US approval varies across all populations, from inception. Some British still refer to us as Colinists, with a hint of disdain. People have always complained about the United States. Which is irrelevant, on balance, in the modern period.
What are these complaints about? DJT in general? Same record, different guy. Tariffs? Inevitable regardless of the office holder. Prepared for by both sides, for a long time now. In a complex economy that few to no people in public discussions understand.
A bottomless fall along which that particular immortal complaint is always relevant is no fall at all. Which was my implication about the relative silliness of the boilerplate comments.
This isn't even a defense of any particular issue. More like a wish for a better breed of critic, if nothing but for a change of pace and interest. Or maybe because we need actually effective critics, to maintain a healthy ecosystem.
I mean, "they aren't aware of their own interests" is truly basement tier immature rhetoric.
Perhaps it'd be better for the OP to explain how whomever they want to vote for will address opposition voter's perceived most important interests. Otherwise, one can't credibly complain about their vote.
Nobody should be falling into the trap of trying to approach these people as rational actors with a coherent idea of what they want or how the country should be run. They've proven to us, twice in the last decade, that they don't have anything resembling a serious idea.
I'm sure this comment will get flagged & I'll probably get a note about remaining civil, but fuck this whole comment. You may feel fine hand waving, equivocating, & telling yourself this is "business as usual." Sit this one out. Your head isn't in the game and the stakes are different this time.
Here's a question for you and the Nation: did the other side also see the first four years as a disaster? Can you accurately describe why?
You complain about a lack of "rational actors", and yet your complaints aren't couched in rational language.
Your comment resembles a teenage outburst more than anything else.
Can the Nation advance via teenage-style emotional breakdowns, or will the teenagers have to "sit this one out" so that the noise can be turned down enough to progress to a better stage?
What I see is someone who isn't confident enough in the persuasion of their views to do anything but engage in an embarrassing tantrum and hyperbole that isn't designed to solve a single problem.
You say that "my head isn't in the game", and yet you proudly refuse to play on the board.
It's literally impossible to perceive your strategy. It isn't persuasion let alone compromise.
How do you intend to win?
87% of Trump voters during Oct 23-25 2024 at least slightly believed that "American jobs are insecure right now and our future prosperity is under threat."[0]
I reckon I don't have to point at what's been going on the last few months. It's certain that the election going the other way would've at least not resulted in the current debacle.
> Tariffs? Inevitable regardless of the office holder. Prepared for by both sides, for a long time now.
Implying that tariffs of this magnitude would've been inevitable[1][2] regardless of the government elected shows a lack of good-faith participation in this conversation, so I'll move on. Cheers, mate.
[0] Cambridge/YouGov survey finalized Nov 7 2024. https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/docume... // press release https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/trump-voters-2024
[1] Harris policy proposals budget model, noting no tariffs and reasonably assumed to have remained consistent with a Harris win. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2024/8/26/harri...
[2] Trump policy proposals budget model, noting the anticipated 10+% tariffs that have since materialized, including retaliation etc. from trading partners. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2024/8/26/trump...
Tariffs were inevitable, in any administration. Unless the plan was to have been much worse. With all due respect, truly, I'm sure that you don't understand how the international monetary system works at a basic level. For reasons, tariffs were inevitable. All sides have been preparing.
Kamala Harris had zero chance of winning, lost in a landslide, and could have said whatever she pleased because she was never going to be there to follow through. Believe they knew she didn't have a chance. She was truly a candidate who could not win. Hillary Clinton could not beat Donald Trump, and she was a vastly superior candidate. Anyone with political horse sense knew that the first woman POTUS would not be Kamala Harris. Forcing Biden out was equivalent to throwing the election. Though, I'm not saying that I know that he would have won.
Second, I look at policy to inform on politician intention. I recommend that you do the same. Instead of looking at stated intent.
Preparation for reshoring under Joe Biden:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act
https://www.wri.org/insights/inflation-reduction-act-anniver...
Herded via tariffs, look for foreign-owned companies to begin setting up in Foreign Trade Zones on US soil. Thereby avoiding tariffs.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/economy/foreign-trade-zones-...
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/17/2023-08...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-trade_zones_of_the_Uni...
As it happens, you've now twice doubled down on claiming both administrations would've imposed tariffs, and the manner in which you conveyed your point ("Tariffs? Inevitable regardless of the office holder. Prepared for by both sides, for a long time now. In a complex economy that few to no people in public discussions understand.") implies that both policies would've been equal when in fact it's quite clear even from your links that the two approaches would've been different - Biden/Harris' surgical application vs Trump's current blanket tariffs.
The repeated implication that the two policies would be equivocal is at best a failure to understand the debate and, at worst, in bad faith.
[0] https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2024/trumps-pr... - "This isn’t normally the way presidents act when it comes to tariffs. Additional tariffs are generally imposed very selectively, under trade remedy statutes crafted by Congress. They are actions taken pursuant to a finding that a particular product is involved in a specified unfair trade act, or it may be that the new tariff is a surgical retaliatory measure to open a market for a specified American product."
---
Went ahead and chucked the thread into archive.is so it's not lost to the sands of time. I guess now I'll bow out in a manner that's not valid :)
Which in my experience is consistently the sign of someone who can't take the "L".
It's common with people who "argue in bad faith". In contrast with your "twice doubled down" accusation of me doing so, we have actual hard evidence of you arguing in bad faith.
Your argument consistently relies on gaslighting me as to what my unstated beliefs are.
Tactics of a scoundrel, or perhaps just a person unskilled in having "good faith" debates.
I more than understand the debate. I'm even being polite surrounding your general and clear lack of information on how the global monetary system works and its current state of affairs. That is, your lack of context for tariffs. Because if you had it, you'd realize how dumb this conversation is.
You can't keep the discussion on-track without needing to shift it, in order to feign superiority before telling me that you again won't be back. A shameful demonstration!
The original argument was whether tariffs were going to be applied or not, in any administration.
I stated that they were unavoidable. I didn't make any statements in regard to exactly equivalent tariff policies across administrations. You created a prior non-existent argument, blew it up, and stomped off.
Comparative intended granular tariff policy isn't even even an interesting discussion in my opinion. I don't think that the realized strategy would be predictable for either administration, whatever they said in the past. Nuance of tariff policy is too granular to predict. In spite of any prior statements. I don't believe that such statements are evidence of firm commitment, just direction.
But I'm glad you now admit that the Harris administration would have applied tariffs.
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.