experience in brokering complex peace deals in the region.
Immigration: The difference is that the current administration has stood by as illegal crossings have ballooned. Only after it became a welll-known issue did the current admin take action. And I don't want to hear about how congress wouldn't pass their bill--they tried to backdoor a bunch of other untenable policy items (and unrelated to immigration) into that bill.
Fiscal policy: Highly unlikely he's serious about cutting spending? Why should farm subsidies be cut that would be dramatically inflationary for Americans. There are going to be tax increases when TCJA expires in 2025, barring any new legislation.
Tarff pundits are missing the point: He made the same general threats in 2016, used them as leverage in negotiating international trade, and was a catalyst for bringing investment in jobs (manufacturing, etc) back to the US. It's safe to assume he'll use them similarly this time round.
On immigration especially, now that illegal crossings have finally become a public issue, perhaps the democrats in congress will be willing to take substantive steps toward stemming the flow. A border wall is necessary (at least to some extent), and after 8+ years the dems have finally come around on that idea which they ridiculed Trump for from the outset.
One more thing, deregulation is inherently disinflationary, although I think gov't spending (which has been the majority of actual GDP gains over the past five quarters under current admin) must be cut, which will cause lower growth, all else equal. But it needs to happen. Our economy must be driven by the consumer, not government spending or else the nat'l debt will continue to balloon.
I'm not truly qualified to speak on American politics, but I sincerely agree with the Radical Centrist on his take that conservative governments worldwide have some work to do to gain back faith that they are serious about reducing spending. Mostly, conservative governments work to bankrupt states and cities by offloading federal programs onto them, and then laud the reductions in federal spending. Most of the time, a bailout of the now bankrupt city/state is then required, eliminating all gains made. They don't fool anybody.
No climate commitment is credible unless the government commits to going after big oil. This truth is clear and obvious, but North Americans tend to look through it, because our countries are run by big oil.
What is the problem that Americans have with illegal immigration? I've heard enough to know that (for some reason) Americans really seem to care about this, but honestly. Who cares? Is American culture really in that much trouble? It's not an economic issue. It's been known since at least the 1980s that even massive influxes of immigrants don't reduce wages. The housing crisis reverts back to the issues with big oil pulling the strings. Immigration has nothing to do with that. Therefore, I judge that the issue with illegal immigrants much be a cultural one, and I just don't see it. What is the point of arguing about this? Unless we're willing to admit that racism is a big part of the issue (which I'm not well versed enough in American culture to assert), it just seems pointless.
The issue with farm subsidies, William, is that all they do is prop up inherently unprofitable businesses. That sounds anti-American to me. You guys are all about letting the weak die, unless (for some reason) the weak operate a farm, in such case we will tolerate all their inefficiencies, no matter what. I'm also a big fan of cutting farm subsidies in my homeland. It's not inflationary. However, it does turn farming into a real business, rather than handout central like it is now. Once again, I thought Americans weren't fans of handouts? Why are farmers different? There are plenty of places on Earth where farmers have to operate real businesses, and it's not a dystopia. They'll be fine.
I also don't have the time to explain why deregulation is NOT inherently disinflationary, but just know that it isn't. Us Canadians know that too well. We had to bankrupt ourselves to get out of the horrible 1980s inflation the deregulatory conservatives brought us.