IT'S GOOD TO BE ABLE TO CRITICIZE YOUR OWN SIDE, BUT NOT WHEN THE ALTERNATIVE IS FASCISM
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
IT'S GOOD TO BE ABLE TO CRITICIZE YOUR OWN SIDE, BUT NOT WHEN THE ALTERNATIVE IS FASCISM
There's a book review I read more than twenty years ago that I think about a lot in reference to American politics and the dire state of liberalism. The book under review wasn't about politics -- it was Seriously Funny: The Rebel Comedians of the 1950s and 1960s by Gerald Nachman. I haven't read the book, though I'm familiar with most of the comics it discusses. What stays with me is this passage from Adam Gopnik's review in The New Yorker . It talks about the degree to which the "rebel comedians" of the Eisenhower/Joe McCarthy/JFK/LBJ era were mocking the people who bought tickets to their shows rather than people on the right:
The book and this review were published in 2003, but we've seen what Gopnik describes in subsequent decades on Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show . We see it in contemporary streaming shows like Hacks and The Studio , in which characters who earnestly or cynically embrace progressive ideas are depicted as somewhat ridiculous.
I thought about all this again when a friend on Bluesky pointed me to Jake Tapper's Substack page, where we learn that his book tour with Alex Thompson for that Biden "cover-up" book will continue for several more weeks and feature quite a few public appearances with friendly interviewers :
If you think of the contemporary version of the liberal culture Gopnik describes above as a belief system, Tapper and Thompson are about to appear with several of its most prominent clerics (Jon Favreau! David Remnick, the editor of The New Yorker !), and at some of its most famous cathedrals (the 92nd Street Y! WBEZ, home of This American Life and Wait Wait ... Don't Tell Me! ).
What does it mean when liberal culture embraces a book that bashes the Democratic Party and its former leader this way?
Up to a point, I respect liberals for being willing to engage in self-criticism. Do Republicans ever do that? How many Republican-bashing books have Republicans bought in bestseller numbers? How many jokes does Greg Gutfeld tell on Fox that are at the right's expense? But past a certain point, this impulse leaves many liberals unable to fully take their own side in an argument. They'd rather attack their own allies.
Maureen Dowd will chat with Tapper and Thompson in D.C. next week. Her latest column bashes Biden and the Democrats using the language and ideas of the Tapper/Thompson book. Gratifyingly, most of the reader picks among the comments are having none of it:
I guess these readers are capable of taking their own side in an argument.
For what is really striking about all the “rebel” comedians of the time, hard and soft, is that their main target was almost never the excesses of the right wing in power. From Tom Lehrer’s “Love, love love me, I’m a liberal” and Shelley Berman’s nervous flier to Woody Allen’s mockery of CUNY ethics and Nichols and May’s sublime catalogue of the sounds of tolerance (“Well, Al Schweitzer is just a great guy. Al is a lot of laughs. I personally have never dated him”), their subject was liberalism and its pieties. As Nachman sees quite clearly, though he seems not always to see the centrality of his own observation, the bulk of Mort Sahl’s material, beyond a couple of anti-McCarthy jokes long after McCarthy was out of power, wasn’t political—and, to the degree that it was, it mostly mocked liberal saints like the Kennedys. Rather, it was social and sexual: “There are no women in the Beat Generation, just girls who have broken with their parents for the evening.” Lenny Bruce may have been victimized by the police and the judiciary, but he seldom made fun of them—partly because he had a twisted, junkie’s respect for anyone who had contempt for him, but mostly because there wasn’t enough life in what they did to be very funny. “What can a man Eisenhower’s age say to me?” he shrugged memorably and then joked about liberal hypocrisies and liberal conventions (“I used to go to civil-rights marches, but Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles keep bumping into people”). Nichols and May are funny because they have perfect pitch for the holy words of progressive culture (“I can never believe that Bartók died on Central Park West”). Well past the high-water mark of McCarthyism, the comedians were mocking liberalism, implicitly recognizing that this was the ideology in cultural ascent.
The book and this review were published in 2003, but we've seen what Gopnik describes in subsequent decades on Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show . We see it in contemporary streaming shows like Hacks and The Studio , in which characters who earnestly or cynically embrace progressive ideas are depicted as somewhat ridiculous.
I thought about all this again when a friend on Bluesky pointed me to Jake Tapper's Substack page, where we learn that his book tour with Alex Thompson for that Biden "cover-up" book will continue for several more weeks and feature quite a few public appearances with friendly interviewers :
THURSDAY MAY 22 in WASHINGTON DC with Maureen Dowd at the 9:30 Club;
TUESDAY MAY 27 in NEW YORK, NY with David Remnick at the 92nd Street Y;
THURSDAY MAY 29 in PHILLY with Tamala Edwards at the Free Library;
SATURDAY MAY 31 in SEATTLE with Mike Pesca at the Cascade PBS Ideas Festival;
MONDAY JUNE 2 in SAN FRANCISCO with Marisa Lagos at the Commonwealth Club;
TUESDAY JUNE 3 in LOS ANGELES with Jon Favreau and Jon Lovett at Writers Bloc;
THURSDAY JUNE 5 in CHICAGO with David Folkenflik at WBEZ Presents, at the Vic Theater.
More to come!
If you think of the contemporary version of the liberal culture Gopnik describes above as a belief system, Tapper and Thompson are about to appear with several of its most prominent clerics (Jon Favreau! David Remnick, the editor of The New Yorker !), and at some of its most famous cathedrals (the 92nd Street Y! WBEZ, home of This American Life and Wait Wait ... Don't Tell Me! ).
What does it mean when liberal culture embraces a book that bashes the Democratic Party and its former leader this way?
Up to a point, I respect liberals for being willing to engage in self-criticism. Do Republicans ever do that? How many Republican-bashing books have Republicans bought in bestseller numbers? How many jokes does Greg Gutfeld tell on Fox that are at the right's expense? But past a certain point, this impulse leaves many liberals unable to fully take their own side in an argument. They'd rather attack their own allies.
Maureen Dowd will chat with Tapper and Thompson in D.C. next week. Her latest column bashes Biden and the Democrats using the language and ideas of the Tapper/Thompson book. Gratifyingly, most of the reader picks among the comments are having none of it:
Looks like we're back to the old pastime of observing that Joe Biden is old. Never mind that Donald Trump is also old, but is also a convicted felon, adjudicated rapist, and barely able to string two coherent sentences together. And he's also crashed the economy and is wrecking the federal government. Plus, he's got those strange ties to Vladimir putin. Instead, let's beat up on Biden again. I'd take Biden's peace and stability, and the economy running like a well oiled machine, any day over the chaos we have now.
****
I believe that Joe Biden should never have declared for a second term. I also believe that Joe Biden’s worst day with mental decline is preferable to any day under Trump.
****
Be that as it may, whie Biden was President in the last year, he made no major gaffes, said nothing outlandish, was not vengeful - despite was Dowd offers up here. And most important in this "cognitive decline narrative", BIDEN STEPPED ASIDE; HE DID NOT RUN. Meanwhile, Trump messes up every single day, lies every day, grifts every day, insults every day. BUt here we are, still blaming Biden for everything.
****
I was with you, Maureen, until I read this:
"Democratic pooh-bahs and lawmakers were silent when they should have been screaming — as the Republicans are now with Trump’s egregious assaults on the Constitution, his cringey grifting..."
Republicans are screaming about Trump's corruption? Who? Where? When?
****
Yes, Biden should’ve dropped out earlier or not run at all. But in November 2024 voters had a clear choice between a qualified woman of color and chose the grifter instead, so the current ongoing catastrophe is on them. Leave Biden alone.
****
Cool! Do we have this fully off our chests now? Can we not hear another peep about Biden from this newspaper and bring the focus back to Israel's destruction of Gaza and Trump's rendition of US residents to El Salvador?
I guess these readers are capable of taking their own side in an argument.
The media , including some of the so called liberal media allows the absurd argument that people had no choice but to vote for Donald Trump.
Biden should have never been on ANY Presidential ballot. EVER.
"qualified woman of color" Who was that? The only "woman of color" on the ballot was Harris. That's far from qualified. But then again the standard is pretty low for the Democrats.
Can you list Donald Trump's qualifications?
PotUS from 2017 through 2020. Any other items I can help with, feel free..............
MAGAites need to tone down their 'sorry,' angry, rhetoric. We need the country to come together (in its middle politics) as all this vitriolic rhetoric is serving somebody some 'good,' but it ain't the country that benefits from it. How long are we going to pretend that Black people are a problem this country has yet to dispense with dealing with or accepting?
Well, Trump was preceded by Obama by eight years and that did not help him one bit with MAGAites who detested him as a leader and as a man (of color).
Reviving the race card? Surely you jest.
Did you say that about the Democrats when Trump was in office or running for President?
I will not indulge anybody here with the FALSE NOTION that our country is colorblind. You can call it 'card this or card that' until it is actually 'friendly' in White, conservative, Christian, nationalistic America. . . to be a minority-plain and simple, then my comment stands!
As for Ms. Harris' qualifications they are substantial. And I need nor will I repeat those qualifications or discuss them farther with any MAGAites. The taunts against an educated woman stand and fall on their own lack of merit.
Mertt. Something MAGAites untruthfully 'say' (with their lips only not with their actions) they support but repeatedly they get hung up (and out to dry) liberal women possessing any.
Look at the above, it's from 1.1 in the comments. It's a pervasive mindset that implies:
Women of color are second-class citizens and not equal to their counterparts: white women.
That implication (up above) is ignorant and biased against women of color. Still, knowing that to be so, MAGAites continue to post some version of it online. Showing contempt towards women of color!
Trump is a grifter elected to run the country. We can all gaze upon his 'handiwork' and craft "live" as he conducts his personal business while a sitting president sometimes through his official capacity as president. (It's been reported, that our president asked the nation of Qatar to give him the 'disputed' plane that is in the news). It is not from the goodness of the people of Qatar-it is a 'chip' that Qatar will play at some point during the presidency of Trump.) There is nothing else to call a president who is having his people globe-trot making building projects that he could not make while not president.
What were his qualifications in 2016?
Business fraud, tax evasion, birtherism and bankruptcies.
Then stop pushing it.
You're deflecting, the question was, have YOU ever told Democrats to tone down their angry rhetoric?
POTUS who failed at everything he tried except for tax breaks for the ultra rich.
Oh bullshit. You got a tax break just like everyone else. And no he DIDN'T fail at everything. Some just need to open their eyes and realize they are still alive and well in these United States. Sorry you missed the first time around distracted by all the bullshit they were throwing at him. Much the same as they are beginning to do now.
He claimed a "middle class tax break" and provided a tax break for the ultra wealthy while throwing a few crumbs at the middle class.
What did he succeed at?
I remember that "tax cut". It didn't pay my beer bill for a week
If you could afford it prior to the tax break, the additional just helped fuel your desires. Thus, making it available for an increase in some other sort of spending. I seem to remember a member once stating that it didn't even fill the tank in their Silverado. Well that member too, was getting along prior to it and, that being said, it was still more than they had..........and hopefully, that will continue if congress gets off their asses and puts this, or something through to hold on to them.
Giving the middle class a tax cut . /s
One of the prominent talking points of the right for the new tax proposal is that unless the 2017 tax cuts are renewed the middle and lower class will get a tax hike.
The problem with this claim is that there is no "law" that the current congress cannot separate tax breaks for the wealthy from tax breaks for everyone else. There is no requirement that a tax hike on the wealthy has to automatically include a tax hike on the middle class. They are once again trying to bamboozle everyone.
Only the most partisan of progressives would be so dishonest as to claim a tax cut that saved the middle class thousands of dollars a year in taxes and shifted a higher percentage of the tax burden to the wealthy didn't help the middle class.
They should be honest and campaign on raising taxes on the working poor and middle class if they hate those tax cuts so much.
When you have nothing else...
But they don't want to be honest as it would expose their straw house. Instead they bitch about how the rich don't pay their fair share without any numbers to show what they mean by fair share. What's pasted below talks only about the bottom 50% and the top 1%, but the numbers are very clear.
You're reading too much into his comment.
There is definitely a very easy argument to make that women of color are 2nd class citizens, but that has nothing to do with Jeremy's comment.
About as poor as Obama's in 2008.
That's not criticism of Obama's presidency, BTW. But in 2008, he was the least qualified candidate by a pretty wide margin.
Quick question do you know 25% is more than 22% ?
Married Filing Jointly and Surviving Spouses:
024 Federal Income Tax Brackets and Rates for Single Filers, Married Couples Filing Jointly, and Heads of Households
A spattering of crumbs compared to what the wealthiest received.
Yeah, that’s why I voted for the other guy.
There has never in the history of the country been a more unqualified major party candidate than Trump, and I'm talking about 2016.
Obama had been the editor of the Harvard Law Review, a constitutional law lecturer at a famous university, a multiple term state legislator and a 4 year US Senator. Trump had been a tv game show host and a failed businessman accused of consumer fraud (for which he paid a 20 million dollar settlement). You have to be fucking kidding.
Gee John. I'm shocked to hear you say that.
For the 8,000,000th time.
This week.
Well, the truth is the truth. You should read up on trump some time.
And an opinion is an opinion
What would that change, John? My vote? I already refuse to vote for the man.
The truth is that he's the president, and there isn't a thing in the world you or I can do about that. That's the world I live in.
The truth is that Democrats had any number of people who could have walked away with that election, but whatever lunatic leftist was calling the shots over there was so utterly out of touch with reality that they thought they could appoint a president based on identity politics. They don't appear to have learned anything from their mistake.
Just out of curiosity, what will you ragging on Biden and Harris now change?
There is another election in 18 months and another presidential election two years after that. We need to have some Democratic options that don't suck. Trying to defend the Biden and Harris... who definitely sucked... is not the path forward.
I could ask you the same about trump. exactly what can you change, i'm pretty sure you can't convince people not to vote for him in 4 years so exactly what are you doing?
Probably the same thing your ragging on Trump changes. ZIP!
[✘]
IMO the Trump meme coins fall into that area, I believe if it's not unethical then it's a great vehicle for corruption.
If you're going to ignore the warts on one side you might just as well call yourself a Democrat. They seem to have perfected the art of tossing stones while ignoring their own glass house.
IMHO, the trump meme coins and his "images" are scummy and beneath the office of the president, but they don't rise to the level of corruption unless there is a benefit to the buyer, beyond as an investment, like any other collectible.
And here it is. The chance at a semi-private event with the sitting President. This dinner may all be on the up and up, but IMO every attendee should have to register as a lobbyist as they will have the opportunity to gain the President's ear. The potential for corruption is easy to see.
Exactly how is this any different than the 100,000 dollar a plate dinners that any politician holds, like the one with Clooney had for Biden. you said everyone should be held to the same standard and yet you aren't exactly doing that are you? name me one politician that hasn't traded a dinner for cash.
I guess the difference is that those $100,000 a plate dinners are fund raisers and the money goes to the campaign funds, either for the individual politician or PAC. The $TRUMP coin is mostly owned & controlled by the Trump family.
I don't like those high priced dinners that bring in buckets of money but at least the majority of that money is controlled somewhat by the campaign finance laws. For the meme coin where's the oversight? From what I can read it's mostly an asset that the Trump family can control. It's value can fluctuate and I would expect the value, once Trump's out of office, to fall faster that the value of Hunters' paintings.
I'll be the first to admit I'm not an expert in such things and I have never looked into or invested into FTE's. My holdings are much more standard in stocks, metals and property.
But it sure seems like this type of investment is really open to corruption. According to CNN, the majority of the buyers who will be at the Trump dinner are from overseas.
I am ashamed of our president—in his stead.
I understand what you are saying but I can list campaign donors who got huge payoffs, unless someone can show where these “investors” are getting any benefits from this I can’t see corruption here yet, just sleazy bad optics.
Kamala Harris was a terrible candidate in 2020 and 2024. The fact that the party defaulted to her in 2024 with no debate or discussion at all is just baffling.
Like it or not, a lot of people who vote don’t pay much attention to the insane shit Trump says on a daily basis. So, it doesn’t take much to turn them off one candidate and on to another, especially when the one has about 100 times the name recognition of the other.
Additionally, Trump has a charisma that Harris lacks. You may chafe at that description (even I do), but she sounds like she’s full of shit even when she’s telling the truth. In contrast, Trump says absolute bullshit with total conviction and people believe him.
I must ask for reasons WHY, in your opinion, Kamala Harris was a terrible candidate. And, moving the same consideration forward. . .would you feel she would be a terrible candidate in a future run for president?
Doesnt say much for the American people. Donald Trump tried to steal the 2020 election. This is not even debatable. In and of itself that should have made him permanently a pariah in politics.
The idea that Harris was worse than Trump is preposterous.
Our country is very close to being permanently stained by Trumpism.
There are several reasons.
Her delivery, I referenced above. She has a way of sounding like she is trying to say what she thinks people want to hear, as opposed to simple plain and honest speech. Her refusal to admit some obvious truths about Biden hurt her, in my opinion.
Incredibly, people don’t know who the vice president is, and they usually think that person is kind of a joke.
Hailing from California usually hurts unless you’re a Republican, and being from the Bay Area is even worse.
She did a better job of being likeable in the 2024 campaign, but she has a history of not being likeable. Much of her own staff quit on her in 2020.
Even though she has been in government for quite a while, she has never been the boss. Never the president, or the governor, or even mayor. Even Trump - who I consider to be wildly incompetent for government - has at least been the boss of his own company. This matters partly for the experience, but it also shapes how a candidate presents themselves. So Trump will always come off as more confident even when he’s full of shit.
And finally, notwithstanding the election of Barack Obama, America is still racist and sexist. Even Obama needed his special brand of charisma mixed with Republicans running an unpopular war and wrecking the economy to overcome that.
I would bet a majority of Americans couldn’t explain how - whether they agree or not. And many are probably in doubt that he tried to steal anything. People just don’t pay attention to politics as much as some of us think they should.
But nevertheless true. The election proved that.
From 1.3.1.
I do. She could do the job. But she is not the candidate who can win.
You are entitled to that as a voter's opinion. Check. She is a former prosecutor and I agree with you that she should have done the job she said she would do in 'prosecuting' the case against candidate Trump. She switched that off at the last minute. I can only wonder who advised her to do that.
This one is not her fault. It is the state of our constitution. She, like every vice-president, has to serve in 'waiting' of a potential presidential posting or prepare to run separately against her 'boss' -the sitting president or a team of other party candidates for the 'top' job. Therefore, if the vice-presidency is thought of a joke-we should blame the constitution.
This one is unfortunate and surprising from you. She can't help and should not worry about where she is from-since California and particularly in California, the Bay Area is certainly the U. S. mainland. Oh, and Hawaii Islands are okay too. And, Alaska with its wilderness and wild life "burr."
This one I heard rumored, but have not know much about. So, it could be a hit against her as a president. Tell me, do you know if she fired much of her vice-presidential level staffing?
Twice president (elected fair and square) Obama was elected president without any of those qualifications on his resume. President Biden has no such qualifications on his resume served. They were democrats. They were men. So what is the distinction being made here: Is it obvious?
Barack Obama was on his way to beating John McCain because McCain was not fully supported by republicans and his 'hawkishness' on Iran. No one should have to wait for the near 'impossible' to occur that 'fixes' racists people to be liberal-minded. And Obama was already ahead in the polls (if memory serves me rightly) when the disruption and recession talk began that caused McCain and Obama to have to make speeches on the failing economic under George W. Bush's near-ending second term in office.
Finally, politics (elections) are about likes and dislikes, so opinion/s do matter. However, none of the opining above explains clearly why SHE, Kamala Harris was a bad candidate and will remain a 'bad' candidate in the future.
We know what the constitution says a presidential office-holder can be. And she clearly fulfilled those requirements, elsewise even the vice-presidency would have been denied her as a potential step-in to the presidential 'shoes' in case of death or long-term disability of its officer-holder.
Whether or not she can win. . . is up for more debate. We all can agree that she was not sufficiently 'drafted' for the 2024 campaign season, let-alone contend with Trump's 'command,' of the media and spotlight as a former president enjoying the 'trappings' of his status as such. We, I hope, can admit the 2024 Harris campaign season was severely abbreviated and signifies little-except the clear glee which the Right deployed in trying to twist a woman candidate for the highest office in the 'wind' - simply because of her status of being female.
She had legal access to campaign funding and brought in more than all the other potential candidates combined. That's why she became the de facto nominee.
CB, I want to make sure we’re clear on something. I have offered an analysis of how people, in general, respond to candidates. It’s not how I personally feel. I voted for her.
For example, the California thing. I was born in California. I have lived here my whole life and I think it’s a pretty good state with pretty great people. But I also know that much of the rest of the country regards us as “the land of fruits and nuts.” It’s bullshit, but there it is.
Unfortunately, Joe Biden betrayed his party by running for reelection, when he had given everyone the impression in 2020 that he would not do that. That froze every potential effort to get someone else in office. And by the time he finally quit, it was too late to get a campaign started for anyone, except for Kamala.
All of that really screwed this country. We could have had a robust debate among highly qualified and electable Democrats. Would that candidate have been a straight white man? Yeah, probably, but I guarantee he would have been better than what we’re getting now.
Yeah, I wonder about that, though. I bet if they tried real hard, they could have come up with a way to fund other candidates, if they really wanted.
But by summer, I’m not sure anything could be done, even with the right funding. You have to have time to build recognition and popularity across the whole country. Honestly, I think the only thing that would have worked at that point was another celebrity candidate, and I’m not sure who that could have been.
IMO that was also her fault. Let's contrast her with the current VP, Vance. She stayed in the background a lot whereas Vance is seen out and in front of issues. When the news media proclaimed her the border czar, she back peddled from what voters thought her responsibilities were supposed to be. Her on-camera time at the border was horrible considering the mood of the country. And when people made fun of her 'word salads' she did nothing to counter or change the narrative around it. Vance has actually stated on camera when he's disagreed with Trump. Harris never did that, always backed everything that Biden did.
She really never did anything to get her face out front. Biden came into office in 2020 as a one-term president, he had said he wanted to be a one-term president and be a gate keeper for a younger generation of Democrats. What better springboard could someone have than to be the VP in such a situation and not use it.
Bingo. I said it as soon as Biden dropped out that I thought Harris was the logical choice as she was the only one who could "inherit" the Biden campaign funds of around $240 million. Any other nominee would not have been able to touch that money due to campaign finance laws.
And therein lies the problem. People put too much stock in digging the other side, including PotUS, to be objective. Just look at the commentary here and the daily bombardment of "But Trump" articles. And some ask the question, "Do we have to put up with this for 3 plus years?" The answer is yes. Dems and naysayers try to push their misery on others who have taken a wait and see attitude. There is no benefit of the doubt with Trump and this administration. It seems to be the old Beatles song, "Twist and Shout" with said "reporting" on a daily basis.
Honest, 100% accurate assessment.
You wonder where they were hiding Mark Kelly.
I think he could win. Who wouldn’t vote for an astronaut? But he maybe doesn’t present as the far left firebrand that the party leadership thinks it needs.
Absolutely.
I know, right?
I can't imagine what they were thinking. What has to be going on in your mind to think you need more AOC and less Jake Auchincloss?
One of the undisputed hallmarks of a fascist regime is a government that blatantly lies to its people and a subservient press corps that dutifully parrots its propaganda.
This is the best version of Joe Biden! He's sharp as a tack!
Believing that covid escaped from the Wuhan Virus lab is a conspiracy theory!
Hunter Biden's laptop is russian disinformation!
FISA Courts would never use an unverified dossiers paid for by the Clinton campaign to allow spying on Americans!
Time after time, lie after lie.
Seriously! Who are the republicans who are screaming about trmp's corruption? Where is the so-called media reporting about the lies and the corruption this government engages in every day?
WHO THE FUCK IS IN CHARGE???? We have a senile old man (yes, I know the previous one was also in mental decline, but at least he dropped out of the race) who embarasses this country every single day and nobody reigns him in. Fuck a duck! He called Biden's cancer Stage 9!
He needs a glass of warn milk and put to bed STAT
and here comes the complaints of hysteria and histrionics. don't bother I will just ignore you
Maureen Dowd is a NYT columnist in her 70's who thinks she knows everything (dont they all?) Mainstream corporate media like the New York Times are firmly committed to bothsides -ism.
There is only one group of people to blame for Trump being president again, and that is the people who voted for him. There was a choice between a normal run of the mill partisan politician like Harris, and a disorienting , dysfunctional lunatic like Donald Trump. History will never forgive the people of this season.
Have to disagree with you. Harris stated that she was all behind what Biden had done and would not change a thing and from polling it's obvious that the electorate was fed up with the policies of that administration and wanted changes made. You try to make it seem like a simple either/or choice but it was more than that. Trump may be a narcissistic egomaniac but he was so much better at reading the mood of the country and feeding what the people wanted. And it's obvious that people did not want a continuation of the same policies.
Give us some examples.
The polling was always tight. The number one issue in the polling was the cost of living and a plurality of eligible voters bought into Trump's lie he would, or could, fix it. It's now costing him in favorability polls.
The easiest example was when Harris went on the View and was asked what she would have done differently from Biden and her reply was 'Not a thing that comes to mind'. And then she lost the election.
That seems rather clear to me. The voters did not want a replay of the Biden Administration. Not sure how you can deny that.
Yep, kitchen table issues are the primary reason behind why people vote the way they do. They are more interested in that impacts them directly than how something impacts other people. And as I said, Trump is very good at reading the mood of the electorate and feeding them what they want. And that is what feeds the current polling, but polling as you very well know has it's own issues as well. It's a snapshot of time and is highly dependent on a lot of factors including who is polled and how the questions are worded.
I certainly haven't seen prices drop. Perhaps the President doesn't actually have as much control over that as some were led to believe...
That's problematic on its own.
The election wasn't tight. And most people knew weeks in advance it was not tight. The betting market certainly knew it wasn't going to be close. So why would the polling outlets report otherwise?
Mathematically, correct polling statistics should have produced a much wider variance than we saw in the polls in the final stretch. It's all a bit suspicious.
Having worked with and for capricious authoritarians before, what is probably happening is that Trump makes an edict, and then his advisors either figure out how to do that as close to legally as possible, or simply tell him the President doesn't have that power.
Trump's not senile, he's just that much of a loose cannon.
The answer to that question is definitely more clear than it was for the last 2 years of the Biden presidency. Joe was clearly not able to make decisions, so the Constitutional crisis question becomes "who was making them"? It certainly wasn't Kamala. Now... I'm not calling for an investigation or any nonsense like that, but we were very obviously in a state where the highest office in the land was being carried out by somebody none of us voted for.
Just because someone could afford a "luxury" before the tax break is missing the entire fucking point. My tax break was less than $70 a month. So the fuck what?
Just one more lame comment from those of you who think trmp's tax break was so great I will gladly take the vacation. Probably not tho. None of you are worth it
Sorry but that's where your argument breaks down. That $840 (approx) break you received, what percentage of your total taxes paid does that represent? It reads as if you are upset that your dollar amount was not as large as a rich person's dollar amount and ignores what percentage of taxes paid for each that the tax break represents.
Like everybody else, I would love to receive more money back than I received but my income level at the time these first started was much higher and I received the tax break in line with what others in my income bracket received. It still reduced my taxes overall. I didn't receive a tax break the size that, say, Musk received but then again I also don't make his income level or pay his tax levels.
IMO it doesn't miss the point, it reads as sour grapes. Every one I know already takes every deduction they are entitled to in order to lower their tax liability, I would expect that the rich are in that regards no different.
IT'S GOOD TO BE ABLE TO CRITICIZE YOUR OWN SIDE, BUT NOT WHEN THE ALTERNATIVE IS FASCISM
John
I would opine that it is actually "good to be able to criticize your own side, even when the alternative is fascism" - I think we can criticize those that we support while still supporting them as the best option available to us.
Just a thought