Will Stancil calls it a vibecession: all indications are that people are making more money, savings are increasing, and spending on more trips/ancillary items they wouldn't if they were not doing well.
The reason he says "vibecession" is because while people say they themselves are doing fine, they think others are not. Its partially driven by media solely using negative framing on basically everything, even when it's good news about the economy.
It's not to say people don't struggle, or stating things are perfect - but there needs be some reality brought back into sentiment.
So she's focusing on housing costs, which is a likely prime source of negative sentiment. There's little the Feds can do as a whole, and what she's proposing is about all that can/should be done there.
If she wins, she'll hopefully use the bully.pulpit to work governors and state legislatures to ease/eliminate most restrictions on housing density (like height maximums, lot size minimums, parking requirements, etc...).
You know, I think it might be a good idea to talk more about JD Vance. Trump is in obvious serious decline, so the likelihood of him being 25th'd or otherwise being replaced in the next term - if he was to win - is a serious issue that needs be considered.
For example: he's backing this BS about Haitian immigrants eating pets, even though there's zero evidence. He stated as well that we're in a continuation of the Civil War (the, not a) and that liberals are the Yankees, and the GOP the "Southern Bourbons".
So, should we also be discussing his (lack of) fitness to be POTUS?
Agreed. I do wonder as well if Trump being unhinged to have to run again and also having ensured his cabinet is full of "yes" men, if he could get impeached and removed for doing something so outlandish that even half of Republicans would step up. Remember, there will be no John Kelly's, Bill Barr's, Mark Meadow's or Mike Pence's this time to hold him back from listening to the Laura Loomer's, Mike Lindells, Roger Stone's, and MTG's among the many of crazies.
As you suggest, DT has the self control of a teenage boy on a porno site. And Harris played him like a bongo.
But as I’ve said before, it’s about winning undecideds. She can do enough to make undecideds NOT vote for DT. And perhaps that will suffice. But ideally she needs to win over undecideds to actually vote for her. Not sure she’s pulled that off yet to any great degree.
And Nate Silver still has DT as the more likely winner….altho that data does not yet price in the Tuesday DT faceplant.
You forgot to mention how many of the people who worked for her the last 4 years quit and the rumors that were spread about why . Great job writing a fluff piece.
I normally don’t do what about isms but I will make an exception. Spend a little time studying the list of firing and resignations in Trump’s time. Then take a look at the number of people who used to work for him who say he is a danger to democracy, and cannot be trusted to run this country.
"Some of Harris's early staff was also discomfited by her prosecutorial leadership style, former staffers said, which included pointed questions from Harris about footnotes in their reports or the reasons behind why certain items had been added to her schedule.
"It's stressful to brief her, because she's read all the materials, has annotated it and is prepared to talk through it," said one former aide.
"You can't come to the vice president and just ask her to do something," said another staffer. "You need to have a why.""
Fair enough question, which is one of the reasons i have hung around so long. I like being forced to think, rather than just feel. So as i was considering your remarks about Biden/Harris being tethered together in policy/decision making it struck me...which VP's have ever dictated the outcomes of of the president they served?
To help us out, here's a look back:
President/Vice President:
Kennedy/Johnson.
Johnson/Humphrey.
Nixon/Agnew.
Ford/Rockefeller.
Carter/Mondale.
Reagan/Bush.
Bush/Quayle.
Clinton/Gore.
Bush/Cheney.
Obama/Biden.
Trump/Pence.
Biden/Harris.
It's an interesting discussion because we have all heard the disparaging remarks about how little VP's role is in helping shape the country's direction. As i look down the list, my best guess is the two most involved would be Gore with Clinton and Cheney with Bush. And in all honesty, that's just a WAG. I would think most of the those decision's were more cabinet driven.
To answer your question Steve, i would give a nod to one of trump's better processes (had he paid any attention and had listened) would be to gather round tables of experts on any given topics like taxes, small business and community development (just to name a few). The goal would be to pick the brains of the best and brightest and rather than using them as arm candy, actually engage them in problem solving.
The beauty of this would be to not just take those who thought like you, but to get the diversity of ideas from democrats, republicans and independents and find solutions to actually move forward. The challenge in this kind of move is for leaders to admit and understand they don't know everything. I think Harris is there.
On the other hand, trump told us point blank; "he alone" could save us. Nobody is that good...especially trump.
I keep asking people and screaming at the television to please tell me which vice president wielded as much power as the president to shape policy and change history. Thanks Bill.
Komrade Kamala is trying to be the female global gore. Mr. hanging chads tried to distance himself from bj Clinton. Both of them are bad knockoffs of their 2 bosses who are professional political 🤥 liars. Carbon neutral and carbon zero are co2. At least the trees will recycle ♻️ them.
Looking at the facts, Gore probably won in 2000. There would be no stronger case for overturning a state certification and throwing the race to Congress than Gore had in 2000 since 1876. But it would not have mattered. Congress would have handed the race to Bush. Legally. Gore knew this and spared the country the drama. Kamala is definitely trying to distance herself from Biden. Bill Clinton was a much better president than Joe Biden.
So probably won is a fact? Spared the drama for 3 months. Sure looks like an opinion to me. Was it Russian interference? How about China or the USA? Komrade Kamala going to get 85 million votes? Google is trying to help.
We don’t know all the facts because the Supreme Court halted the recount. But the facts we do know point to a likely tiny Gore win in Florida if the hand recount of uncounted PBC ballots continued to the end. And that wouldn’t have changed the final outcome since Congress would have been the arbiter and Bush had enough delegations in his corner to win.
I have seen convincing arguments to the contrary saying Bush actually would have won by less than 100 votes. But the fact is that the states elect the President. Once the states certify their votes there is no Constitutional provision to overturn the election. The Supremes have essentially ruled that, if a state has screwed it up, it's up to the state voters to fix it. If congress sees a Georgia vote certification signed by Stacey Abrams or MTG instead of Brian Kemp, they are duty bound to reject it, Otherwise, it's a done deal.
Gore had a much better claim to having been robbed in 2000, than anything Orange could’ve dreamt of in 2020. Yet Gore conceded, whereas the orange thing did what oranges do.
2 thoughts as I read. One is Trump’s never ending threats against broadcast licenses of any station that doesn’t bow at his altar.
Second, I watched the Dragon crew live. Certifiable space geek here. It was amazing! Have a great day all. And keep praying for our nation! 🙏
Thank you! I watched too. Amen.
Your choice of “copacetic” was fantastic. Well done.
:-)
Will Stancil calls it a vibecession: all indications are that people are making more money, savings are increasing, and spending on more trips/ancillary items they wouldn't if they were not doing well.
The reason he says "vibecession" is because while people say they themselves are doing fine, they think others are not. Its partially driven by media solely using negative framing on basically everything, even when it's good news about the economy.
It's not to say people don't struggle, or stating things are perfect - but there needs be some reality brought back into sentiment.
So she's focusing on housing costs, which is a likely prime source of negative sentiment. There's little the Feds can do as a whole, and what she's proposing is about all that can/should be done there.
If she wins, she'll hopefully use the bully.pulpit to work governors and state legislatures to ease/eliminate most restrictions on housing density (like height maximums, lot size minimums, parking requirements, etc...).
You know, I think it might be a good idea to talk more about JD Vance. Trump is in obvious serious decline, so the likelihood of him being 25th'd or otherwise being replaced in the next term - if he was to win - is a serious issue that needs be considered.
For example: he's backing this BS about Haitian immigrants eating pets, even though there's zero evidence. He stated as well that we're in a continuation of the Civil War (the, not a) and that liberals are the Yankees, and the GOP the "Southern Bourbons".
So, should we also be discussing his (lack of) fitness to be POTUS?
Agreed. I do wonder as well if Trump being unhinged to have to run again and also having ensured his cabinet is full of "yes" men, if he could get impeached and removed for doing something so outlandish that even half of Republicans would step up. Remember, there will be no John Kelly's, Bill Barr's, Mark Meadow's or Mike Pence's this time to hold him back from listening to the Laura Loomer's, Mike Lindells, Roger Stone's, and MTG's among the many of crazies.
As you suggest, DT has the self control of a teenage boy on a porno site. And Harris played him like a bongo.
But as I’ve said before, it’s about winning undecideds. She can do enough to make undecideds NOT vote for DT. And perhaps that will suffice. But ideally she needs to win over undecideds to actually vote for her. Not sure she’s pulled that off yet to any great degree.
And Nate Silver still has DT as the more likely winner….altho that data does not yet price in the Tuesday DT faceplant.
Just to weigh in: Kamala chameleon has no business even alluding to anyone else being a disgrace. She is chief in that department.
You forgot to mention how many of the people who worked for her the last 4 years quit and the rumors that were spread about why . Great job writing a fluff piece.
I normally don’t do what about isms but I will make an exception. Spend a little time studying the list of firing and resignations in Trump’s time. Then take a look at the number of people who used to work for him who say he is a danger to democracy, and cannot be trusted to run this country.
Did you see former A.G. Alberto Gonzalez endorsed Harris?
"Some of Harris's early staff was also discomfited by her prosecutorial leadership style, former staffers said, which included pointed questions from Harris about footnotes in their reports or the reasons behind why certain items had been added to her schedule.
"It's stressful to brief her, because she's read all the materials, has annotated it and is prepared to talk through it," said one former aide.
"You can't come to the vice president and just ask her to do something," said another staffer. "You need to have a why.""
Fair enough question, which is one of the reasons i have hung around so long. I like being forced to think, rather than just feel. So as i was considering your remarks about Biden/Harris being tethered together in policy/decision making it struck me...which VP's have ever dictated the outcomes of of the president they served?
To help us out, here's a look back:
President/Vice President:
Kennedy/Johnson.
Johnson/Humphrey.
Nixon/Agnew.
Ford/Rockefeller.
Carter/Mondale.
Reagan/Bush.
Bush/Quayle.
Clinton/Gore.
Bush/Cheney.
Obama/Biden.
Trump/Pence.
Biden/Harris.
It's an interesting discussion because we have all heard the disparaging remarks about how little VP's role is in helping shape the country's direction. As i look down the list, my best guess is the two most involved would be Gore with Clinton and Cheney with Bush. And in all honesty, that's just a WAG. I would think most of the those decision's were more cabinet driven.
To answer your question Steve, i would give a nod to one of trump's better processes (had he paid any attention and had listened) would be to gather round tables of experts on any given topics like taxes, small business and community development (just to name a few). The goal would be to pick the brains of the best and brightest and rather than using them as arm candy, actually engage them in problem solving.
The beauty of this would be to not just take those who thought like you, but to get the diversity of ideas from democrats, republicans and independents and find solutions to actually move forward. The challenge in this kind of move is for leaders to admit and understand they don't know everything. I think Harris is there.
On the other hand, trump told us point blank; "he alone" could save us. Nobody is that good...especially trump.
I keep asking people and screaming at the television to please tell me which vice president wielded as much power as the president to shape policy and change history. Thanks Bill.
Well, Biden did have a hand in changing Obama's mind/rhetoric about gay marriage.
But yes, VPs typically don't drive the conversation or make the ultimate decisions about how to proceed.
Komrade Kamala is trying to be the female global gore. Mr. hanging chads tried to distance himself from bj Clinton. Both of them are bad knockoffs of their 2 bosses who are professional political 🤥 liars. Carbon neutral and carbon zero are co2. At least the trees will recycle ♻️ them.
Looking at the facts, Gore probably won in 2000. There would be no stronger case for overturning a state certification and throwing the race to Congress than Gore had in 2000 since 1876. But it would not have mattered. Congress would have handed the race to Bush. Legally. Gore knew this and spared the country the drama. Kamala is definitely trying to distance herself from Biden. Bill Clinton was a much better president than Joe Biden.
So probably won is a fact? Spared the drama for 3 months. Sure looks like an opinion to me. Was it Russian interference? How about China or the USA? Komrade Kamala going to get 85 million votes? Google is trying to help.
We don’t know all the facts because the Supreme Court halted the recount. But the facts we do know point to a likely tiny Gore win in Florida if the hand recount of uncounted PBC ballots continued to the end. And that wouldn’t have changed the final outcome since Congress would have been the arbiter and Bush had enough delegations in his corner to win.
I think Steve 2 is referring to 2020, not to 2000: but it's hard to tell.
I have seen convincing arguments to the contrary saying Bush actually would have won by less than 100 votes. But the fact is that the states elect the President. Once the states certify their votes there is no Constitutional provision to overturn the election. The Supremes have essentially ruled that, if a state has screwed it up, it's up to the state voters to fix it. If congress sees a Georgia vote certification signed by Stacey Abrams or MTG instead of Brian Kemp, they are duty bound to reject it, Otherwise, it's a done deal.
Gore had a much better claim to having been robbed in 2000, than anything Orange could’ve dreamt of in 2020. Yet Gore conceded, whereas the orange thing did what oranges do.