Double_R

Democrats could have said "Biden is insane and incompetent". Instead, they pretended an obvious incompetence was competence.

Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.

Trump didn’t win because the Democratic Party is weak and incompetent, he won because voters refused to hold him to the same standard as they hold every other candidate for office. Any office.

This post is a perfect example of that double standard at play. You fault democrats because they refused to call out obvious incompetence. Meanwhile the Republican candidate thought Haitian Americans were eating their neighbors cats and dogs, still thinks he won the 2020 election, and thought Nikki Haley was in charge of Capitol security.

If your uncle started talking like this you would commit him to a group home, but it’s Donald Trump so no one cares.

But let’s talk more about how incompetent Biden was, and how the democrats suck for not calling it out, even though they eventually did, while the republicans to this day continue to pretend Trump is a deity. Because calling out the party leader for being incompetent is the real value Americans care about. Clearly.

—> The only “proof” you need that Biden didn’t cause inflation is the fact that it was a global phenomenon

thats not proof.

It absolutely is to the uneducated voter who just thinks “Biden president, inflation bad, therefore Biden bad”.

To maintain this belief given the fact that the same inflation trends occurring here in the US were occurring all over the developed world you have to believe that either Biden caused global inflation (an extraordinary claim), or that it was just a coincidence that nearly every developed nation in the world was going through their own generational levels of inflation at the same time we were (another extraordinary claim).

Both of these totally defy occam’s razor (which is philosophy speak for you’re an idiot if you believe that) given that by far the simplest explanation is that inflation was primarily the result of a global pandemic that destroyed global supply chains, making products previously depended upon much more difficult to get (economics 101 - supply and demand).

Unless you can prove Biden didnt cause inflation and war in Ukraine which started after he took control of economy, I will play safe and conclude it was his fault, because if I didnt play safe, politicians would get away with a lot.

This isn’t playing it safe, this is just willful ignorance.

The only “proof” you need that Biden didn’t cause inflation is the fact that it was a global phenomenon, since we’re not concerned about any nuances here.

And seriously, you need it proven to you that Biden didn’t cause war in Ukraine? What the hell does that even mean?

It is also better now than it was under Biden.

Because Biden inherited the economy Trump totally fucked up, the depths of which are 100% Trump’s fault according to your own logic. Trump inherited a recovered and growing economy, so the comparison is disingenuous.

If you don't want to blame Biden for failing to stop inflation for 4 years, and also not blame Trump for keeping inflation low, then what?

It seems to me that you are just making excuses for failures of your own party.

It seems that way because you either don’t have the bandwidth to understand that there’s more to grading a president’s economic performance than “Biden President, inflation bad, Biden bad”, or you are just too lazy to do the work necessary to understand it.

This isn’t complicated. Correlation =/= causation. Just because Biden is president and inflation happens doesn’t mean Biden is responsible for inflation. In this case when you look at the facts, you would see that inflation was a global phenomenon caused primarily by the supply chain disruptions that took place prior to Biden taking office. The effects were not avoidable, they just didn’t have time to materialize before Trump left office otherwise you would have seen the same phenomenon under Trump.

Maybe it's their fault, maybe it isn't, but better don't risk it by electing them again.

It’s only seen as a risk when one doesn’t understand what is going on.

You, on the other hand, make excuses for failures

No, I explain reality for what it is, which is complex and nuanced. I’m sorry that bothers you, but ignoring complexity and nuance doesn’t make them disappear.

My position isn't indefensible. It is reasonable to measure leader's efficiency by measuring situation under his rule.

There is nothing wrong with this as a generalization or a starting point, the problem is when you ignore very real and uncontrollable factors that shaped those particular results and instead just pretend the president is automatically responsible for everything.

You said earlier that I’m the problem, no, this is exactly the problem. People are too stupid or disinterested to know what is going on so we end up with the biggest moron that has ever been seriously considered for president sitting in our Oval Office… again.

do you mistake me for someone who supports Trump?

No, but perhaps I am mistaking you for someone who cares about intellectual honesty and consistency. A mistake I find myself making often on these debate sites. Must be projection.

This conversation began in post 4 where you argued that the economy under Trump is “slightly better” than it would have been under Harris.

In post 12 I responded asking what argument could you possibly offer in support of this.

You responded in post 13 with “low inflation rate”.

I then challenged you on this nonsensical argument in posts 21, 25, and 30. During these posts you defended this by ultimately arguing that president’s are responsible for whatever happens while they are in office whether they caused it or not. That’s not a defensible position, which is why you then had to ultimately resort to blaming Trump for Covid.

So no, this isn’t me calling you out for supporting Trump, it’s about the fact you made an indefensible point and the when pressed decided to defend it anyway. And of you’re going to do that then fine, at least admit that when you can’t keep it going any longer instead of pretending the person pointing it out is the problem.

Actually, no. It is enough that he is president when it happens.

Then you hold Trump personally responsible for the highest unemployment catastrophe we have seen in our lifetimes during his final year in office (2020)… right?

…Right?

Inflation exists only in 1 month?

Inflation reflects economic trends and circumstances. If you are concerned about inflation moving forward, which is kind of the point of holding elections - to look forward - then you don’t look at what those trends were years ago. You look at where they are heading at the time of your vote.

If on the other hand you’re going to use it as a metric to judge a president’s performance, then you would need to be able to point to what the president actually did to cause it, which will be pretty hard to do since inflation was a global phenomenon. I look forward to your in depth analysis there.

Inflation happened during Biden. But sure, blame someone else for that 15% inflation.

Right, that’s the kind of in depth analysis I should be expecting; ‘Biden president, inflation bad, therefore Biden bad’.

But since this is your metric, tell me about unemployment in Trump’s first term. Curious to how you assess it since we saw the largest unemployment increase in our lifetimes during his final year.

What matters is total inflation, not some cherry picked month. Average inflation during Biden was way higher than during trump.

It’s not cherry picking, it’s how inflation works.

No, you absolutely do not look at total inflation over a given period, especially when that period included a sharp and significant increase during a very specific period for a very specific reason, and especially especially when that reason is the result of a global condition.

The conditions that caused inflation had little to nothing to do with the Biden administration and had already passed long before the 2024 election. That’s why you look at what it was by the end of his term and note that nothing Trump has done has changed the situation, except probably made it worse.

Not possible. The Trump tariffs are raising the cost of all imports and that is inflationary.

It has definitely contributed to price increases, but that doesn’t mean inflation hasn’t remained largely flat. It means without these tariffs inflation would likely have decreased noticeably.

That is likely to change however. companies have largely absorbed much of these tariffs although finding other ways to lower costs, like layoffs for example. But that was a short term reaction to a market that has grown extremely insensitive to price hikes. But they can only absorb those costs for so long, and many companies are telling us flat out we’re going to see further price hikes because of them.

Low inflation rate.

Inflation is the same now as it was in Biden last month

If in 2024, they elected Kamala, Putin would lose in Ukraine, Palestine would be saved, and economy would be slightly worse.

What argument could you possibly offer to suggest that Kamala’s economy would have been worse? Everything Trump has done has shown itself to be a complete disaster?

His tariff policies have not only raised prices, it’s totally destabilized investment into the United States. He’s alienated all of our trading partners to the point they’re now turning to China to do business. And he’s single handily destroyed the tourism market into the United States. Please enlighten me…

You mean "has gotten worse over 50+ years in places with government intervention."

Already refuted all of this. You do not understand correlation vs causation, nor do you understand that valid syllogistic logic must necessarily be accepted. You talk about slogans while offering nothing else. You’re a waste of time to talk too.

Thanks for agreeing exactly why, after 50 years of interventionism, the objective result with your blue states is increased wealth inequality over 50 years, not decreased as advertised.

I already refuted your uninformed blue state argument and explained to you step by step by step why the wealth gap will never be solved without government intervention.

So did you acknowledge my points or explain where they are wrong? No, of course not. You just pretend that instead of refuting your arguments (which I did) that I was actually agreeing with them.

You’re entirely too stupid to talk too.

Who benefits? People who already own scarce assets, property owners, equity holders, and investment corporations.

Who gets squeezed? 

Renters. 

First-time buyers. 

New entrants. 

The middle class.

So property owners win when the government tells them they are not allowed to charge unreasonably high rates? Wow, that’s news to them.

There is absolutely no evidence that the types of examples you listed are the drivers of the wealth gap. You’re engaging in a correlation/causation fallacy.

Moreover, your argument here is largely irrelevant. There are plenty of progressive ideas I can look at and say are terrible, like Kamala Harris’s $30k credit for first time home buyers, and don’t even get me started on the over saturation of affordable housing, which jacks up my rent because I make too much to qualify so I have to watch as people who make way less than me are able to afford better housing than I can.

We can cherry pick whatever policies we want and talk about unintended consequences all day, that doesn’t change the fact of everything else I said about wealth begetting wealth being logically impenetrable. Not liking some ideas doesn’t mean there aren’t better ones, but if we can’t even agree on what the core problem is we’ll never solve them, and that is exactly where we are.

Thanks for agreeing with my point on 5-year plan systems.

Your propensity for self delusion is very entertaining.

—>Why do all the experts disagree with you and say there's no significant fraud? 

I didn't make that claim; you are arguing with the air.

The irony…

Those aren’t my words, that is from post #8 written by linate, so perhaps you should tell that to him.

How has that objectively worked out in your "progressive states" over the past 5 decades....

I love the way right wingers pretend every state operates in a vacuum, as if national policy and circumstances has nothing to do with the broader story we are seeing play out.

The wealth gap is wider in most blue states because that’s where the big cities are, which is where the rich people flock to. No Billionaire wants to live in West Virginia. But if the policies in these places gets too progressive, they will just relocate for tax purposes to states like Florida who have no income taxes to save themselves a few million each year, even while spending much of their time on those big cities. That’s why this needs to be dealt with at the federal level.

So either heavy government intervention does not function the way you claim… or concentrated power and regulatory capture happen inside progressive frameworks too.

I never said concentrated power and regulatory capture don’t happen under progressive frameworks, you made that up, as usual.

All I said is that it is a fact that in a capitalistic society, with greater wealth comes greater power and influence, resulting in a greater ability to increase one’s wealth. That’s not debatable.

So given that wealth begets wealth, on a macro level, without an intervening force the wealth gap will only increase, which is exactly what we and every other large democracy on earth consistently see.

And the only entity that has the power to intervene is government.

This means that if your core value is less government intervention in economic matters, then your core value is necessarily tied to expanding the wealth gap as opposed to setting the stage for a thriving middle class. You cannot have both.

So pick one, and say it out loud.

Right, because what struggling workers really need is more of their production stolen with empty promises of a return on that stolen investment

What workers need is intervention in a system designed to benefit those who already have wealth, leading to the natural and inevitable outcome where the middle class disappears and the gap between the rich and poor reaches society destabilizing levels.

The only entity that can possibly offer that intervention is the government, which yes, is funded by taxation.

The refunds will still get higher as well because the plan is to replace the income tax with tarrifs.

I thought the plan was to bring manufacturing back to the United States, or weren’t these tariffs supposed to be leverage to negotiate better trade deals?

You do know that all of these stated goals contradict each other right? As in accomplishing any one of them necessarily decapitates the other two… right?

running with the false premise that USA has no fraud

This is what it looks like when you have no argument so you have to make shit up instead.

No one is claiming there is “no fraud”, we’re pointing out that the fraud is no where near the level Trump claims, and to the extent he’s claiming to have gotten rid of it he’s just lying, and the reason he lies is clear; see your own posts.

the USA has "the most secure election ever" whenever your cult leaders tell you it is so.

So now the officials who worked under Donald Trump are the cult leaders. The projection is remarkable, “I know you are not what am I?” worked in third grade.

"The experts," is that what you guys call your cult leaders? How metropolitan.

There is no greater exclamation point on the absurdity of MAGA than watching them type experts in scare quotes. Because in MAGAville, the people who know best are not the ones who have been practicing something their entire lives and demonstrated their knowledge through consistent results, but rather the guy who talks about it on his podcast.

Hes mostly just a one trick pony givin fat tax cuts to the wealthy at the expense of basic social services.

This is the fundamental problem with the Republican Party and why Trump was able to take it over so easily; they have no policy ideas for how to make the country better economically because their fundamental approach towards governance is that governance itself is the problem. This creates an unavoidable contradiction - stay true to your stated core principals means doing nothing at all in which case you have nothing to run on, or intervene to make life better for ordinary people which means embracing democratic policies.

When you have nothing to run on, your only option is to lie (tax cuts will fix everything!) and then change the subject. That’s why they focus on culture war BS, and it works because when people are struggling they are angry, and anger needs a target.

And transwomen are more likely to rape than strange men.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

It's axiomatic that if you don't want to make your country great, then you are okay with it as-is.

“Make America great” means something entirely different to everyone, so this argument is meaningless from the start.

Moreover, the slogan is, “make America great… again”. That. Literally. Translates. Into. “Let’s move backwards”.

Most of what Biden did was to reverse changes (conservatism)

In that sense, much of what Biden did wasn’t progressive at all. It was conservative in the literal meaning of the word: reversing changes and restoring prior norms rather than proposing a new direction.

OMG

Progressive doesn’t mean “I’m going to do something different than the last guy”. These terms are defined by looking at society through the lens of history, not the lens of the last election.

That would mean importing millions of white people from all over the globe if that was a real goal.

The fact that they aren’t doing everything possible to achieve the goal does not mean it isn’t the goal. There comes a point where actions become excessive and therefore counter productive.

This is basic common sense.

Only someone concerned with the religion of phrenology would care about the color of immigrants

You mean like someone who will go as far as occupying cities to target all the black and brown people but explicitly opens the door nice and wide to white South Africans?

Contrast MAGA with Kamala declaring that she wouldn't do anything different from Biden, and it's clear the American parties are functionally reversing their roles, where Democrants will fight tooth and nail for status quo(conservative), and MAGA wants real change(progressive).

MAGA isn’t seeking progressive change, they’re trying to take us backwards while democrats are saying no.

All this attention on immigration isn’t about solving any real world problem, it’s about making America whiter, like we used to be.

Tarrifs aren’t about ushering in a new era of manufacturing, it’s about bringing us back to the “good old days” where we produced all our own shit.

Even the slogan, make America great again… that’s not forward looking by definition.

The idea that the left is about conserving the status quo is silly. What the left is fighting back against is authoritarianism, nepotism, oligarchy, and just outright stupidity. You can brand all of that as progressive if you want, doesn’t make your point any more salient.

It's fundamentally racist to claim all people with black skin are American.

Which no one in this thread did. As usual, you’re having a conversion with yourself.

Also, Mexico isn't listed as a race under any of the phrenology dogma describing the functional religion of racism.

Another thing no one here said. You two should probably get a room.

this appears to be the Democrats' real beef against Trump: they just could not hold on to him.

Democrats beef with Trump began when he rose to prominence by boosting a fundamentally racist charge; that our first black president isn’t an American. Then followed it up by launching his political career declaring that Mexicans in this country are criminals and rapists. From there, his childishness, petulance, narcissism, and ignorance did the rest.

The idea that the core resentment driving it all is that he isn’t one of us is hilariously delusional.

He acts like Democrats never carve out loopholes for billionaires who support them.

No, I’m acting like your initial claim was wrong and explaining why. Exceptions to the phenomenon I described do not change that.

He'd exhibited violent behavior toward ICE before, they recognized him going into the second encounter, and such a man having a gun on him was the final straw.

Ah, so if ICE officers recognize someone causing trouble before and in their minds he’s causing trouble again but this time has a gun holstered to his waste, they get free rein to impose public execution.

There is no actual evidence that "billionaires who stand to lose many millions over democrats tax policies vote for democrats anyway"

The evidence would be the billionaires who stand to lose millions upon millions if the democrats they publicly support get elected… and supporting them anyway.

The topic is about Alex Pretti and not Kyle. You can’t be that confused.

Im not confused at all. I’m responding to the points being thrown back at me. If you have an issue with my response by all means tell me where I went wrong. Otherwise feel free to mind your own business.

Plenty of people open carry guns and don't get attacked, plenty of people without weapons got attacked. This is a bit like saying banks having an armed guard will make robbers want to rob them more because robbers are irrational and the guard will make them mad. Kyle is one data point.

None of your examples are the slightest bit relevant to the context of the riots in which this incident took place. This is an apples to oranges comparison and you know that.

Except doing 120 endangers others even if they do everything right; carrying a rifle isn't endangering anyone unless they attack you.

Focusing on the part of the analogy that isn’t relevant and ignoring the part that is.

I was talking about intent vs consideration for real life consequences. You’re talking about individual accountability. These are totally different subjects.

I mean, same applies to wearing a bright shirt or a jersey for an unpopular sports team.

Wearing a jersey at a sporting event is not the slightest bit comparable to brandishing and AK style rifle in a riot.

This is a fundamentally unserious comparison.

The aggressor put themselves in danger

I never excused the aggressors, so this point is irrelevant.

Carrying a weapon isn't using deadly force.

It’s a very clear signal to the protesters/rioters as to what you’re there for. A point which you have totally ignored.

Trump is a narcissistic, petulant, vile, ignorant, child," This is your opinion TDS

No, it’s a very clear fact substantiated by looking up the definition of said terms and then comparing objective statements and actions he has taken establishing a clear and extreme pattern of behavior.

Dismissing it as mere opinion without any interest in further discussion only demonstrates why you believe what you do. Because reality is irrelevant to you, all that matters is validating your preconceptions.