2024 U.S. Presidential Election Thread: Donald Trump wins & will return to the White House; GOP wins U.S. Senate & U.S. House

WHO WINS?


  • Total voters
    349

BigMoneyGrip

I'm Lamont's pops
Supporter
Joined
Nov 20, 2016
Messages
80,879
Reputation
11,066
Daps
319,639
Reppin
Straight from Flatbush
:sas2: We live in some fukked up timeline in which CNN is becoming more right-wing than FOX News this election cycle, yes FOX News is still FOX News, but they've been de-plugging the Trump rallies and been more questioning of his shyt while CNN parading around like Trump has found Jesus.
Paying out a billion dollars off cap will do that too you :mjlol:
 

King Kreole

natural blondie like goku
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
15,333
Reputation
4,467
Daps
42,737
Why did Obama handily win the Midwestern states in 2012, just curious what your thoughts are. And if disdain for retail politics is a feature not a bug, how come Bill Clinton and Obama (two neoliberals, I assume) were really good at it? I recall Biden being labeled a neoliberal before the 2020 election, and he was very good at retail politics too. Hillary's problem is about personality and entitlement, not ideology...at least not when it comes to being capable of walking into a public space and shaking somebody's hand.
Who was Obama running against in 2012? The corporeal manifestation of corporatism who was on record criticizing Obama's protectionist tariffs as pandering to unions, quoted saying "Protectionism stifles productivity", and made his fortune by destroying those Midwestern communities. In the 2012 election Obama was the protectionist candidate and was rewarded with their votes. He didn't consistently govern as such, but he had the perfect electoral opponent to go up against in these communities. Bill Clinton (and increasingly Barack Obama) are not able to walk into those spaces unmolested now. People know the results of their tenure. You'll find both of them far more at home at Davos or a coastal city speech hosted by Wall Street or Big Tech than pounding the pavement in rural Pennsylvania or Wisconsin. They campaigned as populists but didn't govern as one, which is why the Party was decimated downballot under both of their administrations (1998 midterms notwithstanding).

Hillary definitely had a personality problem, but her ideological problem as just as big of a problem, if not greater.

I would say that if a policy historically has no positive impact on the country and raises costs, it's not a good policy. Obama implemented a couple tariffs during his presidency on China. They didn't do anything. Bush's tariffs on Chinese steel had no impact. Trump's tariffs had no impact, besides rising costs on goods in the US of course. This is a gimmick people have fallen for due to the theatrics of Trump, nothing more. No one can point to any positive benefit to them. And as you mentioned, he also implemented them on goods from allies - and plans to further expand that policy if he becomes president again.
I don't know how one could possibly say that tariffs have had no positive impact on the country historically when tariffs were the key component of American global economic dominance up to the pre-WW2 period when American labor and goods were competitively priced, and it was the elimination of protectionist policies under Reagan in favor of WTO-style global free trade regime that led to the massive wave of deindustrialization and attendant social discord that was produced by the disproportionate bifurcation of economic gains towards the upper class that marks our current economic era and has resulted in the elimination of the middle class. Again, historically, tariffs aren't all good or all bad, they're a tool to be used when the context and situation calls for it. The question is whether China's current aggressive economic posture towards America (IP theft, flooding domestic market with cheap labor and goods, market/currency manipulation, etc) constitutes a modern trade war and calls for protectionist policies. I don't think Biden's populist economic team was foolish for assessing it did, and keeping Trump's tariffs in place. I think it was one of the most astute things they did.

It reminds me of when politicians start talking about repealing the gas tax every 2-4 years. Sounds good, normal people might support the idea...but it has no real impact on your daily finances and does active harm to the country. Politicians are seemingly stuck on a playing field Trump designed yet apparently the rules only apply to his opponents, not him. When Trump supports right-to-work, repeals (Obama era) financial (or railroad) regulations I never see Matt Stoller types have anything to say. Yet I'm supposed to believe that ending destructive tariffs would single handedly ruin Kamala's presidential hopes.
I don't think ending the Biden tariffs would single handedly ruin Kamala's presidential hopes, I just think it would be a signal to which economic ideology she's following and portend poorly for not just her electoral odds but her capacity to actually govern well, which too many people in here are disregarding. She might follow the Obama/Clinton model that prioritizes the uninhibited flight of global capital at the behest of Multinational Corporations that led to the hollowing out of the middle class and worst downballot performance from Democrats in generations, or she might continue the legacy of the Biden/Bernie/Trump (in message) economic posture that acknowledges these losses and is in favor of fighting back against them with the tools at their disposal. But again, if you think Kamala should walk into MI/WI/PA and talk about how great free trade and the economic status quo vis a vis China is, you should just say so.
 

BigMoneyGrip

I'm Lamont's pops
Supporter
Joined
Nov 20, 2016
Messages
80,879
Reputation
11,066
Daps
319,639
Reppin
Straight from Flatbush

IMG-1521.png
cheeks getting clapped
 
Top