If I had wishes granted it would be for both candidates not to run. But that is not going to happen. What disenchanted group, left and right, will stay home and not vote in the greater numbers. That will decide this train wreck of an election.
1: the Progressives HATE Joe Biden and the Democratic Party. It's best to think of them as left MAGA, not as part of the party - and fortunately/unfortunately they have no understanding of politics or ability to strategize.
2: the lesson to be learned is that Americans would rather have high unemployment than inflation
3: the DNC (and American political parties in general) are weak, and can't force a candidate to run/not run
4: most people haven't heard Trump state that he will be a dictator on day one. They haven't been paying attention, and things will shift
5: fact is there is no other option for replacing Biden besides Kamala Harris. If there was then they would have run in the primary.
6: we shouldn't need to love our politicians in order to elect them - just expect basic competence and normalcy
"The presidential campaign right now is basically a competition between a media mirage of Biden (senile, can’t finish a sentence, no policy accomplishments, terrible economy) and a media mirage of Trump (suddenly presidential, strong, coherent, no more rigged-election nonsense)." - Will Stancil
Will those mirages persist, or evaporate as the campaign truly heats up?
Suffering Joe Biden is fine if that's what you really want and think his health and mental state are inconsequential. Many of us are concerned about Kamala, or Biden, dealing with serious economic troubles and potential military conflicts.
They handle problems by changing the rules and obfuscation. The link below shows how they reduce border encounters.
The thing about Biden is that we know his health (and likely mental) state as his medical info has been provided: we know what meds he takes, what ailments he has, and that his doctors see no mental issues (outside of regular aging) that have prompted his doctors to order cognitive tests.
We don't even know Trump's actual height or weight, to say nothing of the fact that he has in fact taken cognitive tests because a doctor thought he needed to (possibly multiple times now).
And I don't see how you can look at Biden's term without looking at the economic troubles of COVID; the use of non-austerity measures to ensure full employment; and the resulting inflation of a full employment environment (which speaks a bit to the conflicting mandates of the Fed to ensure both full employment AND a 2% inflation target). When it comes to military conflicts - I'll take the person not in debt to foreign powers 'cause I know they at least have America's best interest in mind.
I'm not afraid of the Orange Ogre. I don't care about his height and weight. I do not take his remarks about dictatorship seriously. I just believe he is convinced, as am I, that Joe Biden and his handlers and other high-level democrats are engaged in legal shenanigans against him and exempting Joe from any serious legal scrutiny.
I do not believe the shutdown of the economy was justified. I do not believe the relief efforts (that should not have been necessary) were well planned or managed as evidenced by the amount of fraud and that unused funds are now being spent to feed and care for illegal invaders.
I do not believe Trump has compromising foreign entanglements. He operated legitimate businesses in foreign countries that were subject to accounting and taxation. Joe, on the other hand, bragged about having a Ukraine prosecutor fired.
I do not trust Joe Biden or any of his cronies to properly fund and enable the Military.
Trump has his faults - many of them. I simply do not believe any policies he might implement will do more long-term damage than a Biden administration.
The question is why you do not take him and Project 2025 seriously on what they say they plan to do - considering you just earlier were complaining about prices, which their policies will result in massive increases.
The shutdown was under Trump, not Biden. There was famously relief checks sent by Trump with his name on them, and the fraud is related to sending businesses money to stay afloat - not towards direct payments via unemployment. Interestingly enough, there's an analysis out regarding how the EU and US economies have fared compared to each other - with the EU primarily using the "pay employers to stay afloat and pay workers" vs the mix of PPP and direct payments the US did: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/america-europe-post-pandemic-growth-comparison/677617/
Your third paragraph makes little sense: Trump has a massive amount of debt to his name: that makes him more easily corrupted. This is a general thing applicable to all politicians: if their salaries are insufficient, or they have a large amount of debt - they are more likely to be corrupted. Joe Biden was VPOTUS, and the "brag" was a joint effort by a multi-national group to remove a corrupt prosecutor.
Funding the military is up to Congress, and to my recollection the GOP held up military funding (to say nothing of them being responsible for the 5 shutdowns). Joe Biden has respect for the military: Trump does not.
DeSantis will not be a factor in 2028.
And yes, I agree: you believe what you want to believe about Trump, regardless of the facts, because it is easier to do so than to face the reality that what he wants to do will be extremely harmful to our economy and geopolitical standing.
I know next to nothing about Project 2025 except it is a Heritage Foundation thing. I don't know how it will affect prices unless you continue to insist that illegals provide cheap labor. They live off social programs, pay very little tax, send under the table cash back to their countries of origin and overload ERs and schools.
The Trump shutdown was for fifteen days before Republican controlled areas began reopening and democrat-controlled areas remained shut down.
Trump may or not be corrupt but if he is, it's not because of debt making him vulnerable. That would be a matter of integrity. I know you think he has none. It's similar the prevailing rules that existed when I ran a Top-Secret Army comcenter. I turned two enlisted personnel over to the military justice system because confirmed homosexual activity made them vulnerable to compromise. Biden bragged about getting the Ukraine prosecutor fired. That's the bottom line regardless of whatever cover story they concocted.
There is no such thing as Republicans or democrats holding up funding for anything. Both sides are responsible. Poison pill language is inserted into legislation so that each party can blame the other. Either party could compromise instead of insisting on total capitulation by the other. I believe that Republicans, who are fractured, compromise more often than democrats who are united. Right now democrats are in charge and cannot meet their military recruiting goals. It's basically a matter of funding and commitment to a strong defense.
You should probably read up on it: it's a 900+ page plan to reshape the Federal government, replace all positions of power with crony loyalists, and thus remove all checks and balances on the power of the executive branch.
Again: 2020. Before we had vaccines or any treatments.
Debt can and does make people vulnerable to corruption: I don't know why you think that is not the case. It's an important enough consideration that unmanageable levels of debt make one ineligible to work for the FBI, as an example.
The homosexual activity thing was a "way of the times" because homosexuality was not allowed/illegal. That not being the case anymore makes all the difference - whereas having unmanageable levels of debt does not change that vulnerability to corruption.
You're so focused on a debunked thing: at what point do we just think you can't admit being wrong?
One key bullet point from the beginning of the paper (again, appears to be from around 2009):
"Recruiting and retention are sensitive to the state of the economy. Studies indicate that a 10 percent decrease in the civilian unemployment rate will reduce high-quality enlisted recruiting by 2–4 percent. Retention also declines when unemployment decreases, but appears to be less sensitive to the state of the economy than recruiting. The recent economic downturn has improved recruiting and retention and has allowed the services to reduce use of enlistment and reenlistment bonuses. However, his improvement is expected to diminish as civilian economic conditions improve."
Unemployment is low, wages are high and growing - so if you're young and need a job or you had previously enlisted in hard times, then you're more likely to go to the private sector.
What we need is a required national service period, whether in the military or other federal agency of some sort (Forestry, for example), that is mandatory after high school graduation. Go serve the country for a couple of years before going to college.
I'll apologize if I'm wrong, but my guess is that you read a hit piece by some leftist hack making bogus claims about the intent of Heritage Foundation think tank product. Probably the same type of leftist that invented the Russian hoax and described Hunter's laptop stories as Russian misinformation. I read enough to see where suggestions for the President managing and limiting the powers of the bureaucracy were twisted to mean replacement of bureaucrats with cronies and doing away with checks and balances. Management of the bureaucracy is the job of the President. Checks and balances are the job of the other two branches. I read about 100 pages just scanning the front-end boiler plate. I agree with all the plain language I read, so I can't be shamed into speculating on motives and intent.
Regarding the military, if the current leadership made it a source of pride and an honorable occupation instead of a social experiment with mentally ill fat men in skirts posing as military officers it would be more attractive to a patriotic base, if one still exists. The second part of recruiting would involve prioritizing equipping, training and paying the forces. None of this is happening under Biden and the USA is slipping as a dominant power.
If I had wishes granted it would be for both candidates not to run. But that is not going to happen. What disenchanted group, left and right, will stay home and not vote in the greater numbers. That will decide this train wreck of an election.
1: the Progressives HATE Joe Biden and the Democratic Party. It's best to think of them as left MAGA, not as part of the party - and fortunately/unfortunately they have no understanding of politics or ability to strategize.
2: the lesson to be learned is that Americans would rather have high unemployment than inflation
3: the DNC (and American political parties in general) are weak, and can't force a candidate to run/not run
4: most people haven't heard Trump state that he will be a dictator on day one. They haven't been paying attention, and things will shift
5: fact is there is no other option for replacing Biden besides Kamala Harris. If there was then they would have run in the primary.
6: we shouldn't need to love our politicians in order to elect them - just expect basic competence and normalcy
Your faith in “the shift” is admirable. #3 is hard to argue against.
"The presidential campaign right now is basically a competition between a media mirage of Biden (senile, can’t finish a sentence, no policy accomplishments, terrible economy) and a media mirage of Trump (suddenly presidential, strong, coherent, no more rigged-election nonsense)." - Will Stancil
Will those mirages persist, or evaporate as the campaign truly heats up?
See Greg Sargent for an example: https://x.com/GregTSargent/status/1764991753101210079?s=20
Suffering Joe Biden is fine if that's what you really want and think his health and mental state are inconsequential. Many of us are concerned about Kamala, or Biden, dealing with serious economic troubles and potential military conflicts.
They handle problems by changing the rules and obfuscation. The link below shows how they reduce border encounters.
https://homeland.house.gov/2023/10/23/new-documents-obtained-by-homeland-majority-detail-shocking-abuse-of-cbp-one-app/
The thing about Biden is that we know his health (and likely mental) state as his medical info has been provided: we know what meds he takes, what ailments he has, and that his doctors see no mental issues (outside of regular aging) that have prompted his doctors to order cognitive tests.
We don't even know Trump's actual height or weight, to say nothing of the fact that he has in fact taken cognitive tests because a doctor thought he needed to (possibly multiple times now).
And I don't see how you can look at Biden's term without looking at the economic troubles of COVID; the use of non-austerity measures to ensure full employment; and the resulting inflation of a full employment environment (which speaks a bit to the conflicting mandates of the Fed to ensure both full employment AND a 2% inflation target). When it comes to military conflicts - I'll take the person not in debt to foreign powers 'cause I know they at least have America's best interest in mind.
I'm not afraid of the Orange Ogre. I don't care about his height and weight. I do not take his remarks about dictatorship seriously. I just believe he is convinced, as am I, that Joe Biden and his handlers and other high-level democrats are engaged in legal shenanigans against him and exempting Joe from any serious legal scrutiny.
I do not believe the shutdown of the economy was justified. I do not believe the relief efforts (that should not have been necessary) were well planned or managed as evidenced by the amount of fraud and that unused funds are now being spent to feed and care for illegal invaders.
I do not believe Trump has compromising foreign entanglements. He operated legitimate businesses in foreign countries that were subject to accounting and taxation. Joe, on the other hand, bragged about having a Ukraine prosecutor fired.
I do not trust Joe Biden or any of his cronies to properly fund and enable the Military.
Trump has his faults - many of them. I simply do not believe any policies he might implement will do more long-term damage than a Biden administration.
DeSantis in 2028.
The question is why you do not take him and Project 2025 seriously on what they say they plan to do - considering you just earlier were complaining about prices, which their policies will result in massive increases.
The shutdown was under Trump, not Biden. There was famously relief checks sent by Trump with his name on them, and the fraud is related to sending businesses money to stay afloat - not towards direct payments via unemployment. Interestingly enough, there's an analysis out regarding how the EU and US economies have fared compared to each other - with the EU primarily using the "pay employers to stay afloat and pay workers" vs the mix of PPP and direct payments the US did: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/america-europe-post-pandemic-growth-comparison/677617/
Your third paragraph makes little sense: Trump has a massive amount of debt to his name: that makes him more easily corrupted. This is a general thing applicable to all politicians: if their salaries are insufficient, or they have a large amount of debt - they are more likely to be corrupted. Joe Biden was VPOTUS, and the "brag" was a joint effort by a multi-national group to remove a corrupt prosecutor.
Funding the military is up to Congress, and to my recollection the GOP held up military funding (to say nothing of them being responsible for the 5 shutdowns). Joe Biden has respect for the military: Trump does not.
DeSantis will not be a factor in 2028.
And yes, I agree: you believe what you want to believe about Trump, regardless of the facts, because it is easier to do so than to face the reality that what he wants to do will be extremely harmful to our economy and geopolitical standing.
I know next to nothing about Project 2025 except it is a Heritage Foundation thing. I don't know how it will affect prices unless you continue to insist that illegals provide cheap labor. They live off social programs, pay very little tax, send under the table cash back to their countries of origin and overload ERs and schools.
The Trump shutdown was for fifteen days before Republican controlled areas began reopening and democrat-controlled areas remained shut down.
Trump may or not be corrupt but if he is, it's not because of debt making him vulnerable. That would be a matter of integrity. I know you think he has none. It's similar the prevailing rules that existed when I ran a Top-Secret Army comcenter. I turned two enlisted personnel over to the military justice system because confirmed homosexual activity made them vulnerable to compromise. Biden bragged about getting the Ukraine prosecutor fired. That's the bottom line regardless of whatever cover story they concocted.
There is no such thing as Republicans or democrats holding up funding for anything. Both sides are responsible. Poison pill language is inserted into legislation so that each party can blame the other. Either party could compromise instead of insisting on total capitulation by the other. I believe that Republicans, who are fractured, compromise more often than democrats who are united. Right now democrats are in charge and cannot meet their military recruiting goals. It's basically a matter of funding and commitment to a strong defense.
You should probably read up on it: it's a 900+ page plan to reshape the Federal government, replace all positions of power with crony loyalists, and thus remove all checks and balances on the power of the executive branch.
Again: 2020. Before we had vaccines or any treatments.
Debt can and does make people vulnerable to corruption: I don't know why you think that is not the case. It's an important enough consideration that unmanageable levels of debt make one ineligible to work for the FBI, as an example.
The homosexual activity thing was a "way of the times" because homosexuality was not allowed/illegal. That not being the case anymore makes all the difference - whereas having unmanageable levels of debt does not change that vulnerability to corruption.
You're so focused on a debunked thing: at what point do we just think you can't admit being wrong?
Military recruiting goals always suffer when the economy is roaring. Here's a paper describing the effect the economy has on recruiting (appears to be from/using debt through 2009): https://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/Documents/Reports/SR05_Chapter_2.pdf
One key bullet point from the beginning of the paper (again, appears to be from around 2009):
"Recruiting and retention are sensitive to the state of the economy. Studies indicate that a 10 percent decrease in the civilian unemployment rate will reduce high-quality enlisted recruiting by 2–4 percent. Retention also declines when unemployment decreases, but appears to be less sensitive to the state of the economy than recruiting. The recent economic downturn has improved recruiting and retention and has allowed the services to reduce use of enlistment and reenlistment bonuses. However, his improvement is expected to diminish as civilian economic conditions improve."
Unemployment is low, wages are high and growing - so if you're young and need a job or you had previously enlisted in hard times, then you're more likely to go to the private sector.
What we need is a required national service period, whether in the military or other federal agency of some sort (Forestry, for example), that is mandatory after high school graduation. Go serve the country for a couple of years before going to college.
I'll apologize if I'm wrong, but my guess is that you read a hit piece by some leftist hack making bogus claims about the intent of Heritage Foundation think tank product. Probably the same type of leftist that invented the Russian hoax and described Hunter's laptop stories as Russian misinformation. I read enough to see where suggestions for the President managing and limiting the powers of the bureaucracy were twisted to mean replacement of bureaucrats with cronies and doing away with checks and balances. Management of the bureaucracy is the job of the President. Checks and balances are the job of the other two branches. I read about 100 pages just scanning the front-end boiler plate. I agree with all the plain language I read, so I can't be shamed into speculating on motives and intent.
Regarding the military, if the current leadership made it a source of pride and an honorable occupation instead of a social experiment with mentally ill fat men in skirts posing as military officers it would be more attractive to a patriotic base, if one still exists. The second part of recruiting would involve prioritizing equipping, training and paying the forces. None of this is happening under Biden and the USA is slipping as a dominant power.