I assume you mean "it would be hard for a conservative to vote for Harris." I agree. It's also hard to stand up to someone who is attacking someone weaker. They might get mad and hit you! It's hard to work at a job day after day and make money. People have better, more important things to do! It's hard to diet and exercise. But burgers are so good!
We do those things because we feel they are the right things to do.
If someone can't be bothered? Then the results are their fault, no one else's. All it takes is for good men to do nothing.
You are assuming that it's better to vote against a "bad" character even when their polices as a whole would be better for the country in "your" opinion. In my opinion, Trump is better for the country than Harris.
However since I do value the stability of the institutions I wouldn't pick Trump but it would be a hard call. If the choice had been Senator Warren vs Trump, even I would have picked Trump.
Since the reality is that he is now the President, I actually think that the outcome will be better with him than with Harris. I'm not endorsing his character but it is what it is. I don't agree with Obama's worldview entirely but I would prefer Obama over Trump. Biden or Harris over Trump would require me to hold my nose and pick one of them. Warren vs Trump, it's Trump for sure.
IMO progressive polices (with a large P) are well intentioned but just ill thought out. So a character like Trump, who just happens to align with some economic polices of mine, is the better choice more than likely (if the world doesn't blow up in the process).
Trump isn't likely to start a war. He isn't likely to raise taxes, create a wealth tax, enlarge the size of the government or waste time and energy going in the wrong direction regarding market driven events.
Much of what he thinks and says is nonsense, unfortunately but it is what it is. IMO, virtue signaling about "good men" isn't what this is about.
Housing isn't "unaffordable". Housing in the US is generally less expensive than most other developed countries.
Income and wealth inequality isn't a real concern IMO. In the progressive world it is everything.
Livable wages is a personal thing and not something to legislate in a market economy.
Most of the social "inequalities" that progressives are trying to fix either aren't fixable or aren't fixable in the way that they are suggesting to do it. Throwing money or redistributing money isn't the solution.
Hugging and stimulating your young children is necessary and when that isn't done, the rest is insufficient. If you don't practice self-gratification you don't end up with real wealth. That's why those with wealth are the 1%. Everyone else isn't disciplined. They have higher than average world incomes but still live paycheck to paycheck.
In general, your life result isn't someone else's fault. It's not about the high marginal tax rates in the 50's or the union jobs that someone's grandfather had for a few years when industry was bombed out everywhere else due to WWII.
Debt is a major problem. We aren't at war, we don't have a plan and spending is all we know how to do.
We could fix that with transparency. If middle class taxes automatically went up every time spending went up, that problem would be solved. Wars would be short, spending would be prioritized, etc.
Yep. I believe both, depending on the issue.
This is either the second or third time you've said "there's only one issue, and everything else is irrelevant." Oddly enough the issues you have listed are not the same.
Again, you are being a little too literal. Debt is a big issue. That doesn't literally mean that there are no other issues. It's like your continual comment about government and the roads and other services, no one is actually for no government.
www.start.umd.edu