Presidential predictions for 2024?
- Thread starter Seattle
- Start date
- Status
Not a chance. Those same information-poor voters likely think that Puerto Rico is just another shithole country, with their disease-ridden rapists coming in to the US to poison the blood of our country.
However, the impact of Ricky Martin, Bad Bunny, and J Lo is probably felt in the trenches of the battle for Latino hearts and minds.
LaurieAG
Registered Senior Member
Tiassa, do you have a problem with thinking? That was a sarcastic response to your insinuation that the current administration couldn't do anything about problems but I suppose you think they will if re-elected?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
He is waiting for Marx to come back.
Are you unable to answer the question?
• Because, again: With all the evidence of price-fixing, the price of eggs, wage theft, surge pricing, and the ongoing tacitry of price gouging … people still blame the government.
Now, then, what do you want the people we elect to actually do about the actual, real problem?
Now, then, what do you want the people we elect to actually do about the actual, real problem?
C'mon. Give it a shot. Is there some reason you just can't?
Is part of the problem here that you just don't know what you're talking about?
Or ... maybe I'm wrong: According to your understanding of how governance and law works in these United States, what do you want the people we elect to actually do about the private-sector excesses and failures contributing to inflation?
Remember, argument according to uncertainty stands out. In your case, the fallacy is intended to avoid the evidence of private-sector, i.e., non-governmental, behavior and influence. It is not, as I told our neighbor, that one cannot envisage a certain point of view, but that the view and its point are fallacious.
To wit, if we're going to start arresting the executives, we're probably going to need some new legislation. If we're going to pursue a civil-litigation course, it needs to be a lot tougher, which, again, will probably need some legislation. And in this case, you're not really so much different from Sen. Vance, the vice presidential candidate who apparently doesn't understand how the job works.
Or ... maybe I'm wrong: I can't be filling in those gaps for you. At some point, you need to offer something other than indignant uncertainty.
Complainin' 'Bout Inflation, Believin' Pretendation, Look Away, Look Away, Look Away, Inflation
The summary, from Steve Benen↱:
I might have mentioned this before↑. The role of inflation hawk, in American political discourse, pretends a certain catbird seat; t's easy to be an inflation hawk. Like life coaching, motivational speaking, and other snake oil pitches, the inflation hawk need only a mythopoeic crumb in order to promote superstitious doomsaying.
But, yeah, that's why we're running 'round this mulberry bush of uncertainty; reality just isn't working out according to what some people were hoping.
____________________
Notes:
Benen, Steve. "The robust U.S. economy is leaving 'other rich countries in the dust'". MSNBC. 24 October 2024. MSNBC.com. 29 October 2024. https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow...conomy-leaving-rich-countries-dust-rcna177130
The summary, from Steve Benen↱:
It wasn't long ago when Republicans expected to focus heavily on the economy in the 2024 elections. Reality has gotten in the way.
In fact, it was just a few weeks ago when The New York Times reported that the U.S. job market "is as healthy as it has ever been" — as in, in the history of the United States — and described recent economic growth as "robust." A few days later, The Washington Post's Heather Long explained in a column that by "just about every measure, the U.S. economy is in good shape. Growth is strong. Unemployment is low. Inflation is back down. More important, many Americans are getting sizable pay raises, and middle-class wealth has surged to record levels. We are living through one of the best economic years of many people's lifetimes."
The same day, Politico described the status quo as "a dream economy."
But there's also an international dimension to this ....
.... Among the world's wealthiest nations, the IMF doesn't just see the U.S. economy as the world's strongest, it also expects Americans to see the fastest growth on the planet as 2024 comes to a close.
Officials at the IMF aren't the only ones who've noticed: The Economist, a leading British publication, recently described the U.S. economy as "the envy of the world," adding that the American economy "has left other rich countries in the dust."
In fact, it was just a few weeks ago when The New York Times reported that the U.S. job market "is as healthy as it has ever been" — as in, in the history of the United States — and described recent economic growth as "robust." A few days later, The Washington Post's Heather Long explained in a column that by "just about every measure, the U.S. economy is in good shape. Growth is strong. Unemployment is low. Inflation is back down. More important, many Americans are getting sizable pay raises, and middle-class wealth has surged to record levels. We are living through one of the best economic years of many people's lifetimes."
The same day, Politico described the status quo as "a dream economy."
But there's also an international dimension to this ....
.... Among the world's wealthiest nations, the IMF doesn't just see the U.S. economy as the world's strongest, it also expects Americans to see the fastest growth on the planet as 2024 comes to a close.
Officials at the IMF aren't the only ones who've noticed: The Economist, a leading British publication, recently described the U.S. economy as "the envy of the world," adding that the American economy "has left other rich countries in the dust."
I might have mentioned this before↑. The role of inflation hawk, in American political discourse, pretends a certain catbird seat; t's easy to be an inflation hawk. Like life coaching, motivational speaking, and other snake oil pitches, the inflation hawk need only a mythopoeic crumb in order to promote superstitious doomsaying.
But, yeah, that's why we're running 'round this mulberry bush of uncertainty; reality just isn't working out according to what some people were hoping.
____________________
Notes:
Benen, Steve. "The robust U.S. economy is leaving 'other rich countries in the dust'". MSNBC. 24 October 2024. MSNBC.com. 29 October 2024. https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow...conomy-leaving-rich-countries-dust-rcna177130
The signs that the US economy was improving (or had improved) were already there at the start of this year. Generally with such things, there is a lag before the average person recognises that the economy has improved.
The Republicans have spent all year trying to argue that the economy is terrible, that everything is broken and only his holiness the Great Orange One can fix it. The reality is that it's fine, and improving all the time, right now.
It is true that there is also often some delay before regular consumers start to feel the effects of changing economic winds. They have been starting to notice changes recently.
The Republican hope has always been that consumers will remain blind to improvements in the economy for long enough to get the election over and done with. Then Trump will be in power and will try to take credit for it. The hope is that poor consumer sentiment might also swing votes Trump's way. The coincidence of timing is such that it might, or it might not. This is one of the things that makes the election outcome so difficult to predict.
The Republicans have spent all year trying to argue that the economy is terrible, that everything is broken and only his holiness the Great Orange One can fix it. The reality is that it's fine, and improving all the time, right now.
It is true that there is also often some delay before regular consumers start to feel the effects of changing economic winds. They have been starting to notice changes recently.
The Republican hope has always been that consumers will remain blind to improvements in the economy for long enough to get the election over and done with. Then Trump will be in power and will try to take credit for it. The hope is that poor consumer sentiment might also swing votes Trump's way. The coincidence of timing is such that it might, or it might not. This is one of the things that makes the election outcome so difficult to predict.
Boundaries and Balance
There is a backstory, here.
Fraying relations around conservative commentators came to particular punctuation, this week, when CNN removed Ryan Gidursky mid-program, and then banned him from the network, after suggesting Medhi Hasan should be killed ... as an insult ... to Medhi Hasan ... who was sitting across the table from him.
Thus, Matthew Sheffield↱ reflects on how "CNN's Ryan Girdusky fiasco is part of a much bigger problem in mainstream media":
It kind of reminds me of an old question.
Flashback, 2018↗:
It's an important↗ question↗ that actually runs back to 2017, and continues to have diverse↗ application↗: "How do you engage with someone who doesn't just not care if their aggressive political stances upset you, but wants you to get upset—someone for whom 'this makes people upset' is actually the whole reason to have that stance in the first place?" Really, it just keeps↗ coming↗ up.
There has been some chatter, in recent days, about the idea that Trump knows he is losing. His hint about the Speaker, for instance, in its more sinister suggestion, is not the sort of thing one says when expecting to win. And, moreover, the rally at the Garden did not win him any votes, most certainly has cost him votes, and some speculate it's just to stir anger among his supporters, an attempt to foment violence. This, again, would not be the sort of thing one does when winning.
Toss a coin: Heads we pretend they're blowing off steam↗ and give them room to work out their feelings. After all, that's a perfectly natural possibility, too, that they know they're losing and are just venting. And if history is tabula rasa, maybe we would. But it's not, so we have to face the possibility of, Tails, we take them at their word and prepare to receive what violence they might bring.
After all, they're already literally attacking the ballot box. That's not the sort of thing one does when winning.
____________________
Notes:
Sheffield, Matthew. "CNN's Ryan Girdusky fiasco is part of a much bigger problem in mainstream media". Flux. 29 October 2024. Plus.Flux.Community. 29 October 2024. https://plus.flux.community/p/cnns-ryan-girdusky-fiasco-is-part
See Also:
Nelson, K.T. "Trump Fans Are Owning Libs by Losing All Their Friends". Vice. 22 November 2017. Vice.com. 29 October 2024. https://www.vice.com/en/article/trump-fans-are-owning-libs-by-losing-all-their-friends/
There is a backstory, here.
Fraying relations around conservative commentators came to particular punctuation, this week, when CNN removed Ryan Gidursky mid-program, and then banned him from the network, after suggesting Medhi Hasan should be killed ... as an insult ... to Medhi Hasan ... who was sitting across the table from him.
Thus, Matthew Sheffield↱ reflects on how "CNN's Ryan Girdusky fiasco is part of a much bigger problem in mainstream media":
… I was a writer and producer for The Hill, where I worked on multiple shows, one of which was "Rising," a bipartisan news opinion show. Like most mainstream media shows, we were constantly trying to have balanced panel discussions. But we always had a problem: It was very difficult to find Republicans who weren't crazy.
The sheer difficulty in identifying qualified, respectful conservative voices without ties to extremism was astonishing. Many potential guests exhibited troubling behavior such as making antisemitic, racist, or sexist statements. Occasionally, we'd even encounter individuals connected with white nationalist "alt-right" ideologies who would be booked until I, as a former member of conservative media, flagged them as unsuitable.
On multiple occasions, panelists were proposed who espoused Christian supremacist views, rendering them incapable of engaging objectively on topics like Israel or Islam.
The dilemma I frequently faced is one that producers everywhere in mainstream journalism face daily in the age of Trump. Ironically, the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action in media are Republican commentators. Mainstream television news is desperate to find Republicans who can engage in civil dialogue without filibustering or collapsing into bigoted rants. This is why you often see the same Republicans everywhere ....
.... Republican elites are fully aware that the crazies have been let out of the basement, but they have done little to foster a more inclusive or reasonable discourse, preferring instead to double down on extremism rather than centrism. Meanwhile, Democrats, who objectively are a moderate party compared to others around the globe, are frequently unfairly labeled as "radical left" by far-right figures and the mainstream media alike.
The sheer difficulty in identifying qualified, respectful conservative voices without ties to extremism was astonishing. Many potential guests exhibited troubling behavior such as making antisemitic, racist, or sexist statements. Occasionally, we'd even encounter individuals connected with white nationalist "alt-right" ideologies who would be booked until I, as a former member of conservative media, flagged them as unsuitable.
On multiple occasions, panelists were proposed who espoused Christian supremacist views, rendering them incapable of engaging objectively on topics like Israel or Islam.
The dilemma I frequently faced is one that producers everywhere in mainstream journalism face daily in the age of Trump. Ironically, the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action in media are Republican commentators. Mainstream television news is desperate to find Republicans who can engage in civil dialogue without filibustering or collapsing into bigoted rants. This is why you often see the same Republicans everywhere ....
.... Republican elites are fully aware that the crazies have been let out of the basement, but they have done little to foster a more inclusive or reasonable discourse, preferring instead to double down on extremism rather than centrism. Meanwhile, Democrats, who objectively are a moderate party compared to others around the globe, are frequently unfairly labeled as "radical left" by far-right figures and the mainstream media alike.
†
It kind of reminds me of an old question.
Flashback, 2018↗:
What will a crazy person not say? It is an interesting question, but not quite so far out on the spectrum of celebratory deplorability we find an intersectional phenomenon whereby Vice staff reporter Drew Schwarz brought us conservatives complaining about having a hard time finding dates, while colleague K. T. Nelson considers others who celebrate their isolation such that an obvious question emerges:
Quite honestly, I've wondered that for years. One need not aspire to incel heroism or even maga centipeditude in order to make people wonder about that. Calculated nihilistic poseur cynicism has become a staple of embittered supremacism watching its privilege decline and deciding nothing really matters.
How do you engage with someone who doesn't just not care if their aggressive political stances upset you, but wants you to get upset—someone for whom "this makes people upset" is actually the whole reason to have that stance in the first place?
Quite honestly, I've wondered that for years. One need not aspire to incel heroism or even maga centipeditude in order to make people wonder about that. Calculated nihilistic poseur cynicism has become a staple of embittered supremacism watching its privilege decline and deciding nothing really matters.
It's an important↗ question↗ that actually runs back to 2017, and continues to have diverse↗ application↗: "How do you engage with someone who doesn't just not care if their aggressive political stances upset you, but wants you to get upset—someone for whom 'this makes people upset' is actually the whole reason to have that stance in the first place?" Really, it just keeps↗ coming↗ up.
†
There has been some chatter, in recent days, about the idea that Trump knows he is losing. His hint about the Speaker, for instance, in its more sinister suggestion, is not the sort of thing one says when expecting to win. And, moreover, the rally at the Garden did not win him any votes, most certainly has cost him votes, and some speculate it's just to stir anger among his supporters, an attempt to foment violence. This, again, would not be the sort of thing one does when winning.
Toss a coin: Heads we pretend they're blowing off steam↗ and give them room to work out their feelings. After all, that's a perfectly natural possibility, too, that they know they're losing and are just venting. And if history is tabula rasa, maybe we would. But it's not, so we have to face the possibility of, Tails, we take them at their word and prepare to receive what violence they might bring.
After all, they're already literally attacking the ballot box. That's not the sort of thing one does when winning.
____________________
Notes:
Sheffield, Matthew. "CNN's Ryan Girdusky fiasco is part of a much bigger problem in mainstream media". Flux. 29 October 2024. Plus.Flux.Community. 29 October 2024. https://plus.flux.community/p/cnns-ryan-girdusky-fiasco-is-part
See Also:
Nelson, K.T. "Trump Fans Are Owning Libs by Losing All Their Friends". Vice. 22 November 2017. Vice.com. 29 October 2024. https://www.vice.com/en/article/trump-fans-are-owning-libs-by-losing-all-their-friends/
LaurieAG
Registered Senior Member
Oh I forgot, "of the animals, by the animals, for the animals" was changed to "some animals are more equal than other animals and we can't do anything about it" when AI translated "Animal Farm"to refer to a fascist state.
Did you hear the other speakers? The echoes of 1939 were terrifying.
FUX didn't seem alarmed.
I wonder what happens to the price of strawberries and tomatoes when all the farm workers are deported? What will happen to the cost of hospital and elder care without low-paid immigrant caregivers? How about fast food, and packaged food?
I wonder what mass deportations would cost? $2000/head without due process, times 1.5-3,000,000. Hm... Supposing Venezuela (the only South American country whose name he knows) doesn't accept two million people of various nationalities? What would the interment camps cost? It's not as if recent immigrants had a whole lot of property to seize. How many hired goons will be required to round up and guard all those people? What will the Byooodiful wall cost to finish?
Of course, that's only Day 1; then come the tax cuts and tariffs....
On day 3 or so, the mass arrests and prosecutions of several thousand 'enemies within', people who have criticized Trump.
After which, he will proceed to allow the firing of all union members, end paid overtime, fire all the public school teachers and librarians. Then he can start generating all that electricity until you beg him "Sir, sir, please stop making so much electricity!!"
Yah - no affect at all.
Last edited:
Wait, what??? So when you say that there are "legitimate reasons" as for why one might support Trump, what exactly are those if "the economy isn't going to be that much different regardless"?
Yes, but to quote the great Janet L Porter:
Exactly. Of course, if you weren't aborted, you're probably gonna need those things, but whatever.
Moreover (again, quoting the great Ms Porter):
Are you willing to cede all power to Schempp?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Over the short-term it's not going to matter. Bitcoin is fine either way. The stock market is the same next year either way. A President can hurt the economy long-term though debt. I don't have great confidence in either of them in that regard but in general Trump is probably better for the economy but not with the crazy tariff talk.
I think much of that is just talk but who knows. I do know that Harris speaking is just word salad. Trump talking is crazy but his business instincts are better than her's (which are non-existent).
Well, they've got that covered: abolish health care and education.
But that could take a whole week - longer, if El Biggo is busy cheating at golf.
That and tax cuts for his donors is his entire economic policy - to the extent that he understands it. I'm not at all sure he's ever had an advisor actually look up "the most beautiful word in the dictionary".
There is, I confess, a certain stupidity in running around these rightist circles.
Actually, I said that last week↗, but here we see another ring around the ouroboros, this time simply seeking to legitimize a Trump vote.
As a basic circumstance, a vote for Trump is legitimate for whatever reason. That legitimacy is limited, though: It means what it means to that voter, and that's all it means. If that voter then turns to another person and says they voted for Trump because two plus two equals five, well, they are expressing a dubious reason.
And it is in this context that we find the question of "legitimate reasons".
Akin to this context of "legitimate reasons", I am also familiar with a version describing "other reasons".
Getting to those "other reasons" is a bit like pulling teeth. From a stone statue. It's like you have to bash it in the mouth and break stuff, and the tooth never comes away cleanly because it's not actually a tooth, and let's face it, building a fancy laser array to precisely remove one tooth from the smarmy grin of one statue isn't generally feasible, and pretty much anybody can figure that part out.
But let's look at these thin legitimizations:
• legitimate reasons — "The fact of the matter is that there are legitimate reasons that people can not like Harris but still vote for her policies and the same can be said of Trump." (#3739049↗)
• other reasons — "Among the Republicans plumping for Trump the most strongly are American self-described evangelicals. They love Jesus. They are for family, but they are also often for guns and for authoritarian strong men who say they can get the Job done. By and large, most of them are not advocates for child sex abuse. Some of them might be a bit racist. Some of them might be white supremacists. But probably not the majority. The majority has other reasons." (#3724198↗)
• other reasons — "Among the Republicans plumping for Trump the most strongly are American self-described evangelicals. They love Jesus. They are for family, but they are also often for guns and for authoritarian strong men who say they can get the Job done. By and large, most of them are not advocates for child sex abuse. Some of them might be a bit racist. Some of them might be white supremacists. But probably not the majority. The majority has other reasons." (#3724198↗)
So, what are those other, legitimate reasons? Perhaps the reason we never hear that part is because not even those advocates expect it to survive basic scrutiny.
So, let's just check in: How many Trump supporters are voting for the infliction of economic hardship? This is actually a complex issue, but since a major GOP surrogate and potential administration hand has responded to concerns about the Trump economic platform by asserting those concerns as a selling point, and other allies are on-board with the messaging, this is a straightforward: Are you voting to wreck the economy in hopes that doing so will somehow improve your financial standing?
And remember, part of the explicit rhetorical boundary, here, is that they're not voting for supremacism; the other reasons are legitimate reasons, as such.
†
CNN took some heat for Dana Bash's suggestion that VP Harris failed to "close the deal" in a particular town hall event; MSNBC recently went out and interviewed "undecided" voters, who in turn sounded like conservatives. While discussion of cross-party appeal includes consideration of a "permission structure" for faithful Republicans to vote for Harris, we also see in many of these undecided voters a desperate search for an excuse to still back Trump. There comes a point where undecided voters saying they want to do their own research sounds like the Ivermectin argument; they know what the right thing to do is, but are still holding out for a reason to not do it.
Or, as our neighbor put it, a "gut feeling … that they will be better off under a Trump administration". That gut feeling is a very durable element of conservative appeal.
†
I can actually show you a version of this from fourteen years ago, in re complaints of liberal contempt toward conservatives↗. "Did it ever occur to people that it's not always simple, evil contempt?" I asked, "Did it ever occur to anyone that there might be a reason?" The conservative response↗ was about as predictable as can be: "This thread is a perfect example of liberal arrogance." And just like we see with the "merely" and "just" of later years, the retort skips over details in order to pretend, "The OP purports to discuss liberal contempt for conservatism, then simply concludes ...."
One "simply concludes" the same way one "merely dismisses"; in the conservative imagination, examples and evidence count for nothing. When they cannot answer the examples and evidence, they try to ignore them.
In 2010, maybe the reason people saw misogyny in conservative behavior was that it was present. That so-called liberal contempt was the willingness to call prejudice and supremacism by its name. A female candidate who should win on on the merit her sex appeal? A conservative woman telling us woman's role is to satisfy a husband? The son of an iconic former president telling women to get back in the kitchen? In 2010, a lot of people had that gut feeling that we could save the nation by putting woman back in her place, either in the kitchen or under her man.
To the other, I understand if the example is obscure; in 2024, it's almost impossible to imagine that Republicans would think so poorly of women, because conservatives say so.
If it's not any one conservative's job to reconcile contradictory conservative arguments, it's because they don't care about the gap.
It's like a gut feeling that the nation would be better off under a white male. And Christian. With all those pastors, it's a gut feeling, too, but they're pastors, so their gut feeling is divinely legitimized.
It's, like, all these years later, and still the same essential pitch, only more naked and craven.
At some point, they start to sound like the religious crackpots we encounter here, from time to time, arguing according to their own, mysterious definitions↗.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
- Status