Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by James Brown

I have not been following the squabbles closely, but Trump's team, assuming they have any brains at all, had better be making sure that the microphones remain muted during off time.  That saved Trump's bacon in the first debate.  He was forced to be quiet while Biden fumbled away his candidacy.  Imagine if Trump had been able to make that debate into the "angry men shouting at each other" we all expected from past performances.   Biden would still be in the race.  Probably.

On the other side, Harris' team ought to be fighting tooth and nail to have Trump's mike on full-time so that he can talk over her, interrupt her, belittle her and otherwise emphasize what a moronic, boorish, misogynistic, ass and fool he is and always has been.    

I have to go check to see where that squabble stands.

My expectations are about the same as yours.  I think Harris owns Trump whatever the format.  He is too arrogant to properly prepare.  She seems to be comfortable and articulate as the candidate.  I also think this is likely to seal the deal on her election.  Her answer on any Supreme Court packing scheme will determine whether I consider voting for her.   I wonder if they will ask about this personal key issue ?

Still muted.  This is Trump's only chance, in my opinion.  It is possible (but I think unlikely) that Harris would face-plant if Trump is muted during her answers.

 https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/29/media/abc-presidential-debate-rules-harris-trump-microphones/index.html

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

It's not you, it's the GOP that has changed over time (and not for the good). They are unrecognizable as the GOP of the Reagan years.

I agree.  

Is the Democratic Party still the party of JFK or even Bill Clinton?   I say this not to engage in a childish squabble, but rather to note that the political parties and of course each faction of the press plus social media bubbles have all fostered the most dangerous social fracture and hostile tribalism since the civil war.   This is the existential crisis of our times.   Trumpism is a symptom, or a result of the fracture, not the cause.   Symptoms on the left include irrational antisemitism on campus and full throated support for censorship, as I tried to explore in my most recent thread.  There are many other examples, left and right.

Let me put it this way.   If society was not broken Trump would not be the darling of a majority of modern Rs and if society were not broken the left would not celebrate entitled semi-adults chanting “from the river to the sea” while threatening classmates.

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

I don't think that's a very good example.  These "entitled semi-adults chanting “from the river to the sea” while threatening classmates" are not the people running for office. On the other hand, the GOP is now controlled by the worst the right has to offer.

Let me put it this way.  The upcoming election is not about a choice between a convicted felon/sex-offender and some entitled idiotic semi-adults who happen to identify as "left".  It's about a choice between a convicted felon/sex-offender and someone who by comparison is pretty normal and seemingly competent.

I hope that made sense!

That makes sense, and I know my example was wanting.   That said the, rank and file MAGA voter so despised by the press and reviled by the elites is not running for office either.

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

I don't think that's a very good example.  These "entitled semi-adults chanting “from the river to the sea” while threatening classmates" are not the people running for office. On the other hand, the GOP is now controlled by the worst the right has to offer.

Let me put it this way.  The upcoming election is not about a choice between a convicted felon/sex-offender and some entitled idiotic semi-adults who happen to identify as "left".  It's about a choice between a convicted felon/sex-offender and someone who by comparison is pretty normal and seemingly competent.

I hope that made sense!

For me the choice is between a disqualifyingly incompetent and immoral fool, and a reasonably competent California lefty who proposes really bad policy like price fixing and seems to be ok with censorship and quite possibly wants to pack the Supreme Court to pass laws and policies to expand administrative agencie's power that I believe to be detrimental to the country and unconstitutional under current interpretation.   Kinda sucky choice.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

That said, here's professor Alan Lichtman's prediction of the winner of the 2024 presidential election:

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/05/harris-trump-lichtman-election-prediction.html

Note that Lichtman accurately predicted Trump defeating Hillary in 2016 despite all the polls/pundits to the contrary...

I love this sort of thing.  But I prefer Nate Silver.  Much more of a statistician.  

I have a couple of comments about Lichtman's analysis:  

1.  According to his "Keys to the White House" metrics, Biden would have one less "false" than Harris (true incumbency, see #3) and therefore Biden would be more likely to win the White House than Harris, according to these 13 metrics.  That is obviously a grave flaw in his test.

2.  His economic indicator cites only "recession" not "inflation" as a vote driver.  (#5) He must have formulated this after Jimmy Carter lost 49 states to Reagan.

3.  He gives Harris a pass on foreign policy disasters (#s 12 and 13).  That is one point of view I suppose.  I think half the country would think the illegal border crossings, Russia's invasion of a sovereign European nation, and Hamas's massacres of innocent Israelis plus the resulting war would qualify as "major failure in foreign or military affairs."  No nuclear war though...

4.  #8 states:  "Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. TRUE"  In my view, this is indefensible.  We have had the most sustained social unrest since the 60s over the past several years.  (Trump would have gotten a "False" here too).

4. Last, he gives Trump a "no charisma" vote in #11.  Charisma is one thing Trump does have, if one talks to those who like him.  

Thus, I think Lichtman's bias is showing in factors 5, 8, 11, 12, and 13.  If those factors were marked as FALSE, then Trump wins easily.  If only two of those factors were marked as FALSE this metric predicts a Trump win.  I hope we remember to revisit this after election day.

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

The cult of MAGA creator and leader is running for office!

Of course, but did he create the resentment that underlies a MAGA worldview?   We are really in the weeds now, but I think the unveiled disdain for the working class shown by Obama and Clinton created Trump.  "Clinging to their guns and Bibles"  "A basket of deplorables."  That sort of thing.  Conservative Christianity  and a belief that life begins at conception are treated like terrorist dicta by the elites.

People know when they are their most cherished values are being openly mocked and despised.  Trump tapped into this vast well of resentment but he did not create it.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Orthodox teaching on sexual purity is hate speech, and I would not be surprised if there were attempts to outlaw it, or at the very least punish it putatively.

I am pretty sure I disagree with the orthodox teaching, since I have long been a supporter of gay rights, but any attempt to outlaw these beliefs is clearly wrong and dangerous.  Unfortunately, I think you are correct about the current direction of hate speech laws.

This upsets me in the context of the abortion debate too.  I have articulated to a few close, smart and extremely pro-choice people that they could at least try to understand that in the view of many, humanity begins at conception and abortion therefore creates a very human victim.  I have argued that these other's views should not be peremptorily dismissed, just because they are articulated as religious points of view.  

Always a losing argument.   Still it is tragic that a religious point of view is so easily dismissed as automatically invalid in 2024.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

I'm sure Lichtman would refute your arguments although I can't. I hope we don't have to revisit it after the election meaning Lichtman is proven correct and we're, instead, talking about putting Trumpism in the rear view mirror.

That said, "Just over 100 law enforcement officials endorsed Vice President Harris on Friday, ahead of former President Trump’s address to the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP)."

In a letter signed by 101 law enforcement officials, the group declared that Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) are “the only candidates we trust to keep our communities safe.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4865127-law-enforcement-endorse-kamala-harris/

Additionally: " More than 90 company executives, including the chief executives of Yelp and Chobani as well as the former CEOs of PepsiCo, Ford Motor Co and Yahoo!, endorsed U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris in a letter released on Friday."
"Goldman Sachs, in a note this week, said economic output was likely to take a hit next year if Trump wins, mostly from increased tariffs on imports and tighter immigration policies."

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/more-than-90-company-executives-endorse-harris-us-president-2024-09-06/

Harris certainly has momentum, and I do hope that she wins, because of the alternative.  Even so, I am not at all happy with Harris' favored policies on the economy or the Supreme Court.  So I hope the Senate becomes, and the House stays R.   Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"So I hope the Senate becomes, and the House stays R."

So we'll have nothing but gridlock. That's just brilliant now isn't it?

No funding for Ukraine to stop Putin. No funding for school programs. No funding for gun control reforms. In the latter regard, Georgia wouldn't vote for the common sense red flag law that may have very well prevented the school shooting. In other words, more of the same. All of that and more just to save your precious federalist society darlings in SCOTUS...

Even with gridlock, we'll fund Ukraine.  We'll fund the Department of Education too.  Don't be ridiculous.  Gridlock does not mean a federal budget of zero!   Gridlock means the federal government can not easily expand and hopefully any politically motivated monkeying around with the Courts is dead on arrival.   

Georgia's failure to pass a red flag law is a bad idea in my opinion.  Colorado's seems to work well and not unduly restrict gun owner's rights.  But Rod, I'm sure you know that Georgia's red flag law (and the vast majority of education spending) is a state law thing and has nothing to do with President Harris.  Why bring it up in the context of our discussion?  Should red states be controlled from Washington or Sacramento too?

Last, "federalist society darlings" my ass.  I have explained to you the tension between conservative and liberal jurisprudence many times.  I also have also explained to you that these are very different legal philosophies, with neither being right or wrong.   This is sadly incomprehensible to you.  You are the forum's best example, (now that Rich has moved on of course) of a partisan tribalist who reflexively attributes evil intent to those you disagree with.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg would not support your narrow and harmful point of view.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

That said, defunding the department of education is a priority on project's 2025 list.

Project 2025 has been disavowed by Trump and Vance both.  Assuming they are lying, eliminating the Department of Education is precisely the sort of thing that will never happen given neither party has the ability to hold strong filibuster and veto proof majorities.  That is a beautiful thing about our system and is a perfect example of something that "gridlock" prevents, if Trump were to win.   

Speaking of assumptions of lying, is Harris lying when she backs away from the left's own Project 2025 (the green new deal)?  Is she lying when she says in PA that she no longer wants to ban fracking?

Maybe she is, maybe she isn't.  The only thing I am sure about is that even if Trump is lying about Project 2025, and even if he wins, and even if he has a majority in the House and Senate, (pretty unlikely in my opinion), even if all that comes to pass the worst parts of Project 2025 like dismantling the Department of Education will never come to pass.