Well I hope the Dems are proud of themselves

[nereo]

Now, in those 12 years the conservatives also torpedoed solar (and wind) industry, literally destroying new power generation capacities from one year to the other (Here the solar power, can you guess which year CDU decided to have less new capacities because all those people or city owned power plants hurt the big energy companies too much? https://umweltinstitut.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/photovoltaik_in_deutschland-767x602.jpg)
China took over the industry. Without that we might not have needed the coal power in this decade.

Example: resist "green tech" in the US for longer than is wise until suppliers can't establish itself here so we end up importing green tech from China. 

Both Germany's and America's solar panel manufacturing were devastated by cheap Chinese solar panels.  From a few articles, it seems like China is pulling the same trick Japan did on the auto industry back in the 1980s: dumping goods on the market to gain a near monopoly.  Tariffs can lead to trade wars, where both countries hurt their respective economies.  But when solar panels are subsidized by China, that unfair benefit may deserve a tariff to level the playing field.

Tariffs aren’t the only tool though, nor are they even a good tool, for reasons you mentioned (trade wars, plus consumers paying for those tariffs)

Ironically, the WTO has been effective at combating this “dumping” to gain global market share, yet the Trump administration was openly hostile to the WTO and wound up hindering its own goals by launching a bunch of tariffs. If international collaboration through the WTO is anathema to you, actively supporting domestic industries (eg R&D grants, consumer rebates/credits, block loans, etc) can be enormously effective. Here, too has been a focus of Dems and a target of the GOP (Trump tried to phase out the solar tax credit, and blocked wind projects, and post Trump the GOP United against many of the planks in the “green new deal” (several of which were ncorporated into BBB) which were designed to improve domestic production of clean energy. Then there’s the use of domestic standards to ensure inferior/less safe goods from abroad can’t be sold here.  Things like CAFE are at least partly responsible for why extremely cheap Chinese cars are not seen on US roadways, and some of the provisions are tailor made to support this outcome

T,;dr - tariffs are a terrible way of combating a country like China’s grab for global market share, especially since there are much better tools in the belt. 

[Metalcat]

NY Times poll shows Harris losing by 3+% in AZ, NV, GA, NC. I still think Trump is slightly favored or at worst 50-50 in this election.

Genuinely cannot understand why anyone with an IQ over 105 would ever vote for Trump, besides having a financial interest in, say, the oil and gas industry. That is the only explicable reason.

Even if you are an arch neoliberal - like me - the Republicans' policies do not promote meritocracy and are not likely to bolster the economy. Nor do they bolster competition. And of course the social policies are literal fascism.

Here in Australia I can understand the allure of every substantial political party, even if I don't agree with their policies. Can't say the same about Republicans.

Human beings are not rational creatures, we are rationalizing creatures.

We can make sense of just about anything. And remember, you're looking at a political system from the outside, examining each party from an adult perspective with no personal history or identity tied up in it.

For Americans, party politics has a MASSIVE identity, culture, and religious component to it. These are large cultural institutions with enormous reach into the fabric of social structures and people's foundational, generational identities.

Also remember that news sources are wildly different depending on your ideology in the US. So ones entire geopolitical reality can vary depending largely on the historical blueness or redness of a region.

It doesn't take intelligence to break that pattern, it takes a willingness to go against extremely established social constructs of reality, which most folks don't really have.

[twinstudy]

NY Times poll shows Harris losing by 3+% in AZ, NV, GA, NC. I still think Trump is slightly favored or at worst 50-50 in this election.

Genuinely cannot understand why anyone with an IQ over 105 would ever vote for Trump, besides having a financial interest in, say, the oil and gas industry. That is the only explicable reason.

Even if you are an arch neoliberal - like me - the Republicans' policies do not promote meritocracy and are not likely to bolster the economy. Nor do they bolster competition. And of course the social policies are literal fascism.

Here in Australia I can understand the allure of every substantial political party, even if I don't agree with their policies. Can't say the same about Republicans.

Human beings are not rational creatures, we are rationalizing creatures.

We can make sense of just about anything. And remember, you're looking at a political system from the outside, examining each party from an adult perspective with no personal history or identity tied up in it.

For Americans, party politics has a MASSIVE identity, culture, and religious component to it. These are large cultural institutions with enormous reach into the fabric of social structures and people's foundational, generational identities.

Also remember that news sources are wildly different depending on your ideology in the US. So ones entire geopolitical reality can vary depending largely on the historical blueness or redness of a region.

It doesn't take intelligence to break that pattern, it takes a willingness to go against extremely established social constructs of reality, which most folks don't really have.

Thanks for that. I think this is a really good answer. Politics is not so much a political thing for many people as much as it is a religion, or a sports team, for that matter.

[RetiredAt63]

NY Times poll shows Harris losing by 3+% in AZ, NV, GA, NC. I still think Trump is slightly favored or at worst 50-50 in this election.

Genuinely cannot understand why anyone with an IQ over 105 would ever vote for Trump, besides having a financial interest in, say, the oil and gas industry. That is the only explicable reason.

Even if you are an arch neoliberal - like me - the Republicans' policies do not promote meritocracy and are not likely to bolster the economy. Nor do they bolster competition. And of course the social policies are literal fascism.

Here in Australia I can understand the allure of every substantial political party, even if I don't agree with their policies. Can't say the same about Republicans.

Human beings are not rational creatures, we are rationalizing creatures.

We can make sense of just about anything. And remember, you're looking at a political system from the outside, examining each party from an adult perspective with no personal history or identity tied up in it.

For Americans, party politics has a MASSIVE identity, culture, and religious component to it. These are large cultural institutions with enormous reach into the fabric of social structures and people's foundational, generational identities.

Also remember that news sources are wildly different depending on your ideology in the US. So ones entire geopolitical reality can vary depending largely on the historical blueness or redness of a region.

It doesn't take intelligence to break that pattern, it takes a willingness to go against extremely established social constructs of reality, which most folks don't really have.

Thanks for that. I think this is a really good answer. Politics is not so much a political thing for many people as much as it is a religion, or a sports team, for that matter.

We joked in Quebec about hockey being the true religion.  But that has very little effect on people's everyday lives.

Politics affects everything.  It should be taken more seriously than cheering for a sports team, or choosing a party just because that was your parents' party.

Of course religion used to affect everything.  Nations were partly defined by their dominant religion.  Just within Christianity, look at England during the Tudors.  Roman Catholic, then Protestant , then RC, then P - and if you were a member of the wrong religion (which kept shifting) you were in trouble.

I'm Canadian, in my life I've voted for 4 different political parties.  Right now I'm an ABC voter.  I think it is as legitimate to vote against a choice as it is to vote for a choice.  And I do mean vote, get out there and mark my ballot for whichever candidate is acceptable that belongs to a party whose policies I can live with.  I've done that. I once lived in a Quebec riding that had an amazing candidate who was Bloc Quebecois.  I could not in conscience vote for her, because of the party principles.  I voted for a decent candidate for a party whose policies were acceptable.

[sonofsven]

FWIW (not much), I don't think this election will be particularly close.
I see Harris with 320 electoral college votes, and possibly more.
Yes, the swing states will be close, but momentum has swung Harris's way, and I believe the youth vote, who are fundamentally difficult to poll, will make a real difference in the swing states. And every election since Dobbs has seen Democrats overperform vs expectations.
Trump is lately more interested in golfing than rallies. He's admitted publicly that he won't run again. He's reaching the point of accepting his fate.
Polls be damned, full speed ahead.

[dividendman]

NY Times poll shows Harris losing by 3+% in AZ, NV, HA, NC. I still think Trump is slightly favored or at worst 50-50 in this election.

Interesting, after "Eating dogs & cats" and "Black Nazi".  Almost makes you wonder about the validity of polls.  NC doesn't feel as Red as it has in the past.  MAGA flags aren't flying from pickup trucks & boats nearly as much as in the past here.  Maybe the support is there, but the pride sure isn't.

The 538 poll aggregator has:

AZ Trump +1.1*
NV Harris +0.8
GA Trump +1.4*
NC Trump +0.6*


* These states have the Sept. 17-21 NYT/Siena poll listed multiple times, sometimes with different numbers (NC has Trump +1, +2, EVEN, +2 for example). I don't know if that throws off the formula.

It'll be interesting to see if Robinson's NC campaign depresses the polls or turnout for the Republicans.

Recent months have seen high registration numbers for under 30 first time voters.  I assume they still lean "woke".  Does anyone have state by state polling data broken down further by age cohort?

We have been undercounting Trump for a long time.  But not counting young people basically at all.  Is this material in this cycle?

According to CNN:

In Arizona, Republicans have built their registration lead over Democrats from a three-point lead in November 2020 to a six-point lead in the latest available data.

Across the key states of Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Nevada, Democrats still have a registration lead, but Republicans have overall shrunk their deficit since the 2020 election. Democrats in Pennsylvania have halved their lead in voter registration, only leading by four points now compared to eight in 2020.

In both Nevada and North Carolina, Democrats only lead Republicans in voter registration by one point. Those leads were much larger in 2020 in both states, with a five-point advantage for Democrats in Nevada and a six-point lead in North Carolina.

This all points to better results this election from Trump than in 2020 by higher margins than the polls are suggesting.

[LaineyAZ]

Don't forget about those registered Independent.  That's about 1/3 of all registered voters in Arizona, not sure about those other swing states.

Presumably they're not in the MAGA cult and this year they're going to vote for Democrats.  My prediction.

[Ron Scott]

Don't forget about those registered Independent.  That's about 1/3 of all registered voters in Arizona, not sure about those other swing states.

Presumably they're not in the MAGA cult and this year they're going to vote for Democrats.  My prediction.

Trump leads Harris by five points in AZ in  the Times/Siena poll released Monday.

[bacchi]

FWIW (not much), I don't think this election will be particularly close.
I see Harris with 320 electoral college votes, and possibly more.
Yes, the swing states will be close, but momentum has swung Harris's way, and I believe the youth vote, who are fundamentally difficult to poll, will make a real difference in the swing states. And every election since Dobbs has seen Democrats overperform vs expectations.
Trump is lately more interested in golfing than rallies. He's admitted publicly that he won't run again. He's reaching the point of accepting his fate.
Polls be damned, full speed ahead.

Yeah, there's something to be said about voter fatigue.

A now jaded Romney and his biographer discussed The Age of Acrimony, a book about the period of 1865 to 1915, when there politically violent mobs and assassinations and the US was set for another civil war.

[The Age of Acrimony] author told [Romney] that members of the generation that had come of age during this “age of acrimony” simply decided they didn’t want to live that way anymore.

If one of the main instigators has an air of resignation about him, that's sure to show up in his events. It does, according to this journalist.

Just as important, Coppins wrote, the rally was also a reminder that “Trump is no longer the cultural phenomenon he was in 2016. Yes, the novelty has worn off. But he also seems to have lost the instinct for entertainment that once made him so interesting to audiences.

[dividendman]

Also remember that news sources are wildly different depending on your ideology in the US. So ones entire geopolitical reality can vary depending largely on the historical blueness or redness of a region.

It doesn't take intelligence to break that pattern, it takes a willingness to go against extremely established social constructs of reality, which most folks don't really have.

Yeah, realistically I would strain or break every close relationship in my life if I became a Trump supporter. I have to assume that's true in reverse for many of them as well. That gives us both a really strong incentive to view our team as the good guys.

Unfortunately the best way out of that trap is widespread cultural acknowledgement that the other side isn't evil, which is hard when they keep being so evil. And again, that's a perspective "they" hold just as strongly about "us."

There's also a big range of Trump voters. From people who go to the rallies and are crazy MAGA people, to people who don't think about politics much but on voting day go "I'd take Trump over Harris" and then go back to their lives.

[Michael in ABQ]

FWIW (not much), I don't think this election will be particularly close.
I see Harris with 320 electoral college votes, and possibly more.
Yes, the swing states will be close, but momentum has swung Harris's way, and I believe the youth vote, who are fundamentally difficult to poll, will make a real difference in the swing states. And every election since Dobbs has seen Democrats overperform vs expectations.
Trump is lately more interested in golfing than rallies. He's admitted publicly that he won't run again. He's reaching the point of accepting his fate.
Polls be damned, full speed ahead.

https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/7456/Who-will-win-the-2024-US-presidential-election

Your prediction could pay out. Harris is at $0.57 and it pays out $1.00.

[partgypsy]

Unfortunately while at least for me public sentiment seems pro Harris, anti Trump, there are so many factors at play, including outright voter suppression, it is not at all reassuring. I think everyone who does vote blue, to try to bring at least 1 other person to the polls in some fashion. 

[Telecaster]

A little perspective:

1. The US consumed a peak 20.8 million barrels of oil per day in 2005, but for the past several years, we have consumed ~19 million barrels of oil per day. No drama here.
2. Global oil production was 96.4 million barrels per day in 2023–an all time high.
3. Global energy consumption is projected to increase by nearly 50% by 2050. Oil usage will GROW during this period—NOT DECLINE.

There is a market for hope around oil use that belies the trend. Don’t buy it.

Adding perspective is what I am trying to do.   For context, this is your statement that kicked off this side discussion on energy:

I don’t see the parties’ positions on climate and energy as “somewhat of a back seat”.  I’d call it a retrenchment or even capitulation. Our energy needs are growing exponentially and there are no solutions that our weak political parties can find traction on. Add typical politics and big $$ lobbying—and they’re stuck in the mud. We lack leadership.

By way of perspective, our energy needs are not growing exponentially.   Our total energy consumption is at worst flat and if anything is trending down.    Globally energy consumption is increasing.  That's a good thing because it means standards of living are increasing.   The part we don't want to grow is fossil fuel use.   But we can't directly set energy policy for say, India or Myanmar.   We can only do it for the United States.   That's why I brought up domestic policy.   

But since you brought it global issues, let me add some context.   Notably, two credible organizations disagree with your conclusion that oil usage will GROW (emphasis yours) between now at 2050.    One is BP.   The other is ExxonMobil.   Both companies concluded that peak oil consumption will occur fairly soon, within the next few years.  Maybe as soon as next year.    The upper estimate is that global oil consumption will remain at about today's levels though 2050 and the lower is that it will decline by 25%.   

Surely, their projections will be wrong in one direction or another, but since they are the ones putting real dollars on the line I find their projections of flat or declining future oil consumption to be credible.   It should be noted that sound public policy could drive the demand for oil downward by a large amount, which both companies acknowledge. 

Since we've jumped from domestic to global outlooks, about 85% of new electrical generation globally last year was from renewables, which has recently been increasing at a rate of 30-50% per year.   By way of context, this year about 600 GW of new solar capacity will be added.  That's equal to 25% of all existing coal generating capacity (capacity is not the same as generation of course).   China alone added as much solar in 2023 as the entire world did in 2022.   The reasons are simple.   The price of solar and batteries has been decreasing exponentially for years, and now it has become the low cost solution in many scenarios.  This is a virtuous cycle.  As lower prices increase demand, greater production provides lower prices.   I don't see any reason why that trend will change in the medium term.   

[Much Fishing to Do]

Unfortunately while at least for me public sentiment seems pro Harris, anti Trump, there are so many factors at play, including outright voter suppression, it is not at all reassuring. I think everyone who does vote blue, to try to bring at least 1 other person to the polls in some fashion.

From "voter suppression" to "Stop the steal" to even "the Russians did it", it sure doesn't look like anyone accepts the election results as legit anymore, so I'm sure things are gonna get even ugly.  But when the results are always within margin of error-wise (bad weather in a few counties could change it....or the election happening a week earlier or later) I guess it give us something to radical/menacing to talk about.... other than its just a coin flip.

[blue_green_sparks]

Unfortunately while at least for me public sentiment seems pro Harris, anti Trump, there are so many factors at play, including outright voter suppression, it is not at all reassuring. I think everyone who does vote blue, to try to bring at least 1 other person to the polls in some fashion.

From "voter suppression" to "Stop the steal" to even "the Russians did it", it sure doesn't look like anyone accepts the election results as legit anymore, so I'm sure things are gonna get even ugly.  But when the results are always within margin of error-wise (bad weather in a few counties could change it....or the election happening a week earlier or later) I guess it give us something to radical/menacing to talk about.... other than its just a coin flip.

How many recounts and failed court cases will it take?

[use2betrix]

Also remember that news sources are wildly different depending on your ideology in the US. So ones entire geopolitical reality can vary depending largely on the historical blueness or redness of a region.

It doesn't take intelligence to break that pattern, it takes a willingness to go against extremely established social constructs of reality, which most folks don't really have.

Yeah, realistically I would strain or break every close relationship in my life if I became a Trump supporter. I have to assume that's true in reverse for many of them as well. That gives us both a really strong incentive to view our team as the good guys.

Unfortunately the best way out of that trap is widespread cultural acknowledgement that the other side isn't evil, which is hard when they keep being so evil. And again, that's a perspective "they" hold just as strongly about "us."

With some work it’s not too difficult to craft and relationships to a point where you keep your political views largely to yourself and make it known to those around you that you have no interest in engaging in any type of political discussions. If they are important to you, and you them, it shouldn’t be too difficult.

I used to get pretty involved and worked up about politics. Around 6-8 years ago I completely cut out all news and the vast majority of conversations. I made my desires known to all those around me. I have several gentlemen that work for me that are 25-30 years older than many, and are die hard conservatives. It didn’t take much for me to simply tell them I’m not interested in political discussions. They respect that.

I can tell you that my life has become a million times more stress free by following a low information diet. There’s literally nothing I see I am missing out on by refraining from all the BS news and conversations. I don’t see any way my life would benefit by knowing more, and countless ways it’s improved by following less.

[Miss Piggy]

I can tell you that my life has become a million times more stress free by following a low information diet. There’s literally nothing I see I am missing out on by refraining from all the BS news and conversations. I don’t see any way my life would benefit by knowing more, and countless ways it’s improved by following less.

Same. I watch my family members on both ends of the U.S. political spectrum get riled up frequently, then they get frustrated when I logically question something they're asserting that they saw on whatever news program they saw it on. I mean, half the shit they repeat doesn't even make logical sense if they would just stop and question it for a moment. It's as if people don't think for themselves anymore. And JFC...the number of times I went searching and found actual research that contradicted whatever bullshit was being shared/repeated...but they wouldn't hear of it. Because it doesn't match "their" narrative. F it. I just can't...I have far more important crap on my mind. I like to think I've trained them to not bring this stuff up to me anymore, and they have cut way back, so maybe I've been at least partially successful.

[Kris]

Also remember that news sources are wildly different depending on your ideology in the US. So ones entire geopolitical reality can vary depending largely on the historical blueness or redness of a region.

It doesn't take intelligence to break that pattern, it takes a willingness to go against extremely established social constructs of reality, which most folks don't really have.

Yeah, realistically I would strain or break every close relationship in my life if I became a Trump supporter. I have to assume that's true in reverse for many of them as well. That gives us both a really strong incentive to view our team as the good guys.

Unfortunately the best way out of that trap is widespread cultural acknowledgement that the other side isn't evil, which is hard when they keep being so evil. And again, that's a perspective "they" hold just as strongly about "us."

With some work it’s not too difficult to craft and relationships to a point where you keep your political views largely to yourself and make it known to those around you that you have no interest in engaging in any type of political discussions. If they are important to you, and you them, it shouldn’t be too difficult.

I used to get pretty involved and worked up about politics. Around 6-8 years ago I completely cut out all news and the vast majority of conversations. I made my desires known to all those around me. I have several gentlemen that work for me that are 25-30 years older than many, and are die hard conservatives. It didn’t take much for me to simply tell them I’m not interested in political discussions. They respect that.

I can tell you that my life has become a million times more stress free by following a low information diet. There’s literally nothing I see I am missing out on by refraining from all the BS news and conversations. I don’t see any way my life would benefit by knowing more, and countless ways it’s improved by following less.

Yes, well. If your life won’t be significantly impacted whether the elections go one way or the other, I can see how it would be lovely not to worry about it.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Now, in those 12 years the conservatives also torpedoed solar (and wind) industry, literally destroying new power generation capacities from one year to the other (Here the solar power, can you guess which year CDU decided to have less new capacities because all those people or city owned power plants hurt the big energy companies too much? https://umweltinstitut.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/photovoltaik_in_deutschland-767x602.jpg)
China took over the industry. Without that we might not have needed the coal power in this decade.

Example: resist "green tech" in the US for longer than is wise until suppliers can't establish itself here so we end up importing green tech from China. 

Both Germany's and America's solar panel manufacturing were devastated by cheap Chinese solar panels.  From a few articles, it seems like China is pulling the same trick Japan did on the auto industry back in the 1980s: dumping goods on the market to gain a near monopoly.  Tariffs can lead to trade wars, where both countries hurt their respective economies.  But when solar panels are subsidized by China, that unfair benefit may deserve a tariff to level the playing field.

Tariffs aren’t the only tool though, nor are they even a good tool, for reasons you mentioned (trade wars, plus consumers paying for those tariffs)

Ironically, the WTO has been effective at combating this “dumping” to gain global market share, yet the Trump administration was openly hostile to the WTO and wound up hindering its own goals by launching a bunch of tariffs. If international collaboration through the WTO is anathema to you, actively supporting domestic industries (eg R&D grants, consumer rebates/credits, block loans, etc) can be enormously effective. Here, too has been a focus of Dems and a target of the GOP (Trump tried to phase out the solar tax credit, and blocked wind projects, and post Trump the GOP United against many of the planks in the “green new deal” (several of which were ncorporated into BBB) which were designed to improve domestic production of clean energy. Then there’s the use of domestic standards to ensure inferior/less safe goods from abroad can’t be sold here.  Things like CAFE are at least partly responsible for why extremely cheap Chinese cars are not seen on US roadways, and some of the provisions are tailor made to support this outcome

T,;dr - tariffs are a terrible way of combating a country like China’s grab for global market share, especially since there are much better tools in the belt.

U.S. Republicans are not the sole reason for China dominating the global EV market.  That was the point of my post, and why I mentioned China's role in dumping solar panels on other markets.

I don't follow why you assume "If international collaboration through the WTO is anathema to you"?
Just because I disagree with Democrats doesn't make me a Republican.  I believe the WTO is unable to function owing to the U.S. blocking new appointments, but feel free to correct me on that.

I wasn't aware Trump tried to phase out the solar tax credit.  I agree that hurts solar panel (and related) production in the U.S.  I personally don't have an opinion about domestic vs foreign solar panel production, because I don't care enough about it.  I expect Republicans will be an obstacle to U.S. domestic solar panel production, but I can't agree they are 100% responsible - which is the claim I'm seeing from other posters.

"US solar builders brace for higher costs as Biden hikes tariffs"
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-solar-builders-brace-higher-costs-biden-hikes-tariffs-2024-05-23/

[twinstudy]

Also remember that news sources are wildly different depending on your ideology in the US. So ones entire geopolitical reality can vary depending largely on the historical blueness or redness of a region.

It doesn't take intelligence to break that pattern, it takes a willingness to go against extremely established social constructs of reality, which most folks don't really have.

Yeah, realistically I would strain or break every close relationship in my life if I became a Trump supporter. I have to assume that's true in reverse for many of them as well. That gives us both a really strong incentive to view our team as the good guys.

Unfortunately the best way out of that trap is widespread cultural acknowledgement that the other side isn't evil, which is hard when they keep being so evil. And again, that's a perspective "they" hold just as strongly about "us."

With some work it’s not too difficult to craft and relationships to a point where you keep your political views largely to yourself and make it known to those around you that you have no interest in engaging in any type of political discussions. If they are important to you, and you them, it shouldn’t be too difficult.

I used to get pretty involved and worked up about politics. Around 6-8 years ago I completely cut out all news and the vast majority of conversations. I made my desires known to all those around me. I have several gentlemen that work for me that are 25-30 years older than many, and are die hard conservatives. It didn’t take much for me to simply tell them I’m not interested in political discussions. They respect that.

I can tell you that my life has become a million times more stress free by following a low information diet. There’s literally nothing I see I am missing out on by refraining from all the BS news and conversations. I don’t see any way my life would benefit by knowing more, and countless ways it’s improved by following less.

I can tolerate a variety of political views, especially on economic matters. I can deal with anyone from neoliberal to communist and respect that. I'm hardly a zealot. There are, however, certain social views that I will simply not tolerate, not so much because I disagree with them (I disagree with many things but that doesn't make them invalid positions) but because I cannot understand how anyone with intelligence and self-respect can hold them.

[nereo]

Now, in those 12 years the conservatives also torpedoed solar (and wind) industry, literally destroying new power generation capacities from one year to the other (Here the solar power, can you guess which year CDU decided to have less new capacities because all those people or city owned power plants hurt the big energy companies too much? https://umweltinstitut.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/photovoltaik_in_deutschland-767x602.jpg)
China took over the industry. Without that we might not have needed the coal power in this decade.

Example: resist "green tech" in the US for longer than is wise until suppliers can't establish itself here so we end up importing green tech from China. 

Both Germany's and America's solar panel manufacturing were devastated by cheap Chinese solar panels.  From a few articles, it seems like China is pulling the same trick Japan did on the auto industry back in the 1980s: dumping goods on the market to gain a near monopoly.  Tariffs can lead to trade wars, where both countries hurt their respective economies.  But when solar panels are subsidized by China, that unfair benefit may deserve a tariff to level the playing field.

Tariffs aren’t the only tool though, nor are they even a good tool, for reasons you mentioned (trade wars, plus consumers paying for those tariffs)

Ironically, the WTO has been effective at combating this “dumping” to gain global market share, yet the Trump administration was openly hostile to the WTO and wound up hindering its own goals by launching a bunch of tariffs. If international collaboration through the WTO is anathema to you, actively supporting domestic industries (eg R&D grants, consumer rebates/credits, block loans, etc) can be enormously effective. Here, too has been a focus of Dems and a target of the GOP (Trump tried to phase out the solar tax credit, and blocked wind projects, and post Trump the GOP United against many of the planks in the “green new deal” (several of which were ncorporated into BBB) which were designed to improve domestic production of clean energy. Then there’s the use of domestic standards to ensure inferior/less safe goods from abroad can’t be sold here.  Things like CAFE are at least partly responsible for why extremely cheap Chinese cars are not seen on US roadways, and some of the provisions are tailor made to support this outcome

T,;dr - tariffs are a terrible way of combating a country like China’s grab for global market share, especially since there are much better tools in the belt.

U.S. Republicans are not the sole reason for China dominating the global EV market.  That was the point of my post, and why I mentioned China's role in dumping solar panels on other markets.

I don't follow why you assume "If international collaboration through the WTO is anathema to you"?
Just because I disagree with Democrats doesn't make me a Republican.  I believe the WTO is unable to function owing to the U.S. blocking new appointments, but feel free to correct me on that.

I wasn't aware Trump tried to phase out the solar tax credit.  I agree that hurts solar panel (and related) production in the U.S.  I personally don't have an opinion about domestic vs foreign solar panel production, because I don't care enough about it.  I expect Republicans will be an obstacle to U.S. domestic solar panel production, but I can't agree they are 100% responsible - which is the claim I'm seeing from other posters.

"US solar builders brace for higher costs as Biden hikes tariffs"
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-solar-builders-brace-higher-costs-biden-hikes-tariffs-2024-05-23/

To clarify, I was not trying to imply that you (MustacheAndaHalf) think the WTO is terrible.  That was clumsy writing on my part (switching to the universal “you” ). I mention it because Trump was and continues to be hostile towards the WTO.

Also agree that Chinas dominance cannot solely be attributed to one particular party. Rather, the use of tariffs to combat are not a good tool for this at all.  Biden’s recent hikes included. Boosting rebates on domestically produced components has a far bigger impact, though that needs congressional support.

[Ron Scott]

I can tolerate a variety of political views, especially on economic matters. I can deal with anyone from neoliberal to communist and respect that. I'm hardly a zealot. There are, however, certain social views that I will simply not tolerate, not so much because I disagree with them (I disagree with many things but that doesn't make them invalid positions) but because I cannot understand how anyone with intelligence and self-respect can hold them.

I am a small-l liberal. In other words, I am always looking for what needs to be changed in society and in the world, and think about the best ways to change.

I understand and respect “most” political views in America and in The West that comport with what I see as a minimally reasonable worldview. Examples: I understand and respect the general “pro-life” perspective, even though I am pro-choice. I understand and respect the view of religious folk who favor school vouchers even though I disagree and prefer to see taxes support public schools only. I understand and respect the view that government should increase the number of social programs to match the unmet needs of people while leaving minimum wages low and doing nothing to help people develop valuable skills that pay more.

I have a hard time accepting views I consider exclusionary, racist or sexist. Examples: I do not accept voting regulations that seem to be obviously directed at limiting the votes of blacks.  I do not accept sexist memes and political language, like the cat lady stuff, etc. And I do not accept the legislative capture by the political parties in America, where instead of voting for what their constituents might want, votes are solidly along party lines—lemmings doing what they’re told by party bosses who dole out the primary decisions and campaign money.

Bottom line: There is a WORLD of views I disagree with but have respect for, and if I vote hoping to get my view supported and it isn’t, I’m going to live with it and keep trying.

[partgypsy]

Also remember that news sources are wildly different depending on your ideology in the US. So ones entire geopolitical reality can vary depending largely on the historical blueness or redness of a region.

It doesn't take intelligence to break that pattern, it takes a willingness to go against extremely established social constructs of reality, which most folks don't really have.

Yeah, realistically I would strain or break every close relationship in my life if I became a Trump supporter. I have to assume that's true in reverse for many of them as well. That gives us both a really strong incentive to view our team as the good guys.

Unfortunately the best way out of that trap is widespread cultural acknowledgement that the other side isn't evil, which is hard when they keep being so evil. And again, that's a perspective "they" hold just as strongly about "us."

With some work it’s not too difficult to craft and relationships to a point where you keep your political views largely to yourself and make it known to those around you that you have no interest in engaging in any type of political discussions. If they are important to you, and you them, it shouldn’t be too difficult.

I used to get pretty involved and worked up about politics. Around 6-8 years ago I completely cut out all news and the vast majority of conversations. I made my desires known to all those around me. I have several gentlemen that work for me that are 25-30 years older than many, and are die hard conservatives. It didn’t take much for me to simply tell them I’m not interested in political discussions. They respect that.

I can tell you that my life has become a million times more stress free by following a low information diet. There’s literally nothing I see I am missing out on by refraining from all the BS news and conversations. I don’t see any way my life would benefit by knowing more, and countless ways it’s improved by following less.

During Bush Jr admin, I literally burned out a part of my brain, being upset at politics. So I know for myself, I just cannot be on the 24 hour news cycle, it is too distressing. Still going to vote, and try to see if there is anyone I can bring to vote with me.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Now, in those 12 years the conservatives also torpedoed solar (and wind) industry, literally destroying new power generation capacities from one year to the other (Here the solar power, can you guess which year CDU decided to have less new capacities because all those people or city owned power plants hurt the big energy companies too much? https://umweltinstitut.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/photovoltaik_in_deutschland-767x602.jpg)
China took over the industry. Without that we might not have needed the coal power in this decade.

Example: resist "green tech" in the US for longer than is wise until suppliers can't establish itself here so we end up importing green tech from China. 

Both Germany's and America's solar panel manufacturing were devastated by cheap Chinese solar panels.  From a few articles, it seems like China is pulling the same trick Japan did on the auto industry back in the 1980s: dumping goods on the market to gain a near monopoly.  Tariffs can lead to trade wars, where both countries hurt their respective economies.  But when solar panels are subsidized by China, that unfair benefit may deserve a tariff to level the playing field.

Tariffs aren’t the only tool though, nor are they even a good tool, for reasons you mentioned (trade wars, plus consumers paying for those tariffs)

Ironically, the WTO has been effective at combating this “dumping” to gain global market share, yet the Trump administration was openly hostile to the WTO and wound up hindering its own goals by launching a bunch of tariffs. If international collaboration through the WTO is anathema to you, actively supporting domestic industries (eg R&D grants, consumer rebates/credits, block loans, etc) can be enormously effective. Here, too has been a focus of Dems and a target of the GOP (Trump tried to phase out the solar tax credit, and blocked wind projects, and post Trump the GOP United against many of the planks in the “green new deal” (several of which were ncorporated into BBB) which were designed to improve domestic production of clean energy. Then there’s the use of domestic standards to ensure inferior/less safe goods from abroad can’t be sold here.  Things like CAFE are at least partly responsible for why extremely cheap Chinese cars are not seen on US roadways, and some of the provisions are tailor made to support this outcome

T,;dr - tariffs are a terrible way of combating a country like China’s grab for global market share, especially since there are much better tools in the belt.

U.S. Republicans are not the sole reason for China dominating the global EV market.  That was the point of my post, and why I mentioned China's role in dumping solar panels on other markets.

I don't follow why you assume "If international collaboration through the WTO is anathema to you"?
Just because I disagree with Democrats doesn't make me a Republican.  I believe the WTO is unable to function owing to the U.S. blocking new appointments, but feel free to correct me on that.

I wasn't aware Trump tried to phase out the solar tax credit.  I agree that hurts solar panel (and related) production in the U.S.  I personally don't have an opinion about domestic vs foreign solar panel production, because I don't care enough about it.  I expect Republicans will be an obstacle to U.S. domestic solar panel production, but I can't agree they are 100% responsible - which is the claim I'm seeing from other posters.

"US solar builders brace for higher costs as Biden hikes tariffs"
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-solar-builders-brace-higher-costs-biden-hikes-tariffs-2024-05-23/

To clarify, I was not trying to imply that you (MustacheAndaHalf) think the WTO is terrible.  That was clumsy writing on my part (switching to the universal “you” ). I mention it because Trump was and continues to be hostile towards the WTO.

Also agree that Chinas dominance cannot solely be attributed to one particular party. Rather, the use of tariffs to combat are not a good tool for this at all.  Biden’s recent hikes included. Boosting rebates on domestically produced components has a far bigger impact, though that needs congressional support.

Okay, that makes more sense - I personally view the WTO as better than two countries arguing over trade and tariffs.  Even if the WTO only dealt with trade, and only imposed duties/tariffs, it is still better to have a more neutral third party involved.

I dug into the WTO a bit more.  When countries have a trade dispute, they can submit that dispute for a decision by the WTO.  After a decision is made, a country can appeal the decision to the WTO's Appellate Body.  During Trump's term in office, he blocked every judge from being renewed.  The WTO's Appellate Body requires 3 judges (max 7) to function, but it currently has zero.  Trump caused that situation - and then Biden continued it.  Trump deserves far more blame, but Biden should be questioned over keeping the status quo.

[simonsez]

Yeah, realistically I would strain or break every close relationship in my life if I became a Trump supporter. I have to assume that's true in reverse for many of them as well. That gives us both a really strong incentive to view our team as the good guys.

Unfortunately the best way out of that trap is widespread cultural acknowledgement that the other side isn't evil, which is hard when they keep being so evil. And again, that's a perspective "they" hold just as strongly about "us."

With some work it’s not too difficult to craft and relationships to a point where you keep your political views largely to yourself and make it known to those around you that you have no interest in engaging in any type of political discussions. If they are important to you, and you them, it shouldn’t be too difficult.

I used to get pretty involved and worked up about politics. Around 6-8 years ago I completely cut out all news and the vast majority of conversations. I made my desires known to all those around me. I have several gentlemen that work for me that are 25-30 years older than many, and are die hard conservatives. It didn’t take much for me to simply tell them I’m not interested in political discussions. They respect that.

I can tell you that my life has become a million times more stress free by following a low information diet. There’s literally nothing I see I am missing out on by refraining from all the BS news and conversations. I don’t see any way my life would benefit by knowing more, and countless ways it’s improved by following less.

So like, should I tell the trans people in my life that I don't want to hear about the discrimination they've faced because that's a political discussion whether they like it or not?

When Trump's travel bans made it impossible for some of my graduate school classmates to visit their families overseas for multiple years, was I supposed to tell them to keep it to themselves lest they interrupt my low information diet?

Should I not bother keeping up with what my teenage sister's options will be if she has an unplanned pregnancy? Or what my maternity care will be like when I try to get pregnant in the next few years?

I agree that a carefully considered information diet is a good idea. You can certainly spend too much time and effort following politics, and I even think I could stand to turn the dial down a bit. But I also believe I have a responsibility to read high-quality sources and think carefully about what I want for my country. Because it matters.

Yeah, there are some relationships I would strain by hypothetically supporting Trump just because I switched teams. But there are also several that I would break because I would be supporting threats to their literal safety.

Some might view this as splitting hairs but I think there is a difference in talking to people you know about the goings-on in their lives vs. an anonymous person making a statement that they believe, in a digital space that may or may not have anything to do with their actual life.

E.g. I'm fine to talk with a friend in person or on the phone about a particular issue if it's important to them (regardless of what I may think about it, they're a person I care about and respect so I will hear them out and be there for them).  I view it as something else to seek out that topic online and converse with strangers about it.  I mean a dose of the latter can work for me (and still learn things and view multiple perspectives) but I just don't really consider it the same as the former.  And doing research about topics doesn't mean you HAVE to interact with anonymous people either (i.e. plenty of high-quality sources where you can just read books, articles, and studies and that's it, there's no cabal of knuckleheads lurking in a comments section trying to slice you up into various camps).  The former scenario of talking with those I know in an intimate setting is one I don't make it a practice to minimize (rather I try to maximize connections with those in my networks!) but the latter is one that takes constant assessment to make sure I'm not getting burned out by something optional and not really that integral. 

I wouldn't consider your examples that I bolded as political issues at all when talking with people I know and care about, especially if the person in question is being affected by them.

I have an IVF baby on the way.  Do you think my parents or my in-laws think talking about their future grandchild is too much of a political landmine to discuss because elected officials in Alabama or certain Catholic mouthpieces can have drastically different views than me?  Of course not.  It's independent to whatever type of information diet they're on (and all 4 of our parents are politically heterogeneous).  Just because everything can be political doesn't mean that it necessarily is.

To each their own with political identity.  I personally have never really strongly advertised my politics in person and the idea of becoming an obvious supporter of a certain tribe with corresponding merchandise and signs in my yard is an absurd notion.  But more power to those that do enjoy projecting outward.  If you knew me in person on a non-work basis (am a federal employee, thankfully we have strict rules about politics in the workplace that are adhered to at my agency), you'd probably know my views already and wouldn't need the physical posturing.  My politics are somewhat important and do occupy a non-zero slice in the proverbial pie chart of what makes me tick, they're just not bumper-sticker level of importance to me.  YMMV.

[Metalcat]

Yeah, realistically I would strain or break every close relationship in my life if I became a Trump supporter. I have to assume that's true in reverse for many of them as well. That gives us both a really strong incentive to view our team as the good guys.

Unfortunately the best way out of that trap is widespread cultural acknowledgement that the other side isn't evil, which is hard when they keep being so evil. And again, that's a perspective "they" hold just as strongly about "us."

With some work it’s not too difficult to craft and relationships to a point where you keep your political views largely to yourself and make it known to those around you that you have no interest in engaging in any type of political discussions. If they are important to you, and you them, it shouldn’t be too difficult.

I used to get pretty involved and worked up about politics. Around 6-8 years ago I completely cut out all news and the vast majority of conversations. I made my desires known to all those around me. I have several gentlemen that work for me that are 25-30 years older than many, and are die hard conservatives. It didn’t take much for me to simply tell them I’m not interested in political discussions. They respect that.

I can tell you that my life has become a million times more stress free by following a low information diet. There’s literally nothing I see I am missing out on by refraining from all the BS news and conversations. I don’t see any way my life would benefit by knowing more, and countless ways it’s improved by following less.

So like, should I tell the trans people in my life that I don't want to hear about the discrimination they've faced because that's a political discussion whether they like it or not?

When Trump's travel bans made it impossible for some of my graduate school classmates to visit their families overseas for multiple years, was I supposed to tell them to keep it to themselves lest they interrupt my low information diet?

Should I not bother keeping up with what my teenage sister's options will be if she has an unplanned pregnancy? Or what my maternity care will be like when I try to get pregnant in the next few years?

I agree that a carefully considered information diet is a good idea. You can certainly spend too much time and effort following politics, and I even think I could stand to turn the dial down a bit. But I also believe I have a responsibility to read high-quality sources and think carefully about what I want for my country. Because it matters.

Yeah, there are some relationships I would strain by hypothetically supporting Trump just because I switched teams. But there are also several that I would break because I would be supporting threats to their literal safety.

Some might view this as splitting hairs but I think there is a difference in talking to people you know about the goings-on in their lives vs. an anonymous person making a statement that they believe, in a digital space that may or may not have anything to do with their actual life.

E.g. I'm fine to talk with a friend in person or on the phone about a particular issue if it's important to them (regardless of what I may think about it, they're a person I care about and respect so I will hear them out and be there for them).  I view it as something else to seek out that topic online and converse with strangers about it.  I mean a dose of the latter can work for me (and still learn things and view multiple perspectives) but I just don't really consider it the same as the former.  And doing research about topics doesn't mean you HAVE to interact with anonymous people either (i.e. plenty of high-quality sources where you can just read books, articles, and studies and that's it, there's no cabal of knuckleheads lurking in a comments section trying to slice you up into various camps).  The former scenario of talking with those I know in an intimate setting is one I don't make it a practice to minimize (rather I try to maximize connections with those in my networks!) but the latter is one that takes constant assessment to make sure I'm not getting burned out by something optional and not really that integral. 

I wouldn't consider your examples that I bolded as political issues at all when talking with people I know and care about, especially if the person in question is being affected by them.

I have an IVF baby on the way.  Do you think my parents or my in-laws think talking about their future grandchild is too much of a political landmine to discuss because elected officials in Alabama or certain Catholic mouthpieces can have drastically different views than me?  Of course not.  It's independent to whatever type of information diet they're on (and all 4 of our parents are politically heterogeneous).  Just because everything can be political doesn't mean that it necessarily is.

To each their own with political identity.  I personally have never really strongly advertised my politics in person and the idea of becoming an obvious supporter of a certain tribe with corresponding merchandise and signs in my yard is an absurd notion.  But more power to those that do enjoy projecting outward.  If you knew me in person on a non-work basis (am a federal employee, thankfully we have strict rules about politics in the workplace that are adhered to at my agency), you'd probably know my views already and wouldn't need the physical posturing.  My politics are somewhat important and do occupy a non-zero slice in the proverbial pie chart of what makes me tick, they're just not bumper-sticker level of importance to me.  YMMV.

This is a very particular definition of "political" though...

I almost never talk about federal politics, but my positions on day-to-day life issues of my clients are profoundly political.

In my interpretation of political, if a personal topic is highly relevant in the political arena of the day, then the topic is political. If I lived in an area where IVF rights are currently being determined by political actions, then yeah, a personal.discussion about IVF is very much a political discussion.

Politics is also much, much more than just federal and state level. Local politics are intensely relevant to individuals. Hell, condo board/HOA politics are highly relevant to people's daily lives.

If we limit the concept of "politics" to being more abstract opinions about primarily federal political theater, then yeah, you can entirely avoid "political" conversations. But most of life is inherently political.

I have a policy that I will not discuss federal party leaders with anyone outside of a vetted inner circle whose opinions matter to me on those topics. That weeds out 99% of the useless conversations about politics that I don't want to have.

But if someone wants to talk about city budgets, transportation policy, safe injection sites, critical minerals mining, etc, etc, then yeah, I'm happy to have political discussions, I just don't have any interest in hearing someone blather on rage-bait sound bites from the 24hr news cycle.

[Ron Scott]

I like what I hear from the Harris campaign about housing, the economy, and immigration. These are issues that supposedly separate the candidates—with Trump being perceived as a better leader.

Unfortunately I’m not seeing much effect from her messaging. It’s been about 5050 for some time now and she doesn’t seem to be able to break away.

I’m kinda at where I was when I started this thread: I’m amazed that the Dems are STILL having such a hard time beating a dangerous criminal nutcase. If they can’t even win this one, what good are they?

[Kris]

I like what I hear from the Harris campaign about housing, the economy, and immigration. These are issues that supposedly separate the candidates—with Trump being perceived as a better leader.

Unfortunately I’m not seeing much effect from her messaging. It’s been about 5050 for some time now and she doesn’t seem to be able to break away.

I’m kinda at where I was when I started this thread: I’m amazed that the Dems are STILL having such a hard time beating a dangerous criminal nutcase. If they can’t even win this one, what good are they?

Well, they do have the reality of the electoral college and ginormous Russian (and other) disinformation campaigns pushing against them. If this was a question of the popular vote, Harris would have it in the bag.

[simonsez]

I hear you on the distinction, but the context of the discussion was me talking about how my real life social network is almost all likely to vote for the same candidate this year, and holding the opposite preference would harm those relationships. Online discussion wasn't part of it, nor were yard signs or bumper stickers.

The original point was that social sorting makes it less likely anyone will change their minds, and more likely that we'll consider the "other side" bad and evil. This isn't just about peer pressure. When literally everybody I respect has the same opinion, it would be wild for me to think, "Gosh, maybe all sources of moral and intellectual insight in my life are wrong!" Of course I think my peer group all lean the same way because it's the objectively right call, and we're all intelligent people. But people who swing the other way feel the same way.

ETA: For the record, not all of the peer group I'm discussing here are liberals. I also have close relationships with never-Trump former Republicans.

Unless you're just talking about a handful of people, I think it's wild in your social network you likely have zero people you think will vote for Trump.  I mean, he had 63 million votes in 2016.  The number of voting Americans you could grab at random (as a proxy for the number in your close social circles) is not very large at all for the odds to become astronomically unlikely that they would all be aligned in not voting for Trump.  That to me is the very definition of living in a bubble.  Clearly there is nothing wrong with that as it is impossible to NOT live in bubbles of myriad strata, it's just fascinating to me on a numbers and sociological POV to hear about such a strong and consistent one.  It makes sense to view those not in your world (which I'm sure is very diverse and wide-ranging on a variety of facets, just not when it comes to voting in presidential elections) as opposed to you, malevolent, etc.  We all do that with everything.  I would guess the higher your group prioritizes a certain preference and the higher the agreement is, that the fear and suspicion potential of those outside would only scale up.  E.g. A person who places a high importance on who they vote for in a federal election and is surrounded by those who feel the same way and will vote similarly will probably have more apprehension about those that feel differently with respect to that issue compared to a person who places a medium or low importance on who they vote for AND are surrounded by people who are not aligned on who they are voting for.

The low information diet to me, is mainly about restricting (not eliminating) the political content that my brain would come across (and fine-tuning/modifying my perceptions of risk) and replacing those precious minutes with whatever non-digital leisure activity with various levels of bonus points for it being outside when it's sunny or requiring mental power or physical power/coordination.  To have the freedom to think about how I want to fill my mental space and choose a strategy that largely ignores the news comes from a place of privilege and I have zero qualms admitting that.  I agree there are some political ideas I do have difficulty understanding "the other side" but I have very little difficulty admitting I don't know everything and the older I get, the more perspectives I'm introduced to and that maybe I should be more open to the idea that I'm more ignorant than I realize, and thus not be quick to judge others nor see them in the light that my bubble is casting upon them. 

Perhaps this is easier for me because my social circles are probably closer to 60/40 or maybe two-thirds non-Trump voters and thus, I know plenty of people "on the other side" very well and know they aren't evil.  As Metalcat pointed out, we all have widely varying definitions on top of our differences and I know the bar for me to call someone evil is very high but maybe someone else would slap that on someone at a different threshold.  After all, I am probably more federally apolitical than the average American and have spent zero seconds watching a Presidential debate as a voting age adult.  I certainly have some deep bubbles I inhabit and can be politically related, just federal politics and having to vote a certain way or risk facing social expulsion is not one of those for me so it's intriguing to learn about how others operate that perhaps place more social import on who they vote for.

Sorry if I took you out of context or misrepresented you in any way.  If I was in your social circle, you could add another non-Trump voter to your tally, lol.  It's just interesting that it's 100% that way.

[Miss Piggy]

I do believe the Trump supporters I know are poor critical thinkers.

I believe anyone who is fully committed to one party or another 100% of the time is a poor critical thinker.

[Kris]

I do believe the Trump supporters I know are poor critical thinkers.

I believe anyone who is fully committed to one party or another 100% of the time is a poor critical thinker.

I keep waiting to vote for a Republican who wants to implement policies based on whom they want to help, instead of whom they want to harm, but I’ve been waiting a good while.

[bacchi]

I do believe the Trump supporters I know are poor critical thinkers.

I believe anyone who is fully committed to one party or another 100% of the time is a poor critical thinker.

It's amazing that the latest NC poll still has Robinson at 35%.* Can 35% of NC's registered voters be poor critical thinkers? Granted, this is pre-Nude Africa but...

"The guy who says the Holocaust was overblown and Hitler was great, who wants to own slaves, who was a frequenter of backroom porn video booths, and who bragged about banging his wife’s sister.… That guy was able to get to 27 percent favorable with women in North Carolina,” Last wrote.

Trump did endorse Robinson, even after the above, but is now distancing himself. The Nude Africa comments were a step too far.


* https://ncnewsline.com/briefs/new-elon-poll-stein-retains-big-lead-over-robinson-harris-leads-trump-by-1/

[ChpBstrd]

I do believe the Trump supporters I know are poor critical thinkers.

I believe anyone who is fully committed to one party or another 100% of the time is a poor critical thinker.

It's amazing that the latest NC poll still has Robinson at 35%.* Can 35% of NC's registered voters be poor critical thinkers? Granted, this is pre-Nude Africa but...

"The guy who says the Holocaust was overblown and Hitler was great, who wants to own slaves, who was a frequenter of backroom porn video booths, and who bragged about banging his wife’s sister.… That guy was able to get to 27 percent favorable with women in North Carolina,” Last wrote.

Trump did endorse Robinson, even after the above, but is now distancing himself. The Nude Africa comments were a step too far.
* https://ncnewsline.com/briefs/new-elon-poll-stein-retains-big-lead-over-robinson-harris-leads-trump-by-1/

I wouldn't bet on it. A key aspect of Trump's populism is that even people like himself without clean pedigrees, a lifetime of relevant experience, or top-of-class grades can run for office against the "elites".  These "elites" speak in aristocratic terms, come from backgrounds that are inaccessible to most people, have salon-perfect hair, and look down upon politically uncouth behavior like porn habits, mistresses, and racist comments. By going full force for Robinson, Trump communicates to his base "This is the party for flawed people like all of yourselves. Bring your vices and your obnoxious attitudes; we won't judge!".

The fact that a candidate like Robinson, or Trump, can obtain mid-double-digit support speaks to the power of this identification in a deeply unequal America. Trump may shit into a 24k gold toilet, but he speaks to the people who are tired of Ivy League career politicians with fake smiles, advocating the status quo that keeps them at the top of the social caste system. He especially speaks to the majority of Americans who could not handle a $1,000 unplanned expense, who are considered dumb because they never read another book after high school, and whose needs are nudged aside as Democrats talk about the strength of the economy and how everything is already wonderful.

Only Trump is admitting what the working-consuming class knows - that things are unsustainable, that the middle class is shrinking, that young people have worse prospects than their parents, and that inflation has been a gut punch to household budgets.

Trump appeals to people's dissatisfactions regardless of GDP, stock prices, or government statistics that say they should be doing fine. His frantic tone of voice and unstructured sentences reflect the urgency of people whose own lives are falling apart. Is it these people's own fault, because they bought a $70k pickup truck, flunked out of college, smoke a pack a day, and live in flyover country? Maybe yes, but that's the sort of question only a Democrat could ask. Anyone mystified by the stubborn support for Trump or Robinson needs to consider what these voters are reacting against. It is themselves.

[Ron Scott]

A key aspect of Trump's populism is that even people like himself without clean pedigrees, a lifetime of relevant experience, or top-of-class grades can run for office against the "elites".  These "elites" speak in aristocratic terms, come from backgrounds that are inaccessible to most people, have salon-perfect hair, and look down upon politically uncouth behavior like porn habits, mistresses, and racist comments.

This is so true!

I would add that the elites, with all their education and supposed worldliness, are so stupid they’ve gotten themselves into a situation of their own making in which half the country or more seem willing to elect a complete moron when compared to their reasonable candidate. This is stupidity at an ASTOUNDING level.

I also believe that at least 2/3rds of Trump voters really don’t like him but vote simply because they have such disdain for the elites. The system is rigged by the 2 parties so we only have a choice between them. So…divided we fall…

[LaineyAZ]

Ironically, the Trump campaign is running an ad in AZ where VP Harris acknowledges the increase in the price of housing, food, etc. but it's weaponized against her as being the fault of "Bidenomics."

So, when Harris does acknowledge the economics of the poor and middle-class she's blamed, and when she doesn't discuss it then she's being elite and not sensitive to their needs - a no win situation.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Republican Mark Robinson’s top staffers step down in wake of porn scandal
...
He has also spoken out against abortions, saying they are for women who aren’t “responsible enough to keep [their] skirt down”.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/09/24/republican-mark-robinsons-top-staffers-step-down-in-wake-of-porn-scandal/

If Democrats want to make this election about women and abortion, Republicans like Mark Robinson make it easy for them.  In another article he believes abortion should be illegal after "zero weeks."

[Ron Scott]

Ironically, the Trump campaign is running an ad in AZ where VP Harris acknowledges the increase in the price of housing, food, etc. but it's weaponized against her as being the fault of "Bidenomics."

So, when Harris does acknowledge the economics of the poor and middle-class she's blamed, and when she doesn't discuss it then she's being elite and not sensitive to their needs - a no win situation.

That’s how a good campaign ad works FWIW, but you’re right.

[GuitarStv]

Ironically, the Trump campaign is running an ad in AZ where VP Harris acknowledges the increase in the price of housing, food, etc. but it's weaponized against her as being the fault of "Bidenomics."

So, when Harris does acknowledge the economics of the poor and middle-class she's blamed, and when she doesn't discuss it then she's being elite and not sensitive to their needs - a no win situation.

That’s how a good campaign ad works FWIW, but you’re right.

I disagree.  A good political ad campaign focuses on what the politician will do for the voting people and doesn't attempt to address the opponent at all.

[Ron Scott]

Ironically, the Trump campaign is running an ad in AZ where VP Harris acknowledges the increase in the price of housing, food, etc. but it's weaponized against her as being the fault of "Bidenomics."

So, when Harris does acknowledge the economics of the poor and middle-class she's blamed, and when she doesn't discuss it then she's being elite and not sensitive to their needs - a no win situation.

That’s how a good campaign ad works FWIW, but you’re right.

I disagree.  A good political ad campaign focuses on what the politician will do for the voting people and doesn't attempt to address the opponent at all.

Dear DNC and RNC,

Please see the excellent post above, from GuitarStv. You might want to rethink your negative attack ads with this in mind

Best,

Ron

[RetiredAt63]

Ironically, the Trump campaign is running an ad in AZ where VP Harris acknowledges the increase in the price of housing, food, etc. but it's weaponized against her as being the fault of "Bidenomics."

So, when Harris does acknowledge the economics of the poor and middle-class she's blamed, and when she doesn't discuss it then she's being elite and not sensitive to their needs - a no win situation.

That’s how a good campaign ad works FWIW, but you’re right.

I disagree.  A good political ad campaign focuses on what the politician will do for the voting people and doesn't attempt to address the opponent at all.

Dear DNC and RNC,

Please see the excellent post above, from GuitarStv. You might want to rethink your negative attack ads with this in mind

Best,

Ron

Canadian here - our election campaigns used to be much like what GuitarStv posted.  So he is not being unrealistic.  Sadly our politicians have been taking lessons from yours and attack ads are a lot more common, especially from our right wing parties.  I wonder why that is? (yes, heavy sarcasm there)

In other words, American politics are a bad influence even outside the country.

[LennStar]

Ironically, the Trump campaign is running an ad in AZ where VP Harris acknowledges the increase in the price of housing, food, etc. but it's weaponized against her as being the fault of "Bidenomics."

So, when Harris does acknowledge the economics of the poor and middle-class she's blamed, and when she doesn't discuss it then she's being elite and not sensitive to their needs - a no win situation.

That’s how a good campaign ad works FWIW, but you’re right.

I disagree.  A good political ad campaign focuses on what the politician will do for the voting people and doesn't attempt to address the opponent at all.

Dear DNC and RNC,

Please see the excellent post above, from GuitarStv. You might want to rethink your negative attack ads with this in mind

Best,

Ron

Good and effective are 2 different things.

[twinstudy]

I do believe the Trump supporters I know are poor critical thinkers.

I believe anyone who is fully committed to one party or another 100% of the time is a poor critical thinker.

It's amazing that the latest NC poll still has Robinson at 35%.* Can 35% of NC's registered voters be poor critical thinkers? Granted, this is pre-Nude Africa but...

"The guy who says the Holocaust was overblown and Hitler was great, who wants to own slaves, who was a frequenter of backroom porn video booths, and who bragged about banging his wife’s sister.… That guy was able to get to 27 percent favorable with women in North Carolina,” Last wrote.

Trump did endorse Robinson, even after the above, but is now distancing himself. The Nude Africa comments were a step too far.
* https://ncnewsline.com/briefs/new-elon-poll-stein-retains-big-lead-over-robinson-harris-leads-trump-by-1/

I wouldn't bet on it. A key aspect of Trump's populism is that even people like himself without clean pedigrees, a lifetime of relevant experience, or top-of-class grades can run for office against the "elites".  These "elites" speak in aristocratic terms, come from backgrounds that are inaccessible to most people, have salon-perfect hair, and look down upon politically uncouth behavior like porn habits, mistresses, and racist comments. By going full force for Robinson, Trump communicates to his base "This is the party for flawed people like all of yourselves. Bring your vices and your obnoxious attitudes; we won't judge!".

The fact that a candidate like Robinson, or Trump, can obtain mid-double-digit support speaks to the power of this identification in a deeply unequal America. Trump may shit into a 24k gold toilet, but he speaks to the people who are tired of Ivy League career politicians with fake smiles, advocating the status quo that keeps them at the top of the social caste system. He especially speaks to the majority of Americans who could not handle a $1,000 unplanned expense, who are considered dumb because they never read another book after high school, and whose needs are nudged aside as Democrats talk about the strength of the economy and how everything is already wonderful.

Only Trump is admitting what the working-consuming class knows - that things are unsustainable, that the middle class is shrinking, that young people have worse prospects than their parents, and that inflation has been a gut punch to household budgets.

Trump appeals to people's dissatisfactions regardless of GDP, stock prices, or government statistics that say they should be doing fine. His frantic tone of voice and unstructured sentences reflect the urgency of people whose own lives are falling apart. Is it these people's own fault, because they bought a $70k pickup truck, flunked out of college, smoke a pack a day, and live in flyover country? Maybe yes, but that's the sort of question only a Democrat could ask. Anyone mystified by the stubborn support for Trump or Robinson needs to consider what these voters are reacting against. It is themselves.

I'm going to be pretty frank.

I struggle to formulate any theory of mind for someone who doesn't read a book after high school (to use your own phrase) and then blames "the other" - e.g. migrants, women, gays, the liberal elite, whatever, whomever - for his own deficiencies.

Those people are not my people. And vice versa, no doubt.

But at the end of the day: it is people like me who have all the power, knowledge and capital.

[bacchi]

I do believe the Trump supporters I know are poor critical thinkers.

I believe anyone who is fully committed to one party or another 100% of the time is a poor critical thinker.

It's amazing that the latest NC poll still has Robinson at 35%.* Can 35% of NC's registered voters be poor critical thinkers? Granted, this is pre-Nude Africa but...

"The guy who says the Holocaust was overblown and Hitler was great, who wants to own slaves, who was a frequenter of backroom porn video booths, and who bragged about banging his wife’s sister.… That guy was able to get to 27 percent favorable with women in North Carolina,” Last wrote.

Trump did endorse Robinson, even after the above, but is now distancing himself. The Nude Africa comments were a step too far.
* https://ncnewsline.com/briefs/new-elon-poll-stein-retains-big-lead-over-robinson-harris-leads-trump-by-1/

I wouldn't bet on it. A key aspect of Trump's populism is that even people like himself without clean pedigrees, a lifetime of relevant experience, or top-of-class grades can run for office against the "elites".  These "elites" speak in aristocratic terms, come from backgrounds that are inaccessible to most people, have salon-perfect hair, and look down upon politically uncouth behavior like porn habits, mistresses, and racist comments. By going full force for Robinson, Trump communicates to his base "This is the party for flawed people like all of yourselves. Bring your vices and your obnoxious attitudes; we won't judge!".

The fact that a candidate like Robinson, or Trump, can obtain mid-double-digit support speaks to the power of this identification in a deeply unequal America. Trump may shit into a 24k gold toilet, but he speaks to the people who are tired of Ivy League career politicians with fake smiles, advocating the status quo that keeps them at the top of the social caste system. He especially speaks to the majority of Americans who could not handle a $1,000 unplanned expense, who are considered dumb because they never read another book after high school, and whose needs are nudged aside as Democrats talk about the strength of the economy and how everything is already wonderful.

Only Trump is admitting what the working-consuming class knows - that things are unsustainable, that the middle class is shrinking, that young people have worse prospects than their parents, and that inflation has been a gut punch to household budgets.

Trump appeals to people's dissatisfactions regardless of GDP, stock prices, or government statistics that say they should be doing fine. His frantic tone of voice and unstructured sentences reflect the urgency of people whose own lives are falling apart. Is it these people's own fault, because they bought a $70k pickup truck, flunked out of college, smoke a pack a day, and live in flyover country? Maybe yes, but that's the sort of question only a Democrat could ask. Anyone mystified by the stubborn support for Trump or Robinson needs to consider what these voters are reacting against. It is themselves.

I like this reading but something seems off or maybe incomplete.

It's not as if the Republicans aren't choke full of people with Ivy league degrees: Vance went to Yale and Trump went to UPenn and their previous leader, Bush, was a super-elite who went to an Ivy, as did his father. Of the three Justices nominated by Trump, two went to Ivy schools. The richest people in the US tend to be reactionary conservatives rather than progressive firebrands.

While I agree with the statement that "Trump appeals to people's dissatisfactions," that's despite the fact that he shits in a 24k gold toilet and tries to avoid paying his trades subcontractors because, ultimately, Trump doesn't give a shit about the working class or the middle class who can't afford their dually payment.

The right made fun of the 1% protests because they were populated by leftist kids; but they love the billionaire who received $1M at age 12. That certainly seems like a lot more than simple economic frustrations.

[Kris]

A key aspect of Trump's populism is that even people like himself without clean pedigrees, a lifetime of relevant experience, or top-of-class grades can run for office against the "elites".  These "elites" speak in aristocratic terms, come from backgrounds that are inaccessible to most people, have salon-perfect hair, and look down upon politically uncouth behavior like porn habits, mistresses, and racist comments.

This is so true!

I would add that the elites, with all their education and supposed worldliness, are so stupid they’ve gotten themselves into a situation of their own making in which half the country or more seem willing to elect a complete moron when compared to their reasonable candidate. This is stupidity at an ASTOUNDING level.

I also believe that at least 2/3rds of Trump voters really don’t like him but vote simply because they have such disdain for the elites. The system is rigged by the 2 parties so we only have a choice between them. So…divided we fall…

What I find fascinating is how easily the trigger word of "elites" is used to short-circuit people's critical thinking skills. As though there is some "liberal elite" cabal of out-of touch voters who were all born on the east coast with daddy's money and silver spoons in their mouths. (You know. Like Donald Trump?)

When in reality, liberals as a whole are a pretty diverse group, who happen to generally prefer to live in more populous and diverse areas, but not all on the east coast, and not all coming from money. Like, lots and lots of us come exactly from the areas that most Trumpers live in now. I know I did. And yeah, I left. Because of lack of opportunity and not wanting to live in a corn field. Why does that somehow mean I'm "elite" and out of touch? What makes us "elite," exactly? That we made something of ourselves? Isn't that what we're supposed to be doing?

It's like Schrodinger's liberal. At once an out of touch elite and a deadbeat on welfare.

[dividendman]

A key aspect of Trump's populism is that even people like himself without clean pedigrees, a lifetime of relevant experience, or top-of-class grades can run for office against the "elites".  These "elites" speak in aristocratic terms, come from backgrounds that are inaccessible to most people, have salon-perfect hair, and look down upon politically uncouth behavior like porn habits, mistresses, and racist comments.

This is so true!

I would add that the elites, with all their education and supposed worldliness, are so stupid they’ve gotten themselves into a situation of their own making in which half the country or more seem willing to elect a complete moron when compared to their reasonable candidate. This is stupidity at an ASTOUNDING level.

I also believe that at least 2/3rds of Trump voters really don’t like him but vote simply because they have such disdain for the elites. The system is rigged by the 2 parties so we only have a choice between them. So…divided we fall…

What I find fascinating is how easy the trigger word of "elites" is used to short-circuit people's critical thinking skills. As though there is some "liberal elite" cabal of out-of touch voters who were all born on the east coast with daddy's money and silver spoons in their mouths. (You know. Like Donald Trump?)

When in reality, liberals as a whole are a pretty diverse group, who happen to generally prefer to live in more populous and diverse areas, but not all on the east coast, and not all coming from money. Like, lots and lots of us come exactly from the areas that most Trumpers live in now. I know I did. And yeah, I left. Because of lack of opportunity and not wanting to live in a corn field. Why does that somehow mean I'm "elite" and out of touch? What makes us "elite," exactly? That we made something of ourselves? Isn't that what we're supposed to be doing?

It's like Schrodinger's liberal. At once an out of touch elite and a deadbeat on welfare.

Not to mention... elite is good. Who do you want on your NFL team? The average joes who are obese on their couches? Or do you wan the elite athletes? Who do you want running the companies you have shares in? Someone who dropped out of highschool or an elite thinker etc? Same with political leaders... being an average person isn't a virtue, and they shouldn't be something to aspire to in our political leadership.

[Just Joe]

I do believe the Trump supporters I know are poor critical thinkers.

I believe anyone who is fully committed to one party or another 100% of the time is a poor critical thinker.

It's amazing that the latest NC poll still has Robinson at 35%.* Can 35% of NC's registered voters be poor critical thinkers? Granted, this is pre-Nude Africa but...

"The guy who says the Holocaust was overblown and Hitler was great, who wants to own slaves, who was a frequenter of backroom porn video booths, and who bragged about banging his wife’s sister.… That guy was able to get to 27 percent favorable with women in North Carolina,” Last wrote.

Trump did endorse Robinson, even after the above, but is now distancing himself. The Nude Africa comments were a step too far.


* https://ncnewsline.com/briefs/new-elon-poll-stein-retains-big-lead-over-robinson-harris-leads-trump-by-1/

What version of this story is the typical FoxNews watcher hearing? A watered down account of this man's predilections?

[Kris]

I do believe the Trump supporters I know are poor critical thinkers.

I believe anyone who is fully committed to one party or another 100% of the time is a poor critical thinker.

It's amazing that the latest NC poll still has Robinson at 35%.* Can 35% of NC's registered voters be poor critical thinkers? Granted, this is pre-Nude Africa but...

"The guy who says the Holocaust was overblown and Hitler was great, who wants to own slaves, who was a frequenter of backroom porn video booths, and who bragged about banging his wife’s sister.… That guy was able to get to 27 percent favorable with women in North Carolina,” Last wrote.

Trump did endorse Robinson, even after the above, but is now distancing himself. The Nude Africa comments were a step too far.


* https://ncnewsline.com/briefs/new-elon-poll-stein-retains-big-lead-over-robinson-harris-leads-trump-by-1/

What version of this story is the typical FoxNews watcher hearing? A watered down account of this man's predilections?

Truthfully, they probably haven’t said a single thing about any of it.

[PKFFW]

Trump appeals to people's dissatisfactions regardless of GDP, stock prices, or government statistics that say they should be doing fine. His frantic tone of voice and unstructured sentences reflect the urgency of people whose own lives are falling apart. Is it these people's own fault, because they bought a $70k pickup truck, flunked out of college, smoke a pack a day, and live in flyover country? Maybe yes, but that's the sort of question only a Democrat could ask. Anyone mystified by the stubborn support for Trump or Robinson needs to consider what these voters are reacting against. It is themselves.

I agree that people who vote for Trump and the GOP do have real concerns that should be addressed. I also agree that the Democrats need to do a better job at getting their message across and acknowledging those issues.

However, I'm not mystified by the stubborn support of Trump and his cronies.

The reality is that Trump acknowledging those concerns is not the reason he appeals to those people. Anyone with a skerrick of a brain cell deep down where they are honest with themselves knows Trump doesn't give a shit about them and won't do a thing to improve their situation. They just don't acknowledge or care about that truth. The reality is that Trump appeals to those people because he gives them what they truly want. He gives them someone to blame. The bogeyman "Leftist Democratic Elite" is a convenient target.

It's the oldest political trick in the book, and it works because plenty of people are happy as pigs in shit so long as they can direct their anger, fear, and loathing at someone other than themselves.

[Taran Wanderer]

One of the problems with our government is we’ve delayed or taken away accountability after the fact (20 years on death row before execution, long delays in immigration or deportation cases, delayed justice for nearly everyone, even Trump himself is an example of this regarding the Capitol riot, classified docs, and the other cases against him) and tried exchange it for justice and control before the fact.  Thus we get significant permitting costs for almost anything significant that could be done in the public sector or private sector, but worse, we get delay delay delay.  Many people see this and are quite frustrated by it. The Democrats largely seem oblivous to this.  Trump and the broader right key in on it and blame others for it as noted above.  Of course, their solution is to take away all controls on either end and ignore the injustices that will inevitably result.

I see this, but I don’t know the solution.  I broadly agree with the many goals of the Democratic Party’s platform, but I have to shake my head at some of the economic policy approaches that are put forth to solve some of the problems.  More rules, more bureaucracy, more process, more delay has gotten us into this mess.  Somehow we need more accountability at all levels for breaking the rules, for breaking the law, and we need to limit the ability of people to endlessly delay and obfuscate on procedural grounds whether it’s the justice system, large project permitting, resource extraction, etc.  If the Democrats aren’t willing to confront this, then Trump’s message is going to resonate with people, and that’s tragic for the US because it means injustice for so many.

[twinstudy]

Trump appeals to people's dissatisfactions regardless of GDP, stock prices, or government statistics that say they should be doing fine. His frantic tone of voice and unstructured sentences reflect the urgency of people whose own lives are falling apart. Is it these people's own fault, because they bought a $70k pickup truck, flunked out of college, smoke a pack a day, and live in flyover country? Maybe yes, but that's the sort of question only a Democrat could ask. Anyone mystified by the stubborn support for Trump or Robinson needs to consider what these voters are reacting against. It is themselves.

I agree that people who vote for Trump and the GOP do have real concerns that should be addressed. I also agree that the Democrats need to do a better job at getting their message across and acknowledging those issues.

However, I'm not mystified by the stubborn support of Trump and his cronies.

The reality is that Trump acknowledging those concerns is not the reason he appeals to those people. Anyone with a skerrick of a brain cell deep down where they are honest with themselves knows Trump doesn't give a shit about them and won't do a thing to improve their situation. They just don't acknowledge or care about that truth. The reality is that Trump appeals to those people because he gives them what they truly want. He gives them someone to blame. The bogeyman "Leftist Democratic Elite" is a convenient target.

It's the oldest political trick in the book, and it works because plenty of people are happy as pigs in shit so long as they can direct their anger, fear, and loathing at someone other than themselves.

I don't accept they have real concerns that deserve to be addressed. I see a bunch of low-skilled, low-education people who are shitty that they no longer get automatic kudos by virtue of their skin colour, culture and gender. As far as I am concerned this is a good thing. If they can't deal with it, that's their problem and not mine. And if it comes down to it, we will see who is better equipped to defend their values. It won't be them.