The Real timschochet

1. Where has she lost ground? Show me something please. 2. Two weeks ago she was the betting favorite by a couple of points. Now a few betting sites have Trump the favorite by a couple of points and others have Kamala the favorite by a couple of points. But basically since she’s been in the race, the bettors have them both at 50-50. So what’s changed?

I like him. But what he says has to make sense to me. I don’t look at him like some sort of Nostradamus. I try to understand his reasoning. Here I don’t. And @EternalShinyAndChrome, while I am generally an optimist I’m not one when it comes to political outcomes. What I want to have happen rarely occurs. In this case I have reason to believe that it will and so I’m excited by that. But if Trump wins that won’t surprise me either. And we’ll survive it.

Yeah he seems to be the outlier this time around. Which is fine. I don’t understand his logic as I can’t find any decline in polls, especially in the swing states. He keeps mentioning it but what poll is he referring to that has a decline? I’ll never oppose the facts. You show me where the decline is and I’ll note it. But again I don’t see it. I will, however, change the title to a question mark.

Damn. Amazing: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4865482-trump-harris-florida-texas-poll/amp/ I see no reason to change the thread title. And after the debate Kamala is only going to surge more.

Trump’s sentence in NY delayed until after the election.

Love how you start by calling me delusional and then spew 5 paragraphs of absolute nonsense. The Democrats still have time to allow Trump to be killed. This sentence alone indicates you are incapable of rendering sane analysis. And the rest of what you wrote is almost equally as bad.

I think your point, as well the article that @Strike posted, misses the reason why Kamala seems to be avoiding some details. It’s not because she’s incompetent or doesn’t know what she’s talking about or trying to conceal a secret socialist agenda. It’s because her shortened campaign gives her an advantage that no other Presidential candidate in recent history has ever had: universal appeal and the ability to be all things to all people. Thats a tremendous edge and the more specific she gets, the more she risks giving it up. If she appears too centrist that will alienate some in her base. If she appears too progressive that will alienate some in the middle. It’s a lose-lose for her whatever she does so it makes sense to be vague. There is more to this as well that we’ve discussed before. You and me and most people contributing to this thread are unusual in that we follow politics all of the time. As you well know most people don’t. And most people want to feel good, they want a positive outlook and someone and something to look up to. They’re bored by details. Nobody ever understood this better than Ronald Reagan. Kamala understands it too.

When it comes to Putin there is no more predictable American politician than Donald Trump.

I try to be an optimist about most things. I think the fact that conservatives and liberals alike agree almost unanimously on the prosecution of this father is a great sign for our society. It shows, I believe, that despite our differences on so many issues we share similar feelings on most of the really important questions of right and wrong.

But I thought she was a socialist! How can this be?

No, normal people tell you that.

Bullsh!t on the coordination and the rest of your post as well. PERHAPS the criticism of Vance is unfair. I say perhaps because the fact is the criticism works because conservatives like Vance constantly refuse to address the root cause of these mass shootings which is, in the opinion both of liberals and the vast majority of the public, that we don’t have enough reasonable federal gun laws. Conservatives go out of their way to avoid discussing it.

Not the same. Politicians are taken out of context all the time. But the right makes up complete falsehoods like the supposed undocumented immigrants who attacked a school bus in San Diego. Be better.

Apparently the San Diego school bus story turned out to be bogus? And the Aurora story is not what it seems either?

Putting aside the first two points (we’ve discussed them ad naseum) I agree in principle with your third point. And yet- under Democratic administrations when the taxes on the wealthy have been significantly higher, the economy has tended to do better and grow faster. Thats been pretty consistently true for the last 50 years and it gives me pause. How about you?

I’m sure you think I’m terribly naive. And I think you’re incredibly cynical.

I don’t blame Kamala for acting exactly like 100% of all Republicans and Democrats before her, but damn it would be so refreshing to just ONCE have a candidate say “you know what? I’m going to face opposition in Congress so most of what I would like to do I probably won’t get done. So here’s a more realistic series of proposals.” But of course that never energizes the base, and that’s where you get the most votes. But personally I would love it.

I’m betting this is something that 99% of conservatives and liberals can all agree on.

You’re preaching to the choir. I’m not for government decisions on behalf of fairness. I’m for whatever improves people’s lives. Screw fairness. That’s why I am in favor of forgiving student loans, because I believe it will lead to more home purchases and therefore a more stable society. Conservatives say it’s unfair. That’s why I’m for giving amnesty to most undocumented immigrants already here, because I think it’s good for our economy. Conservatives say that’s unfair to those who came here “the right way.” But I don’t care about fairness. I’m pretty consistent about that. In this case it’s liberals that are whining about fairness and I still don’t give a crap. If I believed taxing the rich more would benefit the economy I’d be all for it. But I’m skeptical. It might work but again it might not.

If we’re going to discuss Kamala’s proposals we need first to accept a very important truth: Jon Tester is not going to win Montana. Tester is way behind, his opponent is popular, Montana is redder than red. It’s not gonna happen. And that means that the Senate is going to be Republican. So you can forget about capital gains taxes, and laws against price gouging, and stopping fracking, and a lot of other stuff conservatives are so opposed to. None of it is real. It’s just a lot of talk. What’s real is the small business proposal; that might go through. What’s real is Kamala’s more moderate ideas.

I don’t think it’s a good idea either in principle but there is context here: Kamala is not really imposing new taxes so much as she is reversing part (not all) of Trump’s tax cuts. So using Europe’s example in which the percentages were a lot higher is not really apt. Still again I agree with your argument in principle. But the whole tariff idea makes all of these considerations kind of moot.

It is a wealth tax. And Trump’s tariffs will be a tax on all consumers. Again take your pick. To me it’s an easy choice (especially since, assuming one disapproves of both ideas, the reality is that Kamala will have a very difficult time getting her proposal through Congress, while Trump doesn’t need Congress to impose his tariffs. That makes it a no-brainer IMO. P

Meanwhile Trump was asked today about lowering child care costs. He says his new tariffs will pay for it!! Honestly if you are a right wing free market conservative, you have to face the facts here: Kamala will do things you will no doubt dislike, and a few things you may actually approve of (like the small business tax cut.) Meanwhile the other guy is a complete moron who is apparently determined to collapse our economy. Take your pick.

I think it’s still mild if it’s limited to 100 million or more.

Here are the details on unrealized gains: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2024/09/05/harris-economic-plan-tax-unrealized-gains.html Basically a 25% tax on those with assets over 100 million. Thats not anyone I know (well one guy I think.) But it’s not a whole lot of people.