Presidential predictions for 2024?

[billvon]

In my case the change was dramatic. I came from a monochromatic society at a young age and was immediately immersed in the public school system of a cosmopolitan city. Every North American child should have that experience. If somebody attacks people of colour, they're attacking my friend Chitra or Selim or Ruby: it's personal.

Yep. Went through the same thing - a mostly white homphobic environment as a kid, then went to a college where Asian students outnumbered everyone else, and every country was represented. Had a roommate from Turkey my first year.

Then I started traveling - went to sub-Saharan Africa to visit a girlfriend in the Peace Corps, went to Bahrain as a volunteer, went to China, Finland, France, New Zealand and Japan on business. Really opened my eyes.

I got involved with the "no on 8" campaign and through that learned that a woman who worked for me was trans. Once people knew I was "safe" I realized that an awful lot of people hide in plain sight, which makes it look to "unsafe" people like the world is pretty monochromatic.

 

[parmalee]

Gypsies is a slur but there are approximately 1 million Romani people in the US.

???

Do you think flaming is a good tactic for you?

From here: https://sciforums.com/threads/prejudice-and-bigotry-in-law-enforcement.163315/page-3

Therein lies the problem.

Regarding the systemic problems that prevent blacks or anyone from improving their personal situation...name one. If you are poor and live in a "ghetto" what are the systemic problems keeping your there and keeping you poor?

The fact that admissions officers at colleges consistently choose white candidates over black, for one. (Even when two identical sets of candidates are submitted; one set with 'black' names and one set with 'white' names.)

Any proof of that? Are you saying that blacks can't get into college? What about two candidates named John (one white and one black)?

What are the top 3 problems facing an inner city black person? Is that one of them?

If an asian person who name was Phong Kim faced this problem what would happen? Would his name suddenly change to John Kim? If Shoquisha Jones is having a hard time getting into Harvard I'm sure she is smart enough to become Sherrie Jones. This isn't a real problem. Your white guilt is showing.

Do you even know why Black people choose "Black" names? Is it at all important, do you think? Do you think it would be "smart" for Vivek Vance to change his name?

 

[Jeeves]

H

Once people knew I was "safe" I realized that an awful lot of people hide in plain sight, which makes it look to "unsafe" people like the world is pretty monochromatic.

Hence the big rainbow flags. Nobody should live in a closet - not even one lined with mirrors. And that, unfortunately, is where the MAGA crowd wants everyone to live - that, or on reservations.

 

[billvon]

Do you even know why Black people choose "Black" names? Is it at all important, do you think? Do you think it would be "smart" for Vivek Vance to change his name?

It's odd indeed that Seattle chose an example where a black woman was forced to change her name to sound more "white" to demonstrate that there's no racism.

 

[parmalee]

It's odd indeed that Seattle chose an example where a black woman was forced to change her name to sound more "white" to demonstrate that there's no racism.

Sorry. Could you rephrase that?

Edit: Nevermind. I got it. I shouldn't try to read when I'm sweating profusely and my glasses are fogged over.

 

[geordief]

Sorry. Could you rephrase that?

Edit: Nevermind. I got it. I shouldn't try to read when I'm sweating profusely and my glasses are fogged over.

You should try getting off the sofa now and then if you want to improve your eyesight. ;-)

 

[Tiassa]

The fine-tooth comb routine is part of what drives the fickle voters in the middle away from whichever camp is doing the combing.

But that's just make-believe.

One of the difficult things about discussing American politics is the requisite dose of fiction required to justify conservatives.

And this bit where we're not supposed to scrutinize a sales pitch sounds like an invitation to be swindled.

How stupid do Republicans need Americans to be?

 

[Jeeves]

How stupid do Republicans need Americans to be?

Well, a fair chunk of it seems to have been stupidified by their rhetoric and their education policies and other state legislation and their media outlets already. According to their plans, the next generation will have no public schools, or libraries, or social support for children and families at risk. Push enough people into poverty and they become conservative - simply because they can't afford any risk. (John Kenneth Galbraith laid it out in a series of Massey lectures in 1965.)

 

[Sarkus]

Trump recently was invited on stage at the NABJ conference. The invite was criticised by some due to his racism but the NABJ have invited all candidates in the past so extended him the same courtesy.
Anyhoo... let's just say that it didn't go well for him.
It was supposed to be a "fireside chat" sort of thing, but was more a bit of a grilling, especially by the non-Fox journalists asking some of the questions.
So, yeah, he came across as a dumb ignorant racist spouting the same lies as ever, but mixing it with some doozies, such as claiming he didn't know Kamala Harris was black until she "turned black" a number of years ago. Before that he thought she was Indian. So he said "somebody should look into that" about her being Indian and then Black. Apparently he must think that one can only be of mixed race if it's white + a.n.other.
The end was also seemingly cut short by his own team, maybe sensing that he had done enough damage for one day!

YouTube video from MeidasTouch...

 

[Seattle]

The big misdirection in American politics (and probably in politics everywhere) is that there is a problem and one side can fix it. This is like distracting a child with a dangling toy while he get a vaccination.

Everyone has continually added to the debt and no one is going to fix it. Everyone has a scapegoat but none are valid. The Republicans want to spend less but they don't and at a certain point you have to spend what you have to spend.

The Democrats don't even talk about reducing spending and focus on the scapegoat of "taxing the rich". The top 20 percent already pay almost all Fed income taxes. The average person feels that their taxes are high and the taxes of the rich are low. The average person pays very little Federal income tax after considering all credits, allowances and deductions. No one seems to realize this.

There is also the thought that if the rich just paid more we wouldn't have this debt. Again, it's just ridiculous thinking. If you took all the wealth from the wealthy (which is at best a one time thing) this would run the country for 9 months (to say nothing of the economic harm of doing that).

Taxing the rich at the optimum rate (where receipts actually do increase) would add, at most, 1% of the GDP. So had we been doing this all along, the debt to GDP ratio would be 121% instead of 122%. No one wants to hear this so on we go.

The problem that has to be fixed is Social Security and Medicare. Doing anything else makes little difference. Medicare needs to be reformed. There is no good reason for our healthcare system to be so expensive.

Social Security is what it is. If you want to continue to send SS taxes to the government only for them to send them back to you at retirement...fine. In that case, the fix is to not let them borrow against those funds. That's why they continue to spend and spend because they can run the debt up by "borrowing" against the SS fund.

You could just not be taxed for Social Security and you could be responsible for investing that to have at retirement time. The con is that you could do a bad job of it. You couldn't do a worse job than the government has done however.

In any event, if you want to raise tax revenues you have to increase taxes on the middle class. Nothing else makes a dent. People don't want to hear that.

Japan's economy (high debt) has gone nowhere for 30 years and that's where the US economy is headed. Those with assets will do better but they won't do much more than just maintain purchasing power. Those without assets will do the worst.

As long as Social Security isn't addressed and as long as people continue to think that "the rich" are somehow the problem, the blinders will stay on and the slow decline will continue.

It doesn't really matter who is President in this regard. The problem is the same either way.

 

[Jeeves]

Taxing the rich at the optimum rate (where receipts actually do increase) would add, at most, 1% of the GDP. So had we been doing this all along, the debt to GDP ratio would be 121% instead of 122%. No one wants to hear this so on we go.

Add in the stoppage of tax breaks and shelters for the rich, subsidies, bailouts and padded government contracts, and you're talking real money. Never mind holding them responsible and making them pay for the damage they've caused to the environment, that government usually gets stuck with. So, that's a start.

The big misdirection in American politics (and probably in politics everywhere) is that there is a problem and one side can fix it. This is like distracting a child with a dangling toy while he get a vaccination.

That's a good analogy. Give people something they want in order to give them something they need. Vaccinations are definitely something they need and the preset iteration of the Republican party is against. So are schools and clinics, birth control and child welfare. They're all for family - I believe the the proposed VP's position is "making war on childless people because they're sad and lonely" - until families need a tax break; they're all for children - except the ones they put in portable dog kennels.
Maybe no party can "fix it", but only one promises to "fix it so good you won't have to vote again".

 

[billvon]

So, yeah, he came across as a dumb ignorant racist spouting the same lies as ever, but mixing it with some doozies, such as claiming he didn't know Kamala Harris was black until she "turned black" a number of years ago.

Up next: Trump opines "I thought Kamala said was black, but now suddenly she's a woman! Someone should look into that."

 

[Seattle]

Add in the stoppage of tax breaks and shelters for the rich, subsidies, bailouts and padded government contracts, and you're talking real money. Never mind holding them responsible and making them pay for the damage they've caused to the environment, that government usually gets stuck with. So, that's a start.

That's a good analogy. Give people something they want in order to give them something they need. Vaccinations are definitely something they need and the preset iteration of the Republican party is against. So are schools and clinics, birth control and child welfare. They're all for family - I believe the the proposed VP's position is "making war on childless people because they're sad and lonely" - until families need a tax break; they're all for children - except the ones they put in portable dog kennels.
Maybe no party can "fix it", but only one promises to "fix it so good you won't have to vote again".

Yeah, the current Republican Party is certainly more distasteful but again, both are just distraction. Until some administration stops "borrowing" from Social Security tax payments, the rest is just noise.

 

[Jeeves]

Until some administration stops "borrowing" from Social Security tax payments, the rest is just noise.

It could turn out to be about more than just money. Distasteful is the very least of what they are.

 

[Seattle]

It could turn out to be about more than just money. Distasteful is the very least of what they are.

Yes, I get that. I'm just addressing what the real problem is and the rest, by comparison, is just noise. In other words if Harris is elected (which I think she will be) sure, that is less distasteful than Trump (an understatement) but the problem will still be the same... the debt.

Not that the problem is that there is some debt. It's that the debt is 122% of GNP and growing. The majority of that debt is due to the government borrowing against the Social Security tax receipts. That problem isn't going to change. It's not about "the rich" not paying enough. It's about spending much more than you have and continuing to do so.

No one wants to hear that spending has to be less and middle class taxes have to be raised. There is no other choice. The rich aren't undertaxed and the middle class aren't overtaxed. They pay very little in Federal income tax (13%) or so.

 

[Jeeves]

but the problem will still be the same... the debt.

There is no theoretical limit to debt. That's capitalism: it runs on debt. And debt without foreclosure keeps growing like yeast, compounding interest upon interest. Every investment is borrowed money, whether you invest in businesses that have the option to relocate to another country, taking your investment with them, or in a population that's locked in and continues to be taxable. Growth - in any sector - means expanding debt and making bigger and bigger commitments of repayment. You can't have stability without stagnation.
Given the spending commitments that government has, the choice is raising taxes - and yes, it's quite possible that some people can do without a third jet plane and seventh vacation home while some other people still need their family car and home. It's possible that the mega-rich are not pulling their weight, especially given that they're sucking up an awful lot of the government spending, as well as a lot of the profit on the middle-class debt-load.

No such problem would exist without money playing a central, all-pervasive role in the nation's life. Once the global capitalist economy collapses, all debt will be wiped out and people will simply have to manage their efforts and resources directly, without brokers and managers, agents and bankers, handlers and expediters producing nothing and consuming much.
However, while money is paramount, it will play out its boom-bust cycles, at the government level, in the markets and in every household.

 

[Seattle]

Capitalism (free markets) doesn't require debt. We currently see a debt/inflation model but an abundance/deflation model also works with capitalism, which is more associated with technology.

However runaway debt isn't inevitable even with the current model. It's a fault of the players rather than of the system.

 

[billvon]

Capitalism (free markets) doesn't require debt.

Quite true. However, our version of it does.

 

[Tiassa]

The Vance Vibe

This is going well.

Conway denied being the source of the leaks, telling The Bulwark, "When it comes to concerned people questioning the vetting or selection of JD Vance, the calls are coming in, not going out," she said. "I'm not calling them and saying this is bad. People are asking me. They're not just asking me. They're asking lots of people."

She added that all the people blaming her are "ankle biters" and "gossip girls" and Trump won't toss Vance overboard because "he's loyal. He was loyal to me. He's a loyal guy. He sticks with things. And he knows firsthand, anybody would have been attacked and anybody picked would've been attacked, because he's always attacked."

While a Trump family member said that "the family in general thinks very highly of Conway," another source close to Donald Trump Jr. said of Trump's reaction to the leaks, "He's p---ed off about it. He knows it's her."

Trump hasn't publicly spoken out on any of this; however, he recently took to Truth Social and, during a complaint about Fox News not doing enough to prop him up, offhandedly remarked that Conway "must have done some REALLY nasty things" to her ex-husband George Conway, who has emerged as one of the most outspoken conservative critics of the former president.​

Or maybe it seems like just another day in Trumptime.

There is a sort of sense of wonder about this all. I mean, I get that it really is this much of a shitshow; I abandoned disbelief a long time ago. Still, though, there remains a question of what voters are actually going to do.

†​

What will be a blowout? It's probably not happening. To wit, Harris probably isn't winning Texas.

The thing is, the Electoral College is the Electoral College, and amending the Constitution to change that isn't happening anytime soon. An Arrowhead Stadium worth of voters spread out over three states really is a thin margin. And as social media is rife with people of color refusing a fallacy of their own making¹ about voting for people of color, we might recall even Bernie Sanders↗ dallied with the idea of throwing women overboard because they had nowhere else to go but swim right back. For, like, eighty thousand votes. In three states. No matter how we might complain about the 2016 outcome, it never really should have been so close to begin with.

And we can say what we will about Hillary Clinton, but Donald Trump's vote total rose nearly eighteen percent in 2020. Biden's popular vote in 2020 exceeded Clinton's 2016 total by a bit over twelve and a half percent. It will be interesting to see if Harris can match or exceed Biden's total, but Trump has never actually won the popular vote. And in this cycle, the Trump/Vance ticket is so embroiled in scandalous disappointment that we can only wonder how it will affect his vote total.

By the sound of it, his 2016 number might even be in doubt. But a more realistic analysis would probably observe the unreliability of the buzz.
____________________

Notes:

¹ The fallacy disavows the expectation of voting for a black candidate just because a voter is black, but it's just not believable because, not only is nobody really making that argument, a black organizer for a southern-state Young Republicans student group probably wasn't voting for any Democrat for any reason. Just for instance.​

Chapman, Matthew. "Trump suspects Kellyanne Conway is leaking J.D. Vance drama: report". Raw Story. 31 July 2024. RawStory.com. 1 August 2024. https://www.rawstory.com/hes-pissed-trump-suspects-kellyanne-conway-is-leaking-jd-vance-drama/

 

[Jeeves]

Capitalism (free markets) doesn't require debt.

Name three examples where that has been implemented and functioned according to theory for... oh, say, a year? How about one example?
A free market without debt may be possible, but that's not capitalism; that's just trade; it's stable. It doesn't grow. For economic growth according to the capitalist model, there must be investment. Nobody invests without a promise of getting more than they put in.
That's the system.

However runaway debt isn't inevitable even with the current model

Taxing the middle - already in hock up to eyeballs - It is with America's system. Hence the cycles.
The players are stuck with it.

Putting a bigger tax load on the middle class - already up to its armpits in debt - isn't going to solve it.
Maybe not start so many stupid wars or put so many people in jail? That would help.