2024 Presidential Election | ELECTION DAY 2024

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 8K
  • Views: 290K
  • Politics 
HY you know good and well if Trump had the current economy he would be gloating about it NON-STOP. I know its probably hard to look past everything you've ever thought of politically in regards to right vs left, but you will do much better under Harris than you will under Trump financially. So I'm hoping that happens for you.

The child tax credit alone is huge. Adding medicare to at-home senior care is massive. The small business tax cuts are fantastic, and this is all just her stuff, not to mention how devastating it'll be if Trump imposes more tariffs on us, and starts getting rid of the backbone of our manual labor workforce.
 
Calheel said:
Well, yeah, it is Rachel -- so she has tendency to omit certain facts (and is not a business reporter by any means).

But the idea that the dollar stretched further under Trump? Unless you have deflation, the dollar always stretches further under the predecessor. That is how inflation works. As someone with a financial degree, you surely understand that.

The point you are leaving out is that wage growth has been massive under Biden, much more so than under any recent administration. And wage growth has out paced inflation for the last year. Sure, there was a brief spike of high inflation in the US in 2021 and 2022 -- albeit not as high in the US as in most wealthy nations. But at this point, in October 2024, the economy is as strong as it has ever been. High GDP growth, low unemployment, low inflation, stock market at an all-time high. Any "business decision" would want that to continue.

Edit -- the parallels to Reagan's first term are striking.
Click to expand...
When talking about how far a dollar stretches, I think that term is generally used to talk about the net impact of how much money someone is making less what they’re spending on goods. In other words, it encompasses both wage growth and inflation. Otherwise yes you’d be right that taken literally, any 0.1% inflation would make you say your dollar “stretched further” under the predecessor.

To put it a different way - more middle class families felt they were getting ahead under Trump than they do under the current administration.

Obviously you are smart enough to know that just because inflation has now normalized a bit, people’s salaries haven’t caught up to the massive inflation we were seeing a couple years ago. Current year over year inflation might be 2-3% but it’s 2-3% on top of a crazy high number that was hurting a lot of people who live paycheck to paycheck. The 3-4 year percentage price increases are still crazy, especially for groceries.

And that’s why Trump still has a puncher’s chance to win.
 
Paine said:
Rachel Maddow is now “the far left?” Jesus Christ…
Click to expand...
She’s the main voice for MSNBC, the most liberal major news network in the country.

I like you but I’m also pretty sure you referred to Bernie recently as being not far left, so I think you have a tendency to portray far left folks as if they’re mainstream.

You’re a smart dude and I honestly think we would probably get along great and enjoy getting a beer together if we met in real life - my cousin has views a lot like yours but he is mature enough to discuss issues with people that believe differently than him, and I think you’re the same way.

But brother, if you don’t think Rachel Maddow is far left I’m not sure what to tell you. MSNBC is just as in the tank for the Democrats as Fox is for Republicans.
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
When talking about how far a dollar stretches, I think that term is generally used to talk about the net impact of how much money someone is making less what they’re spending on goods. In other words, it encompasses both wage growth and inflation. Otherwise yes you’d be right that taken literally, any 0.1% inflation would make you say your dollar “stretched further” under the predecessor.

To put it a different way - more middle class families felt they were getting ahead under Trump than they do under the current administration.

Obviously you are smart enough to know that just because inflation has now normalized a bit, people’s salaries haven’t caught up to the massive inflation we were seeing a couple years ago. Current year over year inflation might be 2-3% but it’s 2-3% on top of a crazy high number that was hurting a lot of people who live paycheck to paycheck. The 3-4 year percentage price increases are still crazy, especially for groceries.

And that’s why Trump still has a puncher’s chance to win.
Click to expand...
I guess folks forgot about how about half the nation wondered if they were going to keep their paycheck once Covid hit
 
Calheel said:
If Kamala can only get 80% of the black vote due to black men, she will have been a disaster candidate. I expect her ultimate number in the final exit polls to be around 90%.
Click to expand...
She'll get 80%. I don't think there's much chance she'll get 90%. She's polling at about 84% right now. She got a nice bump after Obama's speech urging black men to support her.
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
When talking about how far a dollar stretches, I think that term is generally used to talk about the net impact of how much money someone is making less what they’re spending on goods. In other words, it encompasses both wage growth and inflation. Otherwise yes you’d be right that taken literally, any 0.1% inflation would make you say your dollar “stretched further” under the predecessor.

To put it a different way - more middle class families felt they were getting ahead under Trump than they do under the current administration.

Obviously you are smart enough to know that just because inflation has now normalized a bit, people’s salaries haven’t caught up to the massive inflation we were seeing a couple years ago. Current year over year inflation might be 2-3% but it’s 2-3% on top of a crazy high number that was hurting a lot of people who live paycheck to paycheck. The 3-4 year percentage price increases are still crazy, especially for groceries.

And that’s why Trump still has a puncher’s chance to win.
Click to expand...
But that isn’t true. It is Trump propoganda.

working-class Americans’ wages, adjusted for inflation, have just edged higher than they were on Election Day, 2020. The average working-class American can now answer “Yes” to the question, “Are you better off now than you were under Donald Trump?”

thehill.com

It’s official: America’s real wages are up under Biden-Harris

The average working-class American can now answer yes to the question: Are you better off now than you were under Donald Trump?
thehill.com
 
Calheel said:
But that isn’t true. It is Trump propoganda.

working-class Americans’ wages, adjusted for inflation, have just edged higher than they were on Election Day, 2020. The average working-class American can now answer “Yes” to the question, “Are you better off now than you were under Donald Trump?”

thehill.com

It’s official: America’s real wages are up under Biden-Harris

The average working-class American can now answer yes to the question: Are you better off now than you were under Donald Trump?
thehill.com
Click to expand...
Get ready for some version of "but people are saying . . ."
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
When talking about how far a dollar stretches, I think that term is generally used to talk about the net impact of how much money someone is making less what they’re spending on goods. In other words, it encompasses both wage growth and inflation. Otherwise yes you’d be right that taken literally, any 0.1% inflation would make you say your dollar “stretched further” under the predecessor.

To put it a different way - more middle class families felt they were getting ahead under Trump than they do under the current administration.

Obviously you are smart enough to know that just because inflation has now normalized a bit, people’s salaries haven’t caught up to the massive inflation we were seeing a couple years ago. Current year over year inflation might be 2-3% but it’s 2-3% on top of a crazy high number that was hurting a lot of people who live paycheck to paycheck. The 3-4 year percentage price increases are still crazy, especially for groceries.

And that’s why Trump still has a puncher’s chance to win.
Click to expand...
Real wages are very close to being up over Biden's term. And the only reason they're not significantly up is the distorting effect of the pandemic, when real wages skyrocketed, largely because so many lower-earning Americans were laid off for a period of time. Real wages now are significantly higher than they were under Trump prior to the pandemic. So if you believe the numbers, most Americans' dollars do "stretch further" now than they did under Trump.

www.factcheck.org

Competing Narratives on Real Wages, Incomes Under Biden - FactCheck.org

In recent weeks, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Sen. Tim Scott offered seemingly contradictory claims when discussing the impact of inflation on the typical American's wages and income. Both can cite economic data that support their claims. The difference is the starting point of their...
www.factcheck.org www.factcheck.org
 
Calheel said:
84% would be a near historical low for a Democrat. That would be a disaster if that were her actual number.

Hillary got 89% and still lost.
Click to expand...
Yep. It's a big concern but that's what she's polling at right now. On the plus side, she is improving among college-educated whites vs Biden. And Hillary got 91% and still lost. Biden got 92%.
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
But brother, if you don’t think Rachel Maddow is far left I’m not sure what to tell you. MSNBC is just as in the tank for the Democrats as Fox is for Republicans.
Click to expand...
www.quora.com

Is Rachel Maddow center-left or far-left?

Answer (1 of 13): Labels have become essentially meaningless in today’s media nomenclature. Rachael Maddow, like her Fox News counterpart, Sean Hannity, positions herself considerably to the right of center when we consider her hawkish stance on almost every foreign policy issue. Yet, she succeed...
www.quora.com www.quora.com

Answers:
1) Maddow represents the liberal opinion well. While biased toward the liberal world view, all her commentary is thoroughly fact-checked and accurate. Fox News often sounds more like a propaganda outlet for the far right and has been caught numerous times telling outright lies by fact-checking organizations.

2) Her actions put her center left, she exhibits an open-minded thinking process , has been willing to discuss an consider more moderate positions (open to compromise) and those qualities put her in the center or less radical left.

3) Rachael Maddow positions herself considerably to the right of center when we consider her hawkish stance on almost every foreign policy issue. Yet, she succeeds in gaslighting her viewers into believing she is a progressive because she espouses liberal views on social policy.

4) Rachel Maddow definitely is more of the political news/commenter type, so it is understandable why she would want to be on a network like MSNBC. And she has told many stories that I dug into and they were completely true.

I think when people blast liberal reporters they sometimes overlook that there are genuinely decent reporters who are just liberals. Rachel Maddow is one. She never acted unethically as 1. She told you she was liberal. 2. She reports real news. 3. She invites commenters on to give perspectives separate from those of her own.
 
Calheel said:
84% would be a near historical low for a Democrat. That would be a disaster if that were her actual number.

Hillary got 89% and still lost.
Click to expand...
It really wouldn't be a disaster with that number. As I've said before, the numbers can tell only one story. If you're looking at a poll that shows Kamala +3, and she's only at 80% among black people . . . it means she has support elsewhere. For that to be bad for her, you'd have to assume the 80% holds but the stronger support elsewhere doesn't.

Remember also that composition effects matter. Kamala could do worse with every single demographic group than HRC and still win, if the mix of demographics changes. If black people were 10% of the electorate in 2016 and 15% this year, then the black vote will be better for Kamala even if she's not winning as high a % of it.
 
CFordUNC said:


Lolololol Republicans, get the fuck over here and come get your old ass demented grandpa!

Translation: “I did not want to get my ass rocked by a black guy.”
Click to expand...

Or, some poor white trash kid from Levittown, Flatbush, Maspeth, or Whitebush.
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
But brother, if you don’t think Rachel Maddow is far left I’m not sure what to tell you. MSNBC is just as in the tank for the Democrats as Fox is for Republicans.
Click to expand...
It's not the ideological lean that makes Fox News a scourge. It's that it's not news.

If Fox and MSNC covered the same stories relying on the same facts, they might put different spins on it. That's fine. I don't have a problem with that, in our current landscape. But that's not what happens. Fox is singularly mendacious. MSNBC has its fair share of folks who are a bit loose with facts (though since I don't watch, this is largely impressionistic), but it's living in a different universe.
 
Given that no one actually on the far left thinks that Rachel Maddow - or MsNBC, a corporate news outlet, for that matter - is "far left," it seems highly unlikely that she would be far left.

That and the fact that the rest of us have sentience with which we can observe fact and draw logical conclusions. And thus arrive at the position that Rachel Maddow is clearly not far left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top