They were comparing Clinton to Trump, and then attempted to bothsides it.
And that is simply not acceptable because its absolute nonsense.
Trump was a massive well known crook in 2016. Voting for him was 100% voting for a crook.
So the people that voted for him need to own it.
You voted for a crook.
And now they are trying to scurry off trying to rationalise that insanity. I have seen this in the UK with crazy parties that shall remain nameless and this should always be challenged. People seem to think they are not accountable for the damage their vote does. They should absolutely be challenged on this every time.
I actually give most people a pass for voting for him in 2016.
A few of us had the misfortunate of being familiar with some of the weaknesses of his character before he became seriously active in American politics, and some others of us who try to look beyond headlines and social media to sort fact from hyperbole could also have reached that conclusion in 2016.
(That is not meant to excuse his crimes that were being publicly discussed at the time, BTW. A flawed, even crooked, person can still do an adequate job in an elected office. I think Bill Clinton did a decent job as President, but I wouldnât let my hypothetical daughter stay in a room alone with him.)
But for average voters trying to make sense of the over-the-top rhetoric found in American media⌠itâs not unreasonable to think he might be viewed as having character flaws / corruption on the same order of magnitude as the Clintons.
Put another way: I can see where a low- or somewhat-low-information voter might have reasonably viewed him as the lesser evil in 2016. (I would have disagreed with them, but I wouldnât have questioned their sanity on that basis alone.)
But in 2020 and 2024âŚall American voters should have known what they were voting for if they voted for Dear Leader.
As I said, in 2016 I voted for him because I hated Hillary, and I also had hope that heâd be able to actually lower the debt, and work towards a balanced budget. Also, he wasnât the usual party member, beholden to big donors.
In 2020 I voted for him because until COVID, the economy was in great shape. Unemployment was at record lows, and heâd been working on getting rid of Obamacare (which I hate) and securing the border.
In 2024, as I noted in a different thread at the time, I did not vote for him. I really think he lost it after losing in 2020. I think his insisting that he really won in 2020 was absolutely nuts. His die-hard supporters are a crazy cult. I couldnât vote for him, but I also couldnât vote for Harris. Iâd supported Haley in the primary, and I wrote her in for the main election. I really hope she runs again in 2028 - I think sheâd be way better than AOC, who I view as the current front-runner for the Democrats.
The electoral college pretty much limits the number of potentially viable candidates in any election to 2. This forces alignment throughout government to follow. I guess you can argue the way states allocate their votes is really the problem, that it is not the electoral college itself, but regardless, until that changes, we will have two parties.
Just because someone disagrees with your thought process doesnât mean itâs âdysfunctional decision-makingâ. People can disagree with you. You donât have to always be insulting about it.
Back in the day, the GOP did a very effective job of painting the Dems with the label âtax and spendâ, with the implication that one should vote for the GOP because the GOP was the party of fiscal responsibility.
Unfortunately, the GOP has shown itself to be at least as fiscally irresponsible as the Dems, because it likes spending money just as much as the Dems (albeit with different priorities)âŚbut without doing an effective job of funding that spending.
Doing something about the US deficit is going to involve making politically unpopular cuts in spending AND politically unpopular increases in taxes and/or other revenue.
Unfortunately, very few politicians are willing to risk their political careers to make the difficult decision to do politically unpopular, but necessary, things.
Iâm not so sure about that. Per recent Freakonomics podcast the highest income pay a lot in the US, comparable to Europe, itâs the middle class who net pay much less than other developed countries.
" The liberal narrative is an equity-distribution narrative. It is that the middle class pays all the taxes, big business and wealthy individuals donât pay anything, the reason we have deficits is because of these tax cuts, and we can fix deficits if we just do what Europe does and tax the rich and corporations at high levels. Itâs a really convenient narrative because it tells people what they want to hear, which is that youâre getting screwed, and if we just screw the big guys, we can solve the problem without touching you. But the numbers are very clear that that narrative is extraordinarily exaggerated, and that actually the rich pay most of the taxes. Perhaps not as much as liberals want. And we actually have in America the most progressive tax system in the O.E.C.D. It is more progressive than Europe, not less."
Is there a comparison of the services received by the middle class in Europe as opposed to the US?
In the US, the lower class pays basically no taxes, and they get a lot of services. Middle class pays taxes, but get few services. Upper class pay the most in taxes, and get almost no services.
In Europe, arenât there some services that are open to all (such as healthcare)?
The services they get arenât direct transfer. Ignoring the fact that the property protection they receive is worth more, they get a legal system that protects their ability to make money, and sometimes even preferential treatment in government contracting.
There are some things that I disagree with in her interview, with the biggest being blaming inflation solely on Biden and ignoring that it was a global phenomenon. However, overall itâs good.
She mentions her balanced budget proposal and itâs cited as a reference. I just read it, and itâs very good IMO. You can certainly disagree with some of the individual changes she proposes, but overall I think itâs pretty pragmatic.
Not sure why the quote above says 6? (I may have corrected it quickly due to a typo)
I did link to the Rubio page which also says 4.
In any event, its 4. Trump has always been a serial bankrupt (known for this since he actually bankrupted a Casino which takes quite the reverse midas touch)
I also read the report. I find it an exercise in gas lighting. My favorite example is when it identifies the dramatic difference in wealth of older folks to younger folks. Itâs the justification for taxing seniors more heavily and reducing SS costs. AmazingâŚwho would ever guess that while working for 40 years theat people have more wealth than people who worked 10 years.
Meanwhile, I submit the BLS display of personal savings rates by quintile over time
The bottom 3 lines mean they are increasing their debt load. They are becoming impoverished. It also highlights the impact of the COVID relief payments. The top two buckets saved theirs. The bottom 3 used it to pay down debt.
Now, is it any wonder that most folks think the system is rigged? While I appreciate that the federal deficit s a problem, I think the bigger problem is the deficit of the citizenry. Tweaking tax rates and entitlement benefits will not alter this underlying disease.
