Two excellent articles! Posting the strongest possible case for each candidate on the same forum is laudable, and more of this should be normal political discourse. Well done.
It was interesting that you expanded on the economists criticism of trumps tariffs but ignored the point that Harris’ price gouging policy, which you glossed over in your assessment of her economic plan, would also harm American consumers and be counterproductive.
Sean, how can you maintain that Harris is better for democracy when she, her party, the MSM, the blob, etc. are doing everything they can think of to censor the public? Don’t you care about the First Amendment? This should be the deciding factor for all voters including you.
I disagree with the premise of your question. I do not think the Democrats are the only party censoring the public. I have released an old essay I wrote about truth in the digital age on my substack. I invite you to read that essay to better understand my position on this topic.
I appreciate the even-handed format, with this article being paired side-by-side with a rational pro-Trump one.
Nothing said here particularly convinced me to pull the lever for Harris. Say what you will about Trump, but her entire candidacy is based on a lie in which she was complicit: that Biden was a fit and able leader. When that lie was blatantly exposed via the debate for the entire country to see, it became untenable to continue his campaign and Harris was slotted in through behind-the-scenes machinations. Zero Democrats had a chance to vote for her—she was instead selected by a cabal of party insiders. Not very democratic.
I also take strong issue with your foreign policy assessment. We had no major wars when Trump was president. Dropping the MOAB was a way to signal to the world not to mess with us. I don’t care if our allies respect him or not—what’s more important is that our enemies fear him, which makes the world more stable. His unpredictability is an asset because it makes our foes wary of upsetting him. Hence, the-sky-is-falling headlines but fewer wars.
There’s a host of other reasons I’m comfortable supporting him—getting tough on the border, cutting regulations, and pushing back against the progressive capture of our nation’s culture and institutions—and a host of other reasons I don’t trust Harris—her inability to clearly communicate her vision for the country, her past far-left positions, and her general fear of and hostility toward tough lines of questioning. I don’t give a damn about her skin color or her sex—she’s a vapid person who inspires little confidence.
Thanks for the comment. I have heard this claim that there were "No major wars" under Trump before. What does this mean, exactly? If it means Trmp didn't start any new wars, then ok no problem there. But Trump was hardly a peaceful president. Trump launched more drone strikes in his first 2 years than Obama did in his entire presidency. Trump radically escalated the conflict in Yemen, and escalated bombings in Afghanistan. Trump nearly started a nuclear war with North Korea on Twitter. Trump's hawkish advisor John Bolton advocated for invasion of Iran, Venezuela, Yemen, North Korea, and other places. Trump left the Iran deal and assassinated their general, facilitated a failed coup attempt on the Venezuelan government and plunged Venezuela into recession, and as I already said, supported the war in Yemen causing a famine and nearly started a nuclear war with North Korea on Twitter in a completely avoidable way. Moreover, he could not get the withdrawal from Afghanistan done. So he didn't end any war and escalated many conflicts needlessly.
If rule by fear is what you want, then it is best if our enemies fear us when we are strong, not chaotic. The problem with Trump is that, not only did our enemies fear us for the wrong reasons when he was president (he was chaotic in a bad way), but our allies also feared us, becuase trump betrayed them, which made us weaker. My view is that Trump is a negative hawkish destabilizing force on the world stage and he brings instability, not stability.
What I mean is that we’re currently in the middle of two regional wars under a president who said he’d calm the waters. Russia invaded Ukraine a few months after our botched Afghanistan withdrawal, and the war continues to this day in something of a stalemate. Then Israel and Iran are engaged in a proxy war that stands a real possibility of expanding to another country.
Trump is a bully. He understands strongman psychology because he’s vaguely like that himself—an unpredictable and brash personality versus a cultured and “rules-based” leader like virtually every other president.
Was there chaos during his administration? Sure, but it was mostly confined to headlines and heated rhetoric, not a proxy war with a nuclear power! We were supposed to be a calmer nation with him out of power, but instead things are worse than ever. I’d prefer to live in a world where the only thing media prognosticators had to pull their hair out over was stupid tweets, not tens of thousands of people dead in wars involving Europe and Israel.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I hope you don’t mind if I respond at length. I agree that the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Israeli-Iran proxy war are stains on Biden's presidency. I also appreciate your acknowledgment that Trump is a bully who brought chaos to his administration. While I understand the appeal of that approach for some, I hold a different view on how power should be used responsibly.
Trump, as a self-styled strongman, wields power in a way that doesn’t serve justice. There are, broadly speaking, two types of bullies: the insecure and the unempathetic. The insecure bully exerts power to compensate for personal shortcomings, seeking to dominate others to elevate themselves. The unempathetic bully, by contrast, is indifferent to others’ suffering and may even enjoy inflicting it. Neither of these types exhibits the qualities we should value in a leader.
A true leader is confident, not insecure or overconfident, empathetic rather than callous, and seeks win-win solutions over zero-sum outcomes. Trump’s approach to power is fundamentally zero-sum. He seems intent on winning through domination rather than constructive solutions. While this approach can feel empowering to those on the "winning" side, it leaves behind anyone who doesn't follow him. In a democracy, the problem becomes more acute: a bully’s power inherently divides, often by instilling fear and deepening social rifts.
I don’t want my leader to act unjustly in my name. When we choose a leader who embraces a bullying, zero-sum style, we compromise what it means to be American. We signal that domination, not shared values, is our preference, eroding the ethical foundation that should define us.
Trump’s chaotic style wasn’t merely media hype; he deliberately uses chaos to keep opponents disorganized and reactive. This style goes beyond typical strongman posturing—it actively undermines effective governance. For instance, Jeffery Epstein’s recently surfaced recordings reveal that Trump even managed his administration this way, sowing chaos within his own team. But Trump’s targets aren’t just his enemies; he’ll undermine allies, fellow Americans, or anyone who doesn’t give him the praise he craves.
Chaos, while effective in battles, breeds mistrust, disrupts alliances, and undercuts the decency that has long defined America’s image globally. The president’s role includes protecting our institutions, which Trump’s leadership style actively undermined. He gutted the State Department, damaging our capacity to conduct foreign policy effectively. His chaotic handling of international norms—such as withdrawing from the Iran Nuclear Deal, moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, and using Twitter threats in diplomatic settings—shows a pattern of needless provocation. His behavior with North Korea, for example, crossed lines by taunting Kim Jong Un about nuclear capabilities, risking dangerous miscalculation.
These actions weakened our institutions and the global trust in America’s stability. While chaos may win short-term battles, it undermines the long-term strength we project to the world. Strong leadership, especially on the global stage, isn’t about showmanship; it’s about stability, dependability, and a commitment to norms that support our allies.
While I won’t defend Biden’s record on Ukraine and Israel-Iran too much, I believe Harris would be better that Trump. Harris, as I argued in my essay, offers a stark contrast in her stance on both Israel and Russia. She would advocate for peace, uphold our strengths, and genuinely protect our allies. Trump, by contrast, has signaled he would abandon our European allies in Ukraine and stoke tensions with Iran by backing aggressive actions by Israel. His close relationships with both Putin and Netanyahu raise real questions about his loyalty to American alliances and his capacity to prioritize our security.
In summary, while I acknowledge that a chaotic, bullying approach can be a powerful tool for an insecure or callous leader, it’s a dangerous and unsustainable style for a U.S. president. It threatens our unity, our institutions, and ultimately our standing in the world.
There is not one accurate fact in this rant. Pretty amazing, really. Your bubble will never call you out on this, which is nice for your self-confidence. Good luck with your brainwashed hate and bigotry.
There are way too many of them. And reality is, a lot of the things you state as rock solid facts are opinions, inaccuracies and misleading statements at best. Much of it is just bad faith editorialisation. But I’ll bite and just tackle one section (women’s rights)…
“Trump continued to demean Harris by accusing her of being sexually promiscuous, “
Yea, she had an affair with a married man.
“Trump has similarly insinuated that Harris is only successful because she performs fellacio on men”
Yes, see comment above about affair with married man (and then google who said married man was and how he’s relevant to Harris’ career). The focus on fellatio is proof of you completely missing the point he’s making.
“He is directly responsible for the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which has given conservatives the power to use the government to control what women do with their bodies in healthcare settings.”
No, it hasn’t given government such power. It removed this power at least with regard to abortion from the federal government, as the federal government had that power before (which you seem to ignore or conveniently forget). Bringing this back to the states isn’t giving the government any extra power (at the state level) than they should’ve had the whole time. This is evidenced by the states choosing to increase access to abortion. So no, it’s not flowing in one direction.
“
A woman’s fundamental right of individual liberty, to her own life, grants her the authority to terminate her pregnancy if she wishes. Restricting a woman’s right to choose whether to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is the same as denying her control over her own body. I have carried this belief with me throughout my entire adult life.”
Evidently, Trump’s own wife does not believe that he is a good advocate for women’s rights.”
What Melania says isn’t in contradiction with trump’s views on abortion. He’s against a ban and in favour of exclusions. You should read your friend Maxim’s opposing essay to see what trump’s stances are on this as otherwise you’re just making weak connections that don’t hold and seem disingenuous.
“Harris wants to keep the government out of women’s healthcare decisions. She will support a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body.”
I’m unsure but I think this is a type I error you’re making. When it comes to the government allowing abortion you don’t consider it as government meddling in healthcare. When it’s the government curtailing access to abortion (or even banning it) you consider that government meddling in healthcare. Or maybe it’s cognitive dissonance. Whatever it is these two are incongruent positions. It’s the equivalent of the NRA arguing that because 2A is law they have the right to nukes. Just because a technology exists (abortion) it doesn’t mean having the right to do it is the default position. Getting the right is also government meddling.
Furthermore, the debate over abortion isn’t about women’s bodies. Everyone but the most partisan hacks know this and don’t peddle this spin anymore. The debate over abortion is around at what stage do we as a society feel comfortable for a pregnancy to be aborted (i.e. when is it murder?). The only time it’s about the mother’s body is in the minority of cases where her health or life is at risk.
That’s a lot and that’s only for the women’s right section and just arguing about the fallacies in your facts or arguments. Never mind getting into opinion on whether the example given to women by Harris that ‘you should use men to climb to positions of power and call misogyny (or racism) if someone calls you to on it’ is better or worse than trump saying ‘ celebrities can grab women by the pussy’. We can argue which is better for women in the long run as an example after the low hanging of fruit if faulty discussion points is put to rest.
"Never mind getting into opinion on whether the example given to women by Harris that ‘you should use men to climb to positions of power and call misogyny (or racism) if someone calls you to on it'"
Let's discuss this first because that really is the heart of my contention. I do think it is a sexist trope to involve a woman's sex life in discussions about whether she is qualified for a job. You and Trump are saying that she does not deserve to be where she is, despite her stellar resume, track record of success, and overall career as a star prosecutor. Now, you may disagree with those points about her qualifications and that is the discussion we should have. But to involve her sex life in such a discussion, especially by saying she slept her way to the top and is otherwise unqualified, is one of the oldest types of misogynistic attacks one can use.
Ok back to the top, starting at the beginning of your post:
The Mayor of SF had been estranged from his wife for a decade, and their relationship was not a secret. It was not an affair or adultery. Trump is famously adulterous and a serial philanderer, as I said in my essay, so it's a bit galling to ignore Trump who is really is a cheater while shaming Harris.
He is open about having appointed her and all I can say is, welcome to city politics. Outside of moral questions about her character (and her character is much better than Trump’s) Harris' sex life is irrelevant to her qualifications for the job of President. Again, it is a tired ad hominem to bring a woman's sex life into a conversation about becoming President. Is she qualified for the job? That is the question that matters.
Understand what that means: a woman who is raped in Texas must now suffer through a pregnancy inflicted on her against her will. The reason this pregnancy is inflicted on her is that the law of Texas prohibits doctors from providing relief. That is what I mean when I say that the repeal of roe vs wade has given conservatives the power to control a woman's body and her medical decisions. Some states may have increased access, but others have radically reduced access, leading to a patchwork of law across the country. There are now massive areas like Texas where women are less safe.
I didn't say Melania and Trump are in contradiction with each other. I said she doesn't think Trump is a good advocate for women's rights. That is my opinion.
It is not a Type I error. Government allowing is different from government disallowing. They are opposing categories. I don't agree with government disallowing access to abortion.
When the government allows us to have access to guns, this is not seen as government meddling. When the government increases access to voting, that is not seen as government meddling. When the federal government increases access to abortion by preventing states from making it harder to access, just as the federal government does regarding voting and guns, that increase in access to a basic right is not seen as government meddling.
"Furthermore, the debate over abortion isn’t about women’s bodies. Everyone but the most partisan hacks know this and don’t peddle this spin anymore."
I think the word for what you're doing here is Gatekeeping. You may not like discussing women's rights to control their body but that's what concerns the left. The word choice in "Pro Choice" refers to a woman's right to choose what she does with her body. It's in the name.
The pro life framing of the question as 'when is it murder' is a problem of vagueness and not decidable (decidibility in the technical philosophical sense). You can argue about that forever and never arrive at an answer because everyone has a different feeling or intuition about it. I have more to say but maybe this should be it's own essay...
It seems your partisanship or emotions are clouding your judgment and impacting your rationality.
It is not sexist or misogynistic to highlight that a woman owes her success to her sexual relationship with a man in position of power and who used said power to propel her career. The opposite of that wouldn’t be misandrist either.
If you want to read up on this point of sex and gender in politics as it relates to this and from a woman to boot:
You misunderstand and assume I question her qualifications; I don’t. I’m highlighting how she get started in politics and while I wanted to focus on inaccuracies and not this point; you do, so I’ll also highlight that the message she sends based on how she got her start isn’t a positive one to young women, and definitely not good for whoever’s position she took by being appointed to jobs due to sleeping with the man she was sleeping with.
Speaking of the man she slept with. He wasn’t merely the mayor of SF or simply a city politician as you mildly state; he was probably the top power player in democratic California politics. Not sure if you just don’t know this or again are minimising his stature as it suits your position.
Also:
a·dul·ter·y
noun
1. voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse
But yes, fair enough, it was not an affair.
I agree with you that trump is all those things and maybe more. You can’t defend Kamala doing those things by saying trump is also those things. And he is those things and we agree they’re negative. So they should be treated as negative for her too. But the difference seems to be that he is those things and is successful politically despite them; while Kamala got her start in politics BECAUSE OF she was that way (i.e someone who’s sleep with a politically powerful adulterer to jumpstart her career). This is the broader point you’re missing and in regards to the message this sends.
“The federal government was the main thing standing in the way of states like Texas enacting an abortion ban with no exception for rape. “
Correct. This was because for 50 years there had been a 5-4 SCOTUS ruling that conflated abortion with a law on personal privacy. That should’ve never been the case and SCOTUS reverted it back. (Read the ruling from the court majority for details).
Now yes, if Texas decides that it wants Texan women to bear children against their will, that is the right of the Texas legislature to do it. Texans vote for their own representatives and they can eject those people. Also, anyone can stop being Texan completely if they feel their state is diverting from their deeply held values and beliefs.
“Some states may have increased access, but others have radically reduced access, leading to a patchwork of law across the country.”
Exactly. As I said, each state will decide for themselves. It should be a patchwork because New Yorkers have different values and beliefs than do Alabamans. This is what being a federated country of states means and why it works. No one is imposing on another.
“I don't agree with government disallowing access to abortion”
Fair enough. That’s an opinion. I don’t believe in the federal government legislating on abortion. And my personal opinion is it shouldn’t be allowed beyond 10 weeks. (And most Americans agree on a limit - something between 10 and 20 weeks).
“When the federal government increases access to abortion by preventing states from making it harder to access, just as the federal government does regarding voting and guns, that increase in access to a basic right is not seen as government meddling.”
You’re calling aborting babies a basic right. Come on! Even you can see through that right?! In case you can’t it’s not in the constitution like 2A is and SCOTUS doesn’t consider it a basic right so you’re wrong either way.
“I think the word for what you're doing here is Gatekeeping. You may not like discussing women's rights to control their body but that's what concerns the left. The word choice in "Pro Choice" refers to a woman's right to choose what she does with her body. It's in the name. “
Yes it’s in the name, but the name is disingenuous. Pro choice, reproductive rights, reproductive freedom, etc and all the emotionally driven language about women’s bodies are euphemisms for abortion. No one has ever tried to take away women’s freedom or right to reproduce or choose to reproduce; it’s ironic because abortion is the opposite of reproducing. No one is trying to tell a woman what she can’t do with her body. The argument is around what to do with a fetus or embryo and as I said where do we as a society draw the line (morally and legally) on when you can end a pregnancy. As I also said, it’s only the minority of cases where the mother’s health is at stake and this is about healthcare she requires. That’s why your framing of this is in bad faith; but you didn’t invent it so I get that you’re just following the lead others in your camp are telling you to follow.
“The pro life framing of the question as 'when is it murder' is a problem of vagueness and not decidable (decidibility in the technical philosophical sense). You can argue about that forever and never arrive at an answer because everyone has a different feeling or intuition about it.”
So because it’s hard to settle on answer we should just debate with euphemisms and make up shit? And of course it’s hard; we’re talking about defining where life and death begin/end. It should be a hard question!
We don’t have to argue forever; I stated earlier that something like 60-70% of Americans believe the cutoff should be somewhere under 20 weeks. I’ve seen surveys pointing this way when questions aren’t posed in a maximalist fashion. European countries (that liberals love highlighting when it suits them) typically fall in that range as well. In fact, while Roe was legal Europeans were more stringent than American law on abortion (e.g. 12 weeks in Germany/italy, 14 weeks in France/spain, and aside from UK/Netherlands all of Europe limits to 20 weeks or less).
So it’s not that hard after all it sounds like for the majority to settle roughly on this. At a state by state level it should be even easier as smaller populations. But this is all too inconvenient I’m sure.
I really appreciate your response. I know were just strangers on the internet but I definitely appreciate the effort your response took and you made great points. I read the article you linked to. Thanks for providing that. I learned a few things from it that I didn't know, and I think I understand your position better now.
One line from that article really stood out to me:
"It is almost inconceivable that Harris would have been appointed to the two board positions on her own merits. She moved ahead of better qualified and more worthy candidates, male and female, because she was involved with Brown. It’s also likely that her successful bid to become district attorney of San Francisco was in large part due to Brown’s influence in the city."
This is a good point. Is it true that Harris was not qualified for the job, though? I wish the author had discussed her qualifications more so that we could properly evaluate this claim. Do you know what her qualifications were or why they were lacking?
"You misunderstand and assume I question her qualifications; I don’t."
I guess I'm just curious what her qualifications were because if she was just some random person, then your contention that this is a nonsexist criticism of her career makes more sense to me. But if she was a lawyer with pertinent skills and experience, then I guess... it's kind of not a big deal to me relatively speaking. In absolute terms, I would prefer her to have not done that if she did, but relative to our current situation and what's at stake, I'm willing to add that to the list of her other detractions and move on. But that's me. I can see why others who are in the Trump camp such as yourself may not like that. And I take your point that she could be setting a bad example if indeed she wasn't qualified (a bad example for anyone, not just women). However, in fact she was qualified, then I do think sexism could still be involved. I'll say that this question remains open for me, so I'll look for info about it and please do share more if you know about her qualifications for that gig.
Thanks for the explanation and the link.
"I agree with you that trump is all those things and maybe more. You can’t defend Kamala doing those things by saying trump is also those things. And he is those things and we agree they’re negative. So they should be treated as negative for her too. But the difference seems to be that he is those things and is successful politically despite them; while Kamala got her start in politics BECAUSE OF she was that way (i.e someone who’s sleep with a politically powerful adulterer to jumpstart her career). This is the broader point you’re missing and in regards to the message this sends"
I really appreciate this expansion of your point. I think the key difference is one of emphasis. You say "and maybe more" about trump, while I say "yes definitely way more." For instance, I would say Trump got his career started in extremely morally dubious ways and I think Trump is a rapist, which is or should be disqualifying. That difference in the appraisal of how bad the two candidates are on this point is probably where we disagree. I just think Trump is way worse. But if you don't, then I can see why you come to the conclusions you do.
I think the rest of your points are well put, but it's just an 'agree to disagree' situation with no bad intention. Your opinions make sense given your beliefs and intuitions. I just think we have different intuitions, and we place different emphasis on different values.
For instance, we both acknowledge the life of the mother is important to protect, but I see it as crucial to the abortion debate given the statistics I mentioned, whereas you see it as a minor sideshow given the statistics you mentioned. That's just a straight up difference in values.
Similarly, I don’t really think of the mother-fetus organism the same way, where there is this discreet temporal moment when a fetus becomes a thing that has rights that then supercede the mother's rights (hope I'm not putting words in your mouth). I think it's not really possible to say there is a discreet moment like that. This is what I meant by decidibility: it's not that it's hard; it's impossible. The impossibility comes from the vagueness of the problem. But you have a different intuition about that.
We are coming from very different value systems and with very different intuitions, but I think we had a good discussion and I learned a few things. You've given me a lot to think about and I appreciate your responses. If I write something longer on this topic, I'd be glad to hear your thoughts.
Glad you took the time to read the reply and link. I’ll keep this one shorter.
“I'm willing to add that to the list of her other detractions and move on. But that's me. I can see why others who are in the Trump camp such as yourself may not like that. “
Fair enough but you should also have defined in advance what the threshold is for when the negatives outweigh the positives and you’d presumably stop supporting her. This is for all of us to do in advance for everyone we support. Decide in advance what you’d have to see your guy or party do that’s so bad for you that you’d switch allegiance. Basically what is the red line. That way it keeps you honest. I can’t remember who I stole that concept from.
And I wouldn’t say I’m in the trump camp. I don’t really like him. I do think democrats have worse policies on the economy and society in general, so there’s that. But no I don’t think much of him. He gets too much credit, mostly due to his detractors showering him with so much attention and undue influence. He just put his finger on a couple major issues of our time; that’s it. He doesn’t know what to do about them.
I don’t think we ever discussed a fetus superseding a mother’s rights explicitly - not sure if it’s superseding if it’s allowing it to live. That’s why there’s a timeframe to decide by.
On the abortion point I think you overcomplicate the issue and it feels like twist yourself up in knots when you talk about a “discreet temporal moment” and vagueness or decidability. The whole thing boils down to at what point do we legally allow pregnancies to be ended (whether never or 5 weeks or 15 or 25 or anytime). And that threshold is informed by our values and morals. At what stage do we feel morally ok to allow this. And as you justly highlighted our values differ, which precisely validates why a state by state patchwork approach makes sense. A couple of states have banned it and a few others have gone the opposite way with increasing access. Everyone settles on the point where they can sleep soundly at night and not feel like they’re committing state sanctioned murder. The philosophy and ethics around it are fine but it’s all in service of figuring out practically where we draw the legal line.
And over time (years and decades) mass opinion might change and states accordingly revise their laws. (I mean the whole reason roe was overturned was because over 50 years the opinion overall in US shifted against it enough to get that done)
And as I highlighted other developed nations which are broadly culturally western and similar have made decisions on this and they’re not having the rabid controversy that Americans are. It’s the maximalist positioning that politicians approach voters with that’s the culprit on this. Most people as I said are much more moderate than the political parties are on this, but that’s the system - it’s not perfect, just really good.
I’d be happy to read anything else you write on this; I have trouble mincing words though!
True. To add some more pessimism, it’ll only astound them if we get back to having normal politics. If it degrades further they may not be interested in it.
"I really do think" is the difference between fact and opinion. Your telepathic guess about Trump's "real" intentions is 100% subjective opinion. There is no causal relationship between the few facts in the piece and the unproven intent of the politicians involved. I suspect that Kamala loves it when Trump insults her so she can plan the victim card, yet again. That is my opinion, and it stems from years of Kamala building her profile by playing the race/gender/identity victim card, but it is not hard news. The only fact is that I am aware my opinions are not facts.
"Inaccurate" is an oxymoron, regarding the claims you make in your article: you are expressing your opinions as if they were proven facts. The massive difference between your opinion of Trump's motives, goals, and the actions he has been accused of, and provable facts, defines your article. Facts are verifiable and testable. Nobody in your bubble has even attempted to prove any of it.
There are some inaccuracies, in verifiable statements that you never verified. Trump never said he "likes to grab them by the pussy." He said that, when someone is famous enough, they can grab women and the women let them.
Trump was not in the United States of America, much less New York, when the alleged rape took place in New York.
Trump was not convicted of rape or sexual assault in a civil court. Civil courts do not determine criminal guilt. He was found liable for slander, by claiming he was innocent and the woman, who Trump has never met, accused him of. She also said, "getting raped (in a department store)" is "every woman's dream."
Zero people were seriously injured or killed by protesters, even the few who admit to minuscule acts of violence, on 1/6. The worst act of violence I can find, from a protester, was throwing "a spear without a point," (a stick) at a police man and doing zero damage. Zero policemen were checking into the hospital on 1/6. That is a fact. See the difference.
Only one court looked at evidence of fraud from the 2020 election. Wisconsin Supreme court ruled, 4-3 with a scathing dissent, not to throw out the election and have a new one.
I am of the opinion that use of the word "insurrection," about the actions of MAGA protesters on 1/6 is a left wing projection hoax: they are hysterical about smearing someone else with the exact same war on civil rights, freedom, and democracy which they accuse their target. That is my opinion on the intent behind their smear campaign. I can not prove that the left is guilty of evil intent, because crimes of intent are difficult to prove. See the difference?
So, if you are trying to persuade readers that your opinions are facts, you may have some support from people who already share your opinions, but I doubt you will persuade anyone to change their minds on anything.
Thanks for your reply. I am stating my opinion and backing my opinion with facts. I have provided citations for those facts. This is a common way in which op eds are written. I could have used the first person singular to help readers discern my opinion from cited facts. I will consider that for future op Ed's.
You are right that Trump did not explicitly state that he likes grabbing women. However, I think one can reasonably surmise from the fact that he was having a jovial conversation (spun as "locker room talk") that Trump was at least positively impressed by the idea that sexual assault of that sort is possible to get away with when famous. If we are going to play the game of sussing out 'what Trump actually meant to say' then I don't think it is unreasonable to guess that Trump was expressing positive sentiment about grabbing women. That is why I framed his statement the way I did.
As for whether Trump was convicted of rape or not, please see the source I cited, specifically this section:
"The jury's unanimous verdict in Carroll II was almost entirely in favor of Ms. Carroll. The only point on which Ms. Carroll did not prevail was whether she had proved that Mr. Trump had “raped” her within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law – a section that provides that the label “rape” as used in criminal prosecutions in New York applies only to vaginal penetration by a penis. Forcible, unconsented-to penetration of the vagina or of other bodily orifices by fingers, other body parts, or other articles or materials is not called “rape” under the New York Penal Law. It instead is labeled “sexual abuse.”1 As is shown in the following notes, the definition of rape in the New York Penal Law is far narrower than the meaning of “rape” in common modern parlance, its definition in some dictionaries,2 in some federal and state criminal statutes,3 and elsewhere.4 The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was “raped” within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump “raped” her as many people commonly understand the word “rape.” Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that."
Please provide a source for that quote by Carroll. Implying that such a statement somehow justifies a rape is not a good argument.
Regarding your claims about January 6th, I would encourage you to watch the videos of the event if you haven't seen them yet. I tend to believe what I see, and what I saw that day was violence. At the very least, the pushing, shoving, swinging and throwing of projectiles, weilding of weapons and shields, and physical altercations in general on Jan 6 were uncharacteristic of nonviolent political actions, historically. Most nonviolent political actions do not include those kinds of tactics. If you disagree, please explain why the video evidence of the violence happening are so often misunderstood by common viewers like myself.
Thanks for sharing your opinions. I respectfully disagree, and I encourage you to take liberals and leftists at their word when they make claims about Jan 6 being an insurrection. I can honestly report that the liberals and leftists I know share my views broadly. There is no hoax or attempt to deceive. I could easily say the same thing about the right. I could say that the right projects onto the left about election meddling when in fact the right is interfering with elections (see Trump's fake electors plot, Trump's phone asking to find votes in georgia, the recent revelations about Giuliani's election meddling, the many Republicans who have been caught in voter fraud schemes over the years, etc.). But this would not be productive because it is too easy to accuse the other side of projection. The truth is that the other side is not projecting. The truth is that the other side believes what they are saying, and to argue against the other side well, it is prudent to take them at face value.
Thanks again for reading and leaving your comments.
You are not “backing (your) opinion with facts.” There are, literally no facts in your post. It’s almost incredible. Please find me one salient fact, and I will apologize.
You are attempting to “prove” you opinions are facts, by citing the opinions and interpretation of others who believe the narrative they are given as readily as you do. Left wing, post-democracy fascists believe what they are saying…because they are protected from reality.. They call Trump a liar, but they do not even try to prove that Trump has ever lied. They pretend that an exaggeration or an understatement is a glaring lie, but you have no idea what Trump believed at the time. Maybe Trump was shocked that women let famous men grab them by the genitals. Maybe lots of things. It is very hard to prove state of mind or “true intent.” You have not even offered an argument or attempted a proof of anything.
There are Thousands of hours of footage which were kept buried for years about 1/6. Almost of that footage was peaceful and much of it showed officers peacefully opening doors for protesters. The brief moments of violence, much of it in self-defense, was all released to the main stream media. Officers inviting them in…on orders from who? Crickets.
You were shown a sliver of the story and anyone who disagrees with you is an insurrectionist. I suspect you believed the “fine people hoax” because you saw Trump say “good people on both sides.” That video was also cropped to hide the fact that President Trump fully denounced all white supremacists and hate groups three separate times. You can not “reasonably surmise” anything when you only have a sliver of the story.
I am not interested in the style of your line of discourse about opinions and facts. You are being uncharitable to me. I can't really discuss jan 6th or any other topic further with you unless you are willing to be a more charitable debater. It would be a waste of time for both of us.
If you want to discuss how opinion articles like mine and Maxim's are written, where arguments are built on premises, that could be an interesting conversation. The first section of my essay about the economy is structured as an syllogism, for instance.
Uncharitable? What gift were you looking for? Reading this article is subject to the premise that your opinions are facts? Assuming you believe none of this and are just presenting one perspective? "Not interested in the style" is almost certainly cognitive dissonance: you can not structure an argument to refute anything or persuade, so you get defensive and call me names.
I can see there may have been some misunderstandings, so let me clarify my intentions. When I mentioned "uncharitable," I didn’t mean to imply I was looking for special treatment—just that I hoped we could both approach each other’s arguments with a bit more generosity and openness. My goal is not to assume agreement but to explore ideas constructively, where each person genuinely considers the other's perspective.
Regarding cognitive dissonance, I can see how my choice of words might come across as defensive, but I assure you that wasn’t my intention. My point about not engaging with certain topics further was more about finding common ground to have a meaningful dialogue, especially around the structure of arguments and the role of premises and logic, which I find fascinating and worthwhile to discuss.
If I came across as dismissive, that wasn't my intent, and I apologize for that. Let’s focus on where we can have an enriching conversation if you're open to it.
By what standard do you define "seriously injured"? Page 8 of this report by the US government accountability office lists 114 police officers as suffering injuries on page 8.
No police officers, or government officials, were hospitalized and held overnight or returned later to the hospital for injuries sustained on 1/6. That is a fact. All of their “violent crimes” were alleged crimes of evil intent, and nobody even tried to prove their intent. They just smeared them and buried them in litigation and threats and smears.
As for your '“data,” which agency is lying, the US government accountability office and/or The Atlantic monthly with its consistent agenda?
That article was published on January 11, 2021 when reports were still coming in. The GAO report was written the following year. It would be surprising if they matched. You may not have noticed that since you didn't look at the article to see that it was from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, not the Atlantic.
Of course, none of this makes sense of the idea that the distinguishing factor to determine whether or not the event was violent is whether or not someone was admitted as an inpatient or just treated in the emergency room.
On the topic of crimes, you can read the indictment of Enrique Tarrio and the other Proud Boys below. It details how the five defendants, along with several dozen other Proud Boys, were in a group chat well in advance of the event planning to storm the capital and cause a "revolution". I think that spending weeks planning to do something with several other people, and then doing that thing, is pretty strong evidence of intent.
One officer went to the hospital and was released that night. Nobody, was charged with insurrection. Even the TDS DOJ couldn’t sell an insurrection to hand picked hate trump judges. None of the protesters brought any deadly weapons. You are pitching a consensus argument: if all of the court cases charged the same thing, it must be true. Instead they destroyed lives and drove people to suicide for nothing. You have been lied to. The opinions of people who agree with you are not data points in a causal argument.
If your argument is specifically that nobody was hospitalized AND held overnight, sure, that's my bad for not reading more carefully. Personally, I'm unsure what that should change in terms of our evaluation. The problem with January 6th isn't that the protestors injured a bunch of people.
I don't know when deadly weapons came up? Did I say that?
I'm not pitching a consensus argument, my argument is the content of the indictment, which indicates that the protestors planned in advance to break into the capital and stop the certification of the election. Do you agree or disagree that the content of the indictment says this?
Your argument is an accusation of thought crime: planning an insurrection while not having enough evidence to change anyone with "insurrection?" There is no evidence of what the protesters planned before, because there was no official organization or organized plan.
If the election was rigged, then this peaceful protest was part of the democratic process. It was also democratic to protest if they only believed the eleciton was rigged. The fascist left never tried to prove anything was fair, they just called it "most fair election ever" and prosecuted anyone who disagreed. That is fascism.
Please prove that the police were not more violent towards the peaceful protesters than they one or two protesters who slightly injured police in self-defense. The police intended to injure protesters until a few protesters responded violently. There's a premise. Prove that premise true or false, pls.
I believe the inflation numbers you referenced may not be accurate. Could you clarify your source? For context, inflation peaked at 9.1% in June 2022. While the annual average would naturally be lower, it still seems higher than what was indicated. Should the economic issues in June 2022 and beyond be attributed to COVID-19, or to the administration’s policies? Furthermore, how are we to trust that the same administration responsible for the surge in grocery prices can effectively resolve the issue?
Additionally, a key concern with Vice President Harris is the apparent contradiction in her statements regarding President Biden's cognitive state. Either she has misled the American public about his mental condition, or she is unaware of what many others perceive. How can we trust her capacity to handle complex foreign policy discussions if she cannot accurately assess the President's cognitive health?
I tend to think of Trump as responsible for inflation because he began the policy of giving out covid relief checks (I have a check with his signature on it), and he didn't do much to raise wages or prevent corporations from increasing prices at point of sale for consumers. That being said, if we are ok with attributing the economic turmoil in the last year of Trump’s presidency to the pandemic instead of Trump’s administration, then for consistency, we should be ok with attributing the increased grocery prices to the pandemic instead of Biden's administration as well. Biden's economy is strong, and I believe Harris has a good plan for reducing grocery price increases, which she has laid out in a dossier I mentioned, while Trump’s tariffs will certainly only cause prices to go up.
Regarding Biden's cognition, I am under the impression that Harris' assessment of Biden's abilities was broadly similar to the assessments made by the rest of the Democrats who surround Biden, much the way Mike Pence's assessment of Trump's cognition was broadly similar to the other Republican's assessments of Trump. Most likely, the VPs are acting as loyal supporters of their leaders. The upshot is that the Democrats were flexible enough to have the hard conversation about Biden's cognition eventually and swap Biden out for someone much sharper. I would like to see a similar conversation about Trump's cognitive and psychological problems happen on the right.
I'm all for removing Biden from the presidency immediately, for the record. I think Harris should be president now.
I think the right needs to move on from Biden. Bringing up biden again is not a good move when Trump is at the top of the ticket because it reminds everyone that Trump is also an old deranged narcissist. It's the pot calling the kettle black. Even if she was somehow wrong about Biden (which, as I said previously, she was probably just being a good VP and refraining from criticising the POTUS) Harris is clearly a better option than both of Trump and Biden.
I don't like the response of Harris did it, because Trump did it. That's just not valid or fair. If you have both Trump and Biden on stage or in an interview, there is absolutely no comparison. I'm not saying Trump isn't old and mistake prone, but he's clearly not suffering from anything other than old age and stupidity. 2 wrongs don't make it right, Sean!
I think you need to focus more of your argument on Fuel/Energy. Given the other article I posted and the impact on inflation, why is fuel still so costly given the production increases?
The D's don't spend enough time pushing this point and that could be mostly due to the fact that pre-Biden we paid $2/gallon at the pump and now it's over $3. It's hard to argue what most Americans deal with 1x or 2x a week. I'm not sure why it's still so high, but I don't get paid to figure that stuff out.
I think Trump is indeed suffering from pathological psychological problems, such as narcissistic personality disorder, which I discussed. He may also be showing early signs of dementia. So we disagree that Trump "is clearly not suffering from anything other than old age and stupidity." The right wing was very excited to talk about Biden's problems, but seems unwilling to acknowledge the deeply troubling aspects of Trump’s psychology and cognition.
As for energy... that's a completely different topic for which I could write an entirely separate essay. The start of a discussion about energy, for me, centers on the acknowledgement of climate change and the right wing's lack of support for renewables, specifically the House Republicans killing of the infrastructure bill that would have promoted American energy independence via renewable energy tech. Once that is out of the way, we could begin to discuss how oil prices affect consumer prices and solutions for that dynamic. That's a big discussion.
Well it wasn't 18%, it peaked at 14.8. The issue with this argument is the timeframe of 3 years before covid, Trump's unemployment numbers are impeccable. Once covid lockdown's ended, unemployment goes back to normal and outside of 2022 has looked pretty good across both administrations. Inflation however, is directly attributable to numerous factors such as interest rates, free college tuition, gas prices, ukraine ware, Israeli war, etc. These issues are all stemming from policies of the democrat party.
Another interesting take on this is to review unemployment data by state. The top 5 highest rates are D-lead states while the bottom 5 (best unemployment) are R-lead states.
I agree that unemployment looks good across both administrations. But I think that blaming inflation on Democrats alone is not accurate. After all, Trump signed the bipartisan CARES act in 2020 that pumped $2.2 Trillion into the economy. That needs to be taken into account when discussing inflation in recent years.
Regarding unemployment at the state level, correlation does not imply causation, and whether a state is run by democrats or Republicans is not clearly related to unemployment. You'd have to do a bit more leg work to make that connection. For instance, you'd have to explain why Nevada has a high unemployment rate but is led Republicans. While it's true that California and New York have high unemployment, while New Hamphire and Idaho have low unemployment, the size and composition of the economies of all of those states are completely different. So I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'm not sure you are correct. More work needs to be done to make that argument.
yeah, that's a fair point on causation aspect, but then we shouldn't bother to talk about who gets credit for it at the Fed level then either. All of these issues are incredible complex and nuanced and they cherry pick points of time to reflect which party gets to take credit for anything. Most of the public will never understand the details. I'm no economist and won't pretend to be one!
In as much as inflation was a worldwide problem, it makes a lot more sense to attribute inflation to an after effect of covid-19 (and fiscal stimulus enacted in 2020) than to Biden's policies...
To be fair, there was some Ukraine war component to inflation in 2022 that could potentially be attributed to Biden, if you think he should have instead negotiated a rapid end to the war, or if you have some belief that Trump can prevent all wars as long as he is in office.
Per CNBC: "Either way, canceling student debt only “addresses the symptom, rather than the cause of student debt,” she says. “This doesn’t do anything to encourage colleges to help restrain costs and limit the amount of debt that students are coming out with in college.”"
There's certainly a valid debate to be had about whether student loan cancellation is fair, whether we should reduce college costs instead, or whether college is overrated in general in terms of how well it prepares you for work.
That said, blaming inflation on Biden's student loan policies is ridiculous and innumerate.
It looks like BIden has cancelled a total of 153 billion dollars in student loans:
That's a small number relative to government spending. The federal budget is 6 trillion dollars. The national debt is 33 trillion dollars. The US spent a trillion dollars on the war in Iraq and about 6 trillion on covid (mostly under Trump).
It's also unclear what immediate effect cancelling student debt has on spending -- are students more likely to spend that extra income, relative to the bondholders who would receive it? That's likely less inflationary than, say, just writing people checks during the pandemic (Trump policy) or dropping interest rates very low so people bid up houses and stocks (also a Trump policy).
these folks disagree with you and they seem to have a pretty good handle on the topic. It's never 1 thing, it's the cumulative effect of all the things.
"However, at the same time, this is also likely to be inflationary. Expectation of additional debt forgiveness programs evokes a moral hazard incentive for college students to take out more loans and for universities to increase tuition rates.1 To the extent that inflation is inherently persistent, any initial price level increase would also lead to sustained inflation over the near future. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that the Fed will need to raise rates by an additional 50 to 75 basis points to counteract the Biden debt cancellation proposal."
If the basis adjustment occurs, what is the impact on the economy and inflation? What is the impact on the cost of college and that increase has what impact on the economy?
Just because it's a small % of the overall bucket doesn't make it good. It still in an unnecessary program that impacts the economy and has ripple effects. 40% of the student debt is for Grad school, something that the Fed govt has no business being involved with. Those folks should deal with the consequences of their decisions and not put that burden to the American taxpayer.
Your first link (from CFRB) said that student loan reduction would raise inflation by 0.15%-0.20%, if Biden got his full 500 billion plan, which he did not. So he got less than a third of that, perhaps you can say that it would have had a 0.05% inflationary effect.
Meanwhile, actual inflation peaked at 9%. 0.05% is a tiny fraction of that. That's because you're ignoring much larger sources of spending (primarily fiscal stimulus and spending during the pandemic).
You could also play the same game with literally any federal spending and with any tax cut, and call that inflationary. Trump added 8 trillion to the national debt:
Any line item of his excess spending and unfunded tax cuts are also inflationary. He's not planning to run a balanced budget. And he's proposing tariffs on just about everything, which will raise prices on just about everything.
The fact that you decided to hone in on a tiny fraction of government spending likely says more about you, and what you are resentful of, than it does on any rational analysis of government spending and fiscal policy.
Are you angry that you paid for college and you think other people are going to get something for free? Did you not go to college, and look down on people who did? If so, just say that stuff makes you angry, don't give some bogus argument that a small amount of student loan relief has much effect relative to massive amounts of overspending.
But you are ignoring the fact that the courts said he can't do it. Every time he turns around, he's increasing the budget and putting more groups into this plan. That's why I'm not mentioning anything else, those weren't deemed to be illegal or outside the scope of Fed Govt! If you feel i'm too narrowly focused on this, you are too broad!
Yes I am resentful that my tax dollars and plenty of others, are paying for the poor choices of others. This lesson is not taught in my household but now and entire new generation (see 2008 housing crisis) is learning they won't be held personally responsible and their choices might have consequences. There are people in this country that truly need support, and these programs do nothing for them. It's vote bribe and that's it.
My kid is in college today, she's receive nothing in relief, she's paying full price and meanwhile my taxes are paying for others that have no right to this money - as decided by the highest court in the land!
Why talk about any other program, if we can't agree that this program is a waste of tax dollars, illegal, and unnecessary at the federal level? Once you agree that this stupid, then we can talk about other spending.
Here's a perfect one to start with. Yeah, I know it's small, but the best way to start making a dent is to kill off all this stupid BS that the Fed Govt has no business being involved in!
Trump's tax cut directly hurt the middle class while benefiting the wealthy. First, the tax cuts for middle class and lower income individuals is temporary and will end next year, but tax cuts for the wealthy are permanent. Second, the rate cut for top earners from 39.6% to 37% meant they saved many thousands and even millions of dollars while low income owners had very modest savings, so the trump tax cuts benefited the wealthy in real dollar terms. Third, Trump gave corporations a massive tax cut from 35% to 21% which benefits stockholders and corporate owners (aka wealthy people). Fourth, trump doubled the estate tax exemption so wealthy people can hoard twice as much money across generations. Fifth, pass through high deductions went up, which benefits wealthy business owners.
Finally, the trump tax cuts did all this great stuff for wealthy people while adding 1.9 Trillion to the national debt over a decade. It is an absolute disaster for the working class and lower classes. Trump robbed us and facilitated one of the greatest transfers of wealth to upper classes in history.
Great article. It made me very comfortable with voting for Trump.
because your misogynistic pervert like him. sorry I couldnt resist.
Two excellent articles! Posting the strongest possible case for each candidate on the same forum is laudable, and more of this should be normal political discourse. Well done.
Completely disconnected from reality on virtually every point. The essay could double as parody.
Would you like to discuss any points in particular that you found unrealistic?
It was interesting that you expanded on the economists criticism of trumps tariffs but ignored the point that Harris’ price gouging policy, which you glossed over in your assessment of her economic plan, would also harm American consumers and be counterproductive.
The people here are really sure Sean is wrong. Their source? It was revealed to them in a dream as far as I can tell.
Sean, how can you maintain that Harris is better for democracy when she, her party, the MSM, the blob, etc. are doing everything they can think of to censor the public? Don’t you care about the First Amendment? This should be the deciding factor for all voters including you.
I disagree with the premise of your question. I do not think the Democrats are the only party censoring the public. I have released an old essay I wrote about truth in the digital age on my substack. I invite you to read that essay to better understand my position on this topic.
I appreciate the even-handed format, with this article being paired side-by-side with a rational pro-Trump one.
Nothing said here particularly convinced me to pull the lever for Harris. Say what you will about Trump, but her entire candidacy is based on a lie in which she was complicit: that Biden was a fit and able leader. When that lie was blatantly exposed via the debate for the entire country to see, it became untenable to continue his campaign and Harris was slotted in through behind-the-scenes machinations. Zero Democrats had a chance to vote for her—she was instead selected by a cabal of party insiders. Not very democratic.
I also take strong issue with your foreign policy assessment. We had no major wars when Trump was president. Dropping the MOAB was a way to signal to the world not to mess with us. I don’t care if our allies respect him or not—what’s more important is that our enemies fear him, which makes the world more stable. His unpredictability is an asset because it makes our foes wary of upsetting him. Hence, the-sky-is-falling headlines but fewer wars.
There’s a host of other reasons I’m comfortable supporting him—getting tough on the border, cutting regulations, and pushing back against the progressive capture of our nation’s culture and institutions—and a host of other reasons I don’t trust Harris—her inability to clearly communicate her vision for the country, her past far-left positions, and her general fear of and hostility toward tough lines of questioning. I don’t give a damn about her skin color or her sex—she’s a vapid person who inspires little confidence.
Thanks for the comment. I have heard this claim that there were "No major wars" under Trump before. What does this mean, exactly? If it means Trmp didn't start any new wars, then ok no problem there. But Trump was hardly a peaceful president. Trump launched more drone strikes in his first 2 years than Obama did in his entire presidency. Trump radically escalated the conflict in Yemen, and escalated bombings in Afghanistan. Trump nearly started a nuclear war with North Korea on Twitter. Trump's hawkish advisor John Bolton advocated for invasion of Iran, Venezuela, Yemen, North Korea, and other places. Trump left the Iran deal and assassinated their general, facilitated a failed coup attempt on the Venezuelan government and plunged Venezuela into recession, and as I already said, supported the war in Yemen causing a famine and nearly started a nuclear war with North Korea on Twitter in a completely avoidable way. Moreover, he could not get the withdrawal from Afghanistan done. So he didn't end any war and escalated many conflicts needlessly.
If rule by fear is what you want, then it is best if our enemies fear us when we are strong, not chaotic. The problem with Trump is that, not only did our enemies fear us for the wrong reasons when he was president (he was chaotic in a bad way), but our allies also feared us, becuase trump betrayed them, which made us weaker. My view is that Trump is a negative hawkish destabilizing force on the world stage and he brings instability, not stability.
Thanks again for the comment.
What I mean is that we’re currently in the middle of two regional wars under a president who said he’d calm the waters. Russia invaded Ukraine a few months after our botched Afghanistan withdrawal, and the war continues to this day in something of a stalemate. Then Israel and Iran are engaged in a proxy war that stands a real possibility of expanding to another country.
Trump is a bully. He understands strongman psychology because he’s vaguely like that himself—an unpredictable and brash personality versus a cultured and “rules-based” leader like virtually every other president.
Was there chaos during his administration? Sure, but it was mostly confined to headlines and heated rhetoric, not a proxy war with a nuclear power! We were supposed to be a calmer nation with him out of power, but instead things are worse than ever. I’d prefer to live in a world where the only thing media prognosticators had to pull their hair out over was stupid tweets, not tens of thousands of people dead in wars involving Europe and Israel.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I hope you don’t mind if I respond at length. I agree that the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Israeli-Iran proxy war are stains on Biden's presidency. I also appreciate your acknowledgment that Trump is a bully who brought chaos to his administration. While I understand the appeal of that approach for some, I hold a different view on how power should be used responsibly.
Trump, as a self-styled strongman, wields power in a way that doesn’t serve justice. There are, broadly speaking, two types of bullies: the insecure and the unempathetic. The insecure bully exerts power to compensate for personal shortcomings, seeking to dominate others to elevate themselves. The unempathetic bully, by contrast, is indifferent to others’ suffering and may even enjoy inflicting it. Neither of these types exhibits the qualities we should value in a leader.
A true leader is confident, not insecure or overconfident, empathetic rather than callous, and seeks win-win solutions over zero-sum outcomes. Trump’s approach to power is fundamentally zero-sum. He seems intent on winning through domination rather than constructive solutions. While this approach can feel empowering to those on the "winning" side, it leaves behind anyone who doesn't follow him. In a democracy, the problem becomes more acute: a bully’s power inherently divides, often by instilling fear and deepening social rifts.
I don’t want my leader to act unjustly in my name. When we choose a leader who embraces a bullying, zero-sum style, we compromise what it means to be American. We signal that domination, not shared values, is our preference, eroding the ethical foundation that should define us.
Trump’s chaotic style wasn’t merely media hype; he deliberately uses chaos to keep opponents disorganized and reactive. This style goes beyond typical strongman posturing—it actively undermines effective governance. For instance, Jeffery Epstein’s recently surfaced recordings reveal that Trump even managed his administration this way, sowing chaos within his own team. But Trump’s targets aren’t just his enemies; he’ll undermine allies, fellow Americans, or anyone who doesn’t give him the praise he craves.
Chaos, while effective in battles, breeds mistrust, disrupts alliances, and undercuts the decency that has long defined America’s image globally. The president’s role includes protecting our institutions, which Trump’s leadership style actively undermined. He gutted the State Department, damaging our capacity to conduct foreign policy effectively. His chaotic handling of international norms—such as withdrawing from the Iran Nuclear Deal, moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, and using Twitter threats in diplomatic settings—shows a pattern of needless provocation. His behavior with North Korea, for example, crossed lines by taunting Kim Jong Un about nuclear capabilities, risking dangerous miscalculation.
These actions weakened our institutions and the global trust in America’s stability. While chaos may win short-term battles, it undermines the long-term strength we project to the world. Strong leadership, especially on the global stage, isn’t about showmanship; it’s about stability, dependability, and a commitment to norms that support our allies.
While I won’t defend Biden’s record on Ukraine and Israel-Iran too much, I believe Harris would be better that Trump. Harris, as I argued in my essay, offers a stark contrast in her stance on both Israel and Russia. She would advocate for peace, uphold our strengths, and genuinely protect our allies. Trump, by contrast, has signaled he would abandon our European allies in Ukraine and stoke tensions with Iran by backing aggressive actions by Israel. His close relationships with both Putin and Netanyahu raise real questions about his loyalty to American alliances and his capacity to prioritize our security.
In summary, while I acknowledge that a chaotic, bullying approach can be a powerful tool for an insecure or callous leader, it’s a dangerous and unsustainable style for a U.S. president. It threatens our unity, our institutions, and ultimately our standing in the world.
There is not one accurate fact in this rant. Pretty amazing, really. Your bubble will never call you out on this, which is nice for your self-confidence. Good luck with your brainwashed hate and bigotry.
Happy to discuss any point you find inaccurate. Thanks for reading.
There are way too many of them. And reality is, a lot of the things you state as rock solid facts are opinions, inaccuracies and misleading statements at best. Much of it is just bad faith editorialisation. But I’ll bite and just tackle one section (women’s rights)…
“Trump continued to demean Harris by accusing her of being sexually promiscuous, “
Yea, she had an affair with a married man.
“Trump has similarly insinuated that Harris is only successful because she performs fellacio on men”
Yes, see comment above about affair with married man (and then google who said married man was and how he’s relevant to Harris’ career). The focus on fellatio is proof of you completely missing the point he’s making.
“He is directly responsible for the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which has given conservatives the power to use the government to control what women do with their bodies in healthcare settings.”
No, it hasn’t given government such power. It removed this power at least with regard to abortion from the federal government, as the federal government had that power before (which you seem to ignore or conveniently forget). Bringing this back to the states isn’t giving the government any extra power (at the state level) than they should’ve had the whole time. This is evidenced by the states choosing to increase access to abortion. So no, it’s not flowing in one direction.
“
A woman’s fundamental right of individual liberty, to her own life, grants her the authority to terminate her pregnancy if she wishes. Restricting a woman’s right to choose whether to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is the same as denying her control over her own body. I have carried this belief with me throughout my entire adult life.”
Evidently, Trump’s own wife does not believe that he is a good advocate for women’s rights.”
What Melania says isn’t in contradiction with trump’s views on abortion. He’s against a ban and in favour of exclusions. You should read your friend Maxim’s opposing essay to see what trump’s stances are on this as otherwise you’re just making weak connections that don’t hold and seem disingenuous.
“Harris wants to keep the government out of women’s healthcare decisions. She will support a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body.”
I’m unsure but I think this is a type I error you’re making. When it comes to the government allowing abortion you don’t consider it as government meddling in healthcare. When it’s the government curtailing access to abortion (or even banning it) you consider that government meddling in healthcare. Or maybe it’s cognitive dissonance. Whatever it is these two are incongruent positions. It’s the equivalent of the NRA arguing that because 2A is law they have the right to nukes. Just because a technology exists (abortion) it doesn’t mean having the right to do it is the default position. Getting the right is also government meddling.
Furthermore, the debate over abortion isn’t about women’s bodies. Everyone but the most partisan hacks know this and don’t peddle this spin anymore. The debate over abortion is around at what stage do we as a society feel comfortable for a pregnancy to be aborted (i.e. when is it murder?). The only time it’s about the mother’s body is in the minority of cases where her health or life is at risk.
That’s a lot and that’s only for the women’s right section and just arguing about the fallacies in your facts or arguments. Never mind getting into opinion on whether the example given to women by Harris that ‘you should use men to climb to positions of power and call misogyny (or racism) if someone calls you to on it’ is better or worse than trump saying ‘ celebrities can grab women by the pussy’. We can argue which is better for women in the long run as an example after the low hanging of fruit if faulty discussion points is put to rest.
"Never mind getting into opinion on whether the example given to women by Harris that ‘you should use men to climb to positions of power and call misogyny (or racism) if someone calls you to on it'"
Let's discuss this first because that really is the heart of my contention. I do think it is a sexist trope to involve a woman's sex life in discussions about whether she is qualified for a job. You and Trump are saying that she does not deserve to be where she is, despite her stellar resume, track record of success, and overall career as a star prosecutor. Now, you may disagree with those points about her qualifications and that is the discussion we should have. But to involve her sex life in such a discussion, especially by saying she slept her way to the top and is otherwise unqualified, is one of the oldest types of misogynistic attacks one can use.
Ok back to the top, starting at the beginning of your post:
The Mayor of SF had been estranged from his wife for a decade, and their relationship was not a secret. It was not an affair or adultery. Trump is famously adulterous and a serial philanderer, as I said in my essay, so it's a bit galling to ignore Trump who is really is a cheater while shaming Harris.
He is open about having appointed her and all I can say is, welcome to city politics. Outside of moral questions about her character (and her character is much better than Trump’s) Harris' sex life is irrelevant to her qualifications for the job of President. Again, it is a tired ad hominem to bring a woman's sex life into a conversation about becoming President. Is she qualified for the job? That is the question that matters.
The federal government was the main thing standing in the way of states like Texas enacting an abortion ban with no exception for rape. Texas had an "estimated 26,313 rape-related pregnancies during the 16 months after Texas outlawed almost all abortions." https://www.abc13.com/amp/texas-abortion-law-no-exceptions-for-rape-rape-related-pregnancies-roe-v-wade-overturned/14359073/
Understand what that means: a woman who is raped in Texas must now suffer through a pregnancy inflicted on her against her will. The reason this pregnancy is inflicted on her is that the law of Texas prohibits doctors from providing relief. That is what I mean when I say that the repeal of roe vs wade has given conservatives the power to control a woman's body and her medical decisions. Some states may have increased access, but others have radically reduced access, leading to a patchwork of law across the country. There are now massive areas like Texas where women are less safe.
I didn't say Melania and Trump are in contradiction with each other. I said she doesn't think Trump is a good advocate for women's rights. That is my opinion.
It is not a Type I error. Government allowing is different from government disallowing. They are opposing categories. I don't agree with government disallowing access to abortion.
When the government allows us to have access to guns, this is not seen as government meddling. When the government increases access to voting, that is not seen as government meddling. When the federal government increases access to abortion by preventing states from making it harder to access, just as the federal government does regarding voting and guns, that increase in access to a basic right is not seen as government meddling.
"Furthermore, the debate over abortion isn’t about women’s bodies. Everyone but the most partisan hacks know this and don’t peddle this spin anymore."
I think the word for what you're doing here is Gatekeeping. You may not like discussing women's rights to control their body but that's what concerns the left. The word choice in "Pro Choice" refers to a woman's right to choose what she does with her body. It's in the name.
The pro life framing of the question as 'when is it murder' is a problem of vagueness and not decidable (decidibility in the technical philosophical sense). You can argue about that forever and never arrive at an answer because everyone has a different feeling or intuition about it. I have more to say but maybe this should be it's own essay...
Thanks for your comment!
It seems your partisanship or emotions are clouding your judgment and impacting your rationality.
It is not sexist or misogynistic to highlight that a woman owes her success to her sexual relationship with a man in position of power and who used said power to propel her career. The opposite of that wouldn’t be misandrist either.
If you want to read up on this point of sex and gender in politics as it relates to this and from a woman to boot:
https://open.substack.com/pub/fiamengofile/p/yes-kamala-harris-slept-with-a-powerful?r=k7sg9&utm_medium=ios
You misunderstand and assume I question her qualifications; I don’t. I’m highlighting how she get started in politics and while I wanted to focus on inaccuracies and not this point; you do, so I’ll also highlight that the message she sends based on how she got her start isn’t a positive one to young women, and definitely not good for whoever’s position she took by being appointed to jobs due to sleeping with the man she was sleeping with.
Speaking of the man she slept with. He wasn’t merely the mayor of SF or simply a city politician as you mildly state; he was probably the top power player in democratic California politics. Not sure if you just don’t know this or again are minimising his stature as it suits your position.
Also:
a·dul·ter·y
noun
1. voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse
But yes, fair enough, it was not an affair.
I agree with you that trump is all those things and maybe more. You can’t defend Kamala doing those things by saying trump is also those things. And he is those things and we agree they’re negative. So they should be treated as negative for her too. But the difference seems to be that he is those things and is successful politically despite them; while Kamala got her start in politics BECAUSE OF she was that way (i.e someone who’s sleep with a politically powerful adulterer to jumpstart her career). This is the broader point you’re missing and in regards to the message this sends.
“The federal government was the main thing standing in the way of states like Texas enacting an abortion ban with no exception for rape. “
Correct. This was because for 50 years there had been a 5-4 SCOTUS ruling that conflated abortion with a law on personal privacy. That should’ve never been the case and SCOTUS reverted it back. (Read the ruling from the court majority for details).
Now yes, if Texas decides that it wants Texan women to bear children against their will, that is the right of the Texas legislature to do it. Texans vote for their own representatives and they can eject those people. Also, anyone can stop being Texan completely if they feel their state is diverting from their deeply held values and beliefs.
“Some states may have increased access, but others have radically reduced access, leading to a patchwork of law across the country.”
Exactly. As I said, each state will decide for themselves. It should be a patchwork because New Yorkers have different values and beliefs than do Alabamans. This is what being a federated country of states means and why it works. No one is imposing on another.
“I don't agree with government disallowing access to abortion”
Fair enough. That’s an opinion. I don’t believe in the federal government legislating on abortion. And my personal opinion is it shouldn’t be allowed beyond 10 weeks. (And most Americans agree on a limit - something between 10 and 20 weeks).
“When the federal government increases access to abortion by preventing states from making it harder to access, just as the federal government does regarding voting and guns, that increase in access to a basic right is not seen as government meddling.”
You’re calling aborting babies a basic right. Come on! Even you can see through that right?! In case you can’t it’s not in the constitution like 2A is and SCOTUS doesn’t consider it a basic right so you’re wrong either way.
“I think the word for what you're doing here is Gatekeeping. You may not like discussing women's rights to control their body but that's what concerns the left. The word choice in "Pro Choice" refers to a woman's right to choose what she does with her body. It's in the name. “
Yes it’s in the name, but the name is disingenuous. Pro choice, reproductive rights, reproductive freedom, etc and all the emotionally driven language about women’s bodies are euphemisms for abortion. No one has ever tried to take away women’s freedom or right to reproduce or choose to reproduce; it’s ironic because abortion is the opposite of reproducing. No one is trying to tell a woman what she can’t do with her body. The argument is around what to do with a fetus or embryo and as I said where do we as a society draw the line (morally and legally) on when you can end a pregnancy. As I also said, it’s only the minority of cases where the mother’s health is at stake and this is about healthcare she requires. That’s why your framing of this is in bad faith; but you didn’t invent it so I get that you’re just following the lead others in your camp are telling you to follow.
“The pro life framing of the question as 'when is it murder' is a problem of vagueness and not decidable (decidibility in the technical philosophical sense). You can argue about that forever and never arrive at an answer because everyone has a different feeling or intuition about it.”
So because it’s hard to settle on answer we should just debate with euphemisms and make up shit? And of course it’s hard; we’re talking about defining where life and death begin/end. It should be a hard question!
We don’t have to argue forever; I stated earlier that something like 60-70% of Americans believe the cutoff should be somewhere under 20 weeks. I’ve seen surveys pointing this way when questions aren’t posed in a maximalist fashion. European countries (that liberals love highlighting when it suits them) typically fall in that range as well. In fact, while Roe was legal Europeans were more stringent than American law on abortion (e.g. 12 weeks in Germany/italy, 14 weeks in France/spain, and aside from UK/Netherlands all of Europe limits to 20 weeks or less).
So it’s not that hard after all it sounds like for the majority to settle roughly on this. At a state by state level it should be even easier as smaller populations. But this is all too inconvenient I’m sure.
I really appreciate your response. I know were just strangers on the internet but I definitely appreciate the effort your response took and you made great points. I read the article you linked to. Thanks for providing that. I learned a few things from it that I didn't know, and I think I understand your position better now.
One line from that article really stood out to me:
"It is almost inconceivable that Harris would have been appointed to the two board positions on her own merits. She moved ahead of better qualified and more worthy candidates, male and female, because she was involved with Brown. It’s also likely that her successful bid to become district attorney of San Francisco was in large part due to Brown’s influence in the city."
This is a good point. Is it true that Harris was not qualified for the job, though? I wish the author had discussed her qualifications more so that we could properly evaluate this claim. Do you know what her qualifications were or why they were lacking?
"You misunderstand and assume I question her qualifications; I don’t."
I guess I'm just curious what her qualifications were because if she was just some random person, then your contention that this is a nonsexist criticism of her career makes more sense to me. But if she was a lawyer with pertinent skills and experience, then I guess... it's kind of not a big deal to me relatively speaking. In absolute terms, I would prefer her to have not done that if she did, but relative to our current situation and what's at stake, I'm willing to add that to the list of her other detractions and move on. But that's me. I can see why others who are in the Trump camp such as yourself may not like that. And I take your point that she could be setting a bad example if indeed she wasn't qualified (a bad example for anyone, not just women). However, in fact she was qualified, then I do think sexism could still be involved. I'll say that this question remains open for me, so I'll look for info about it and please do share more if you know about her qualifications for that gig.
Thanks for the explanation and the link.
"I agree with you that trump is all those things and maybe more. You can’t defend Kamala doing those things by saying trump is also those things. And he is those things and we agree they’re negative. So they should be treated as negative for her too. But the difference seems to be that he is those things and is successful politically despite them; while Kamala got her start in politics BECAUSE OF she was that way (i.e someone who’s sleep with a politically powerful adulterer to jumpstart her career). This is the broader point you’re missing and in regards to the message this sends"
I really appreciate this expansion of your point. I think the key difference is one of emphasis. You say "and maybe more" about trump, while I say "yes definitely way more." For instance, I would say Trump got his career started in extremely morally dubious ways and I think Trump is a rapist, which is or should be disqualifying. That difference in the appraisal of how bad the two candidates are on this point is probably where we disagree. I just think Trump is way worse. But if you don't, then I can see why you come to the conclusions you do.
I think the rest of your points are well put, but it's just an 'agree to disagree' situation with no bad intention. Your opinions make sense given your beliefs and intuitions. I just think we have different intuitions, and we place different emphasis on different values.
For instance, we both acknowledge the life of the mother is important to protect, but I see it as crucial to the abortion debate given the statistics I mentioned, whereas you see it as a minor sideshow given the statistics you mentioned. That's just a straight up difference in values.
Similarly, I don’t really think of the mother-fetus organism the same way, where there is this discreet temporal moment when a fetus becomes a thing that has rights that then supercede the mother's rights (hope I'm not putting words in your mouth). I think it's not really possible to say there is a discreet moment like that. This is what I meant by decidibility: it's not that it's hard; it's impossible. The impossibility comes from the vagueness of the problem. But you have a different intuition about that.
We are coming from very different value systems and with very different intuitions, but I think we had a good discussion and I learned a few things. You've given me a lot to think about and I appreciate your responses. If I write something longer on this topic, I'd be glad to hear your thoughts.
Glad you took the time to read the reply and link. I’ll keep this one shorter.
“I'm willing to add that to the list of her other detractions and move on. But that's me. I can see why others who are in the Trump camp such as yourself may not like that. “
Fair enough but you should also have defined in advance what the threshold is for when the negatives outweigh the positives and you’d presumably stop supporting her. This is for all of us to do in advance for everyone we support. Decide in advance what you’d have to see your guy or party do that’s so bad for you that you’d switch allegiance. Basically what is the red line. That way it keeps you honest. I can’t remember who I stole that concept from.
And I wouldn’t say I’m in the trump camp. I don’t really like him. I do think democrats have worse policies on the economy and society in general, so there’s that. But no I don’t think much of him. He gets too much credit, mostly due to his detractors showering him with so much attention and undue influence. He just put his finger on a couple major issues of our time; that’s it. He doesn’t know what to do about them.
I don’t think we ever discussed a fetus superseding a mother’s rights explicitly - not sure if it’s superseding if it’s allowing it to live. That’s why there’s a timeframe to decide by.
On the abortion point I think you overcomplicate the issue and it feels like twist yourself up in knots when you talk about a “discreet temporal moment” and vagueness or decidability. The whole thing boils down to at what point do we legally allow pregnancies to be ended (whether never or 5 weeks or 15 or 25 or anytime). And that threshold is informed by our values and morals. At what stage do we feel morally ok to allow this. And as you justly highlighted our values differ, which precisely validates why a state by state patchwork approach makes sense. A couple of states have banned it and a few others have gone the opposite way with increasing access. Everyone settles on the point where they can sleep soundly at night and not feel like they’re committing state sanctioned murder. The philosophy and ethics around it are fine but it’s all in service of figuring out practically where we draw the legal line.
And over time (years and decades) mass opinion might change and states accordingly revise their laws. (I mean the whole reason roe was overturned was because over 50 years the opinion overall in US shifted against it enough to get that done)
And as I highlighted other developed nations which are broadly culturally western and similar have made decisions on this and they’re not having the rabid controversy that Americans are. It’s the maximalist positioning that politicians approach voters with that’s the culprit on this. Most people as I said are much more moderate than the political parties are on this, but that’s the system - it’s not perfect, just really good.
I’d be happy to read anything else you write on this; I have trouble mincing words though!
That a discussion about who among strikingly weak candidates should rule the free world now revolves around fellatio will astound historians…
True. To add some more pessimism, it’ll only astound them if we get back to having normal politics. If it degrades further they may not be interested in it.
"I really do think" is the difference between fact and opinion. Your telepathic guess about Trump's "real" intentions is 100% subjective opinion. There is no causal relationship between the few facts in the piece and the unproven intent of the politicians involved. I suspect that Kamala loves it when Trump insults her so she can plan the victim card, yet again. That is my opinion, and it stems from years of Kamala building her profile by playing the race/gender/identity victim card, but it is not hard news. The only fact is that I am aware my opinions are not facts.
"Inaccurate" is an oxymoron, regarding the claims you make in your article: you are expressing your opinions as if they were proven facts. The massive difference between your opinion of Trump's motives, goals, and the actions he has been accused of, and provable facts, defines your article. Facts are verifiable and testable. Nobody in your bubble has even attempted to prove any of it.
There are some inaccuracies, in verifiable statements that you never verified. Trump never said he "likes to grab them by the pussy." He said that, when someone is famous enough, they can grab women and the women let them.
Trump was not in the United States of America, much less New York, when the alleged rape took place in New York.
Trump was not convicted of rape or sexual assault in a civil court. Civil courts do not determine criminal guilt. He was found liable for slander, by claiming he was innocent and the woman, who Trump has never met, accused him of. She also said, "getting raped (in a department store)" is "every woman's dream."
Zero people were seriously injured or killed by protesters, even the few who admit to minuscule acts of violence, on 1/6. The worst act of violence I can find, from a protester, was throwing "a spear without a point," (a stick) at a police man and doing zero damage. Zero policemen were checking into the hospital on 1/6. That is a fact. See the difference.
Only one court looked at evidence of fraud from the 2020 election. Wisconsin Supreme court ruled, 4-3 with a scathing dissent, not to throw out the election and have a new one.
I am of the opinion that use of the word "insurrection," about the actions of MAGA protesters on 1/6 is a left wing projection hoax: they are hysterical about smearing someone else with the exact same war on civil rights, freedom, and democracy which they accuse their target. That is my opinion on the intent behind their smear campaign. I can not prove that the left is guilty of evil intent, because crimes of intent are difficult to prove. See the difference?
So, if you are trying to persuade readers that your opinions are facts, you may have some support from people who already share your opinions, but I doubt you will persuade anyone to change their minds on anything.
Still happy?
Thanks for your reply. I am stating my opinion and backing my opinion with facts. I have provided citations for those facts. This is a common way in which op eds are written. I could have used the first person singular to help readers discern my opinion from cited facts. I will consider that for future op Ed's.
You are right that Trump did not explicitly state that he likes grabbing women. However, I think one can reasonably surmise from the fact that he was having a jovial conversation (spun as "locker room talk") that Trump was at least positively impressed by the idea that sexual assault of that sort is possible to get away with when famous. If we are going to play the game of sussing out 'what Trump actually meant to say' then I don't think it is unreasonable to guess that Trump was expressing positive sentiment about grabbing women. That is why I framed his statement the way I did.
As for whether Trump was convicted of rape or not, please see the source I cited, specifically this section:
"The jury's unanimous verdict in Carroll II was almost entirely in favor of Ms. Carroll. The only point on which Ms. Carroll did not prevail was whether she had proved that Mr. Trump had “raped” her within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law – a section that provides that the label “rape” as used in criminal prosecutions in New York applies only to vaginal penetration by a penis. Forcible, unconsented-to penetration of the vagina or of other bodily orifices by fingers, other body parts, or other articles or materials is not called “rape” under the New York Penal Law. It instead is labeled “sexual abuse.”1 As is shown in the following notes, the definition of rape in the New York Penal Law is far narrower than the meaning of “rape” in common modern parlance, its definition in some dictionaries,2 in some federal and state criminal statutes,3 and elsewhere.4 The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was “raped” within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump “raped” her as many people commonly understand the word “rape.” Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that."
Please provide a source for that quote by Carroll. Implying that such a statement somehow justifies a rape is not a good argument.
Regarding your claims about January 6th, I would encourage you to watch the videos of the event if you haven't seen them yet. I tend to believe what I see, and what I saw that day was violence. At the very least, the pushing, shoving, swinging and throwing of projectiles, weilding of weapons and shields, and physical altercations in general on Jan 6 were uncharacteristic of nonviolent political actions, historically. Most nonviolent political actions do not include those kinds of tactics. If you disagree, please explain why the video evidence of the violence happening are so often misunderstood by common viewers like myself.
Thanks for sharing your opinions. I respectfully disagree, and I encourage you to take liberals and leftists at their word when they make claims about Jan 6 being an insurrection. I can honestly report that the liberals and leftists I know share my views broadly. There is no hoax or attempt to deceive. I could easily say the same thing about the right. I could say that the right projects onto the left about election meddling when in fact the right is interfering with elections (see Trump's fake electors plot, Trump's phone asking to find votes in georgia, the recent revelations about Giuliani's election meddling, the many Republicans who have been caught in voter fraud schemes over the years, etc.). But this would not be productive because it is too easy to accuse the other side of projection. The truth is that the other side is not projecting. The truth is that the other side believes what they are saying, and to argue against the other side well, it is prudent to take them at face value.
Thanks again for reading and leaving your comments.
You are not “backing (your) opinion with facts.” There are, literally no facts in your post. It’s almost incredible. Please find me one salient fact, and I will apologize.
You are attempting to “prove” you opinions are facts, by citing the opinions and interpretation of others who believe the narrative they are given as readily as you do. Left wing, post-democracy fascists believe what they are saying…because they are protected from reality.. They call Trump a liar, but they do not even try to prove that Trump has ever lied. They pretend that an exaggeration or an understatement is a glaring lie, but you have no idea what Trump believed at the time. Maybe Trump was shocked that women let famous men grab them by the genitals. Maybe lots of things. It is very hard to prove state of mind or “true intent.” You have not even offered an argument or attempted a proof of anything.
There are Thousands of hours of footage which were kept buried for years about 1/6. Almost of that footage was peaceful and much of it showed officers peacefully opening doors for protesters. The brief moments of violence, much of it in self-defense, was all released to the main stream media. Officers inviting them in…on orders from who? Crickets.
You were shown a sliver of the story and anyone who disagrees with you is an insurrectionist. I suspect you believed the “fine people hoax” because you saw Trump say “good people on both sides.” That video was also cropped to hide the fact that President Trump fully denounced all white supremacists and hate groups three separate times. You can not “reasonably surmise” anything when you only have a sliver of the story.
I am not interested in the style of your line of discourse about opinions and facts. You are being uncharitable to me. I can't really discuss jan 6th or any other topic further with you unless you are willing to be a more charitable debater. It would be a waste of time for both of us.
If you want to discuss how opinion articles like mine and Maxim's are written, where arguments are built on premises, that could be an interesting conversation. The first section of my essay about the economy is structured as an syllogism, for instance.
No apology needed. Thanks.
Uncharitable? What gift were you looking for? Reading this article is subject to the premise that your opinions are facts? Assuming you believe none of this and are just presenting one perspective? "Not interested in the style" is almost certainly cognitive dissonance: you can not structure an argument to refute anything or persuade, so you get defensive and call me names.
You can apologize now. Thanks.
I can see there may have been some misunderstandings, so let me clarify my intentions. When I mentioned "uncharitable," I didn’t mean to imply I was looking for special treatment—just that I hoped we could both approach each other’s arguments with a bit more generosity and openness. My goal is not to assume agreement but to explore ideas constructively, where each person genuinely considers the other's perspective.
Regarding cognitive dissonance, I can see how my choice of words might come across as defensive, but I assure you that wasn’t my intention. My point about not engaging with certain topics further was more about finding common ground to have a meaningful dialogue, especially around the structure of arguments and the role of premises and logic, which I find fascinating and worthwhile to discuss.
If I came across as dismissive, that wasn't my intent, and I apologize for that. Let’s focus on where we can have an enriching conversation if you're open to it.
Thanks.
By what standard do you define "seriously injured"? Page 8 of this report by the US government accountability office lists 114 police officers as suffering injuries on page 8.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/d22104829.pdf
This article from The Atlantic says that 60 officers were injured, and 15 were hospitalized.
https://www.ajc.com/news/breaking-2-capitol-hill-police-officers-suspended-over-riot/XHWWHNA7EZHSNF32QREJROESQI/
Where did you hear there were no serious injuries?
No police officers, or government officials, were hospitalized and held overnight or returned later to the hospital for injuries sustained on 1/6. That is a fact. All of their “violent crimes” were alleged crimes of evil intent, and nobody even tried to prove their intent. They just smeared them and buried them in litigation and threats and smears.
As for your '“data,” which agency is lying, the US government accountability office and/or The Atlantic monthly with its consistent agenda?
Rioting is violent.
Pretty Orwellian. Who labled it a "riot?"
That article was published on January 11, 2021 when reports were still coming in. The GAO report was written the following year. It would be surprising if they matched. You may not have noticed that since you didn't look at the article to see that it was from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, not the Atlantic.
Also on January 11, 2021, the D.C. police said "that one District officer remained hospitalized," see here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/police-capitol-injuires-trump/2021/01/11/ca68e3e2-5438-11eb-a08b-f1381ef3d207_story.html
Of course, none of this makes sense of the idea that the distinguishing factor to determine whether or not the event was violent is whether or not someone was admitted as an inpatient or just treated in the emergency room.
From a cursory google search, at least 1 police officer was hospitalized. Do you think NBC made this guy up?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/police-officer-injured-capitol-riot-heckled-jan-6-committee-hearing-rcna39627
On the topic of crimes, you can read the indictment of Enrique Tarrio and the other Proud Boys below. It details how the five defendants, along with several dozen other Proud Boys, were in a group chat well in advance of the event planning to storm the capital and cause a "revolution". I think that spending weeks planning to do something with several other people, and then doing that thing, is pretty strong evidence of intent.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/press-release/file/1510791/dl?inline
One officer went to the hospital and was released that night. Nobody, was charged with insurrection. Even the TDS DOJ couldn’t sell an insurrection to hand picked hate trump judges. None of the protesters brought any deadly weapons. You are pitching a consensus argument: if all of the court cases charged the same thing, it must be true. Instead they destroyed lives and drove people to suicide for nothing. You have been lied to. The opinions of people who agree with you are not data points in a causal argument.
If your argument is specifically that nobody was hospitalized AND held overnight, sure, that's my bad for not reading more carefully. Personally, I'm unsure what that should change in terms of our evaluation. The problem with January 6th isn't that the protestors injured a bunch of people.
I don't know when deadly weapons came up? Did I say that?
I'm not pitching a consensus argument, my argument is the content of the indictment, which indicates that the protestors planned in advance to break into the capital and stop the certification of the election. Do you agree or disagree that the content of the indictment says this?
Your argument is an accusation of thought crime: planning an insurrection while not having enough evidence to change anyone with "insurrection?" There is no evidence of what the protesters planned before, because there was no official organization or organized plan.
If the election was rigged, then this peaceful protest was part of the democratic process. It was also democratic to protest if they only believed the eleciton was rigged. The fascist left never tried to prove anything was fair, they just called it "most fair election ever" and prosecuted anyone who disagreed. That is fascism.
Please prove that the police were not more violent towards the peaceful protesters than they one or two protesters who slightly injured police in self-defense. The police intended to injure protesters until a few protesters responded violently. There's a premise. Prove that premise true or false, pls.
Also, apology accepted.
I believe the inflation numbers you referenced may not be accurate. Could you clarify your source? For context, inflation peaked at 9.1% in June 2022. While the annual average would naturally be lower, it still seems higher than what was indicated. Should the economic issues in June 2022 and beyond be attributed to COVID-19, or to the administration’s policies? Furthermore, how are we to trust that the same administration responsible for the surge in grocery prices can effectively resolve the issue?
Additionally, a key concern with Vice President Harris is the apparent contradiction in her statements regarding President Biden's cognitive state. Either she has misled the American public about his mental condition, or she is unaware of what many others perceive. How can we trust her capacity to handle complex foreign policy discussions if she cannot accurately assess the President's cognitive health?
My source for inflation numbers: https://www.morningstar.com/economy/why-we-expect-inflation-fall-2024
I tend to think of Trump as responsible for inflation because he began the policy of giving out covid relief checks (I have a check with his signature on it), and he didn't do much to raise wages or prevent corporations from increasing prices at point of sale for consumers. That being said, if we are ok with attributing the economic turmoil in the last year of Trump’s presidency to the pandemic instead of Trump’s administration, then for consistency, we should be ok with attributing the increased grocery prices to the pandemic instead of Biden's administration as well. Biden's economy is strong, and I believe Harris has a good plan for reducing grocery price increases, which she has laid out in a dossier I mentioned, while Trump’s tariffs will certainly only cause prices to go up.
Regarding Biden's cognition, I am under the impression that Harris' assessment of Biden's abilities was broadly similar to the assessments made by the rest of the Democrats who surround Biden, much the way Mike Pence's assessment of Trump's cognition was broadly similar to the other Republican's assessments of Trump. Most likely, the VPs are acting as loyal supporters of their leaders. The upshot is that the Democrats were flexible enough to have the hard conversation about Biden's cognition eventually and swap Biden out for someone much sharper. I would like to see a similar conversation about Trump's cognitive and psychological problems happen on the right.
Good timing on this topic for the NBC interview: https://x.com/i/status/1848862474847830238
She continues to look weak and dishonest about this issue. She can't honestly answer the question or he'd be up for removal under the 25th amendment.
I'm all for removing Biden from the presidency immediately, for the record. I think Harris should be president now.
I think the right needs to move on from Biden. Bringing up biden again is not a good move when Trump is at the top of the ticket because it reminds everyone that Trump is also an old deranged narcissist. It's the pot calling the kettle black. Even if she was somehow wrong about Biden (which, as I said previously, she was probably just being a good VP and refraining from criticising the POTUS) Harris is clearly a better option than both of Trump and Biden.
I don't like the response of Harris did it, because Trump did it. That's just not valid or fair. If you have both Trump and Biden on stage or in an interview, there is absolutely no comparison. I'm not saying Trump isn't old and mistake prone, but he's clearly not suffering from anything other than old age and stupidity. 2 wrongs don't make it right, Sean!
I think you need to focus more of your argument on Fuel/Energy. Given the other article I posted and the impact on inflation, why is fuel still so costly given the production increases?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/265215/us-oil-production-in-million-metric-tons/
The D's don't spend enough time pushing this point and that could be mostly due to the fact that pre-Biden we paid $2/gallon at the pump and now it's over $3. It's hard to argue what most Americans deal with 1x or 2x a week. I'm not sure why it's still so high, but I don't get paid to figure that stuff out.
I think Trump is indeed suffering from pathological psychological problems, such as narcissistic personality disorder, which I discussed. He may also be showing early signs of dementia. So we disagree that Trump "is clearly not suffering from anything other than old age and stupidity." The right wing was very excited to talk about Biden's problems, but seems unwilling to acknowledge the deeply troubling aspects of Trump’s psychology and cognition.
As for energy... that's a completely different topic for which I could write an entirely separate essay. The start of a discussion about energy, for me, centers on the acknowledgement of climate change and the right wing's lack of support for renewables, specifically the House Republicans killing of the infrastructure bill that would have promoted American energy independence via renewable energy tech. Once that is out of the way, we could begin to discuss how oil prices affect consumer prices and solutions for that dynamic. That's a big discussion.
People are happy to attribute 18% unemployment under Trump to COVID. What is good for the goose is good for gander.
Well it wasn't 18%, it peaked at 14.8. The issue with this argument is the timeframe of 3 years before covid, Trump's unemployment numbers are impeccable. Once covid lockdown's ended, unemployment goes back to normal and outside of 2022 has looked pretty good across both administrations. Inflation however, is directly attributable to numerous factors such as interest rates, free college tuition, gas prices, ukraine ware, Israeli war, etc. These issues are all stemming from policies of the democrat party.
Another interesting take on this is to review unemployment data by state. The top 5 highest rates are D-lead states while the bottom 5 (best unemployment) are R-lead states.
Enjoy this study: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/second-round-effects-of-oil-prices-on-inflation-in-the-advanced-foreign-economies-20231215.html
I agree that unemployment looks good across both administrations. But I think that blaming inflation on Democrats alone is not accurate. After all, Trump signed the bipartisan CARES act in 2020 that pumped $2.2 Trillion into the economy. That needs to be taken into account when discussing inflation in recent years.
Regarding unemployment at the state level, correlation does not imply causation, and whether a state is run by democrats or Republicans is not clearly related to unemployment. You'd have to do a bit more leg work to make that connection. For instance, you'd have to explain why Nevada has a high unemployment rate but is led Republicans. While it's true that California and New York have high unemployment, while New Hamphire and Idaho have low unemployment, the size and composition of the economies of all of those states are completely different. So I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'm not sure you are correct. More work needs to be done to make that argument.
yeah, that's a fair point on causation aspect, but then we shouldn't bother to talk about who gets credit for it at the Fed level then either. All of these issues are incredible complex and nuanced and they cherry pick points of time to reflect which party gets to take credit for anything. Most of the public will never understand the details. I'm no economist and won't pretend to be one!
Yes. I think we probably agree more than we disagree. Cheers.
In as much as inflation was a worldwide problem, it makes a lot more sense to attribute inflation to an after effect of covid-19 (and fiscal stimulus enacted in 2020) than to Biden's policies...
To be fair, there was some Ukraine war component to inflation in 2022 that could potentially be attributed to Biden, if you think he should have instead negotiated a rapid end to the war, or if you have some belief that Trump can prevent all wars as long as he is in office.
Not Covid Related: https://www.crfb.org/blogs/student-debt-changes-would-boost-inflation
https://www.richmondfed.org/research/national_economy/macro_minute/2022/mm_10_11_22
Per CNBC: "Either way, canceling student debt only “addresses the symptom, rather than the cause of student debt,” she says. “This doesn’t do anything to encourage colleges to help restrain costs and limit the amount of debt that students are coming out with in college.”"
There's certainly a valid debate to be had about whether student loan cancellation is fair, whether we should reduce college costs instead, or whether college is overrated in general in terms of how well it prepares you for work.
That said, blaming inflation on Biden's student loan policies is ridiculous and innumerate.
It looks like BIden has cancelled a total of 153 billion dollars in student loans:
https://www.statista.com/chart/32091/total-us-federal-student-loans-and-amount-cancelled/
That's a small number relative to government spending. The federal budget is 6 trillion dollars. The national debt is 33 trillion dollars. The US spent a trillion dollars on the war in Iraq and about 6 trillion on covid (mostly under Trump).
It's also unclear what immediate effect cancelling student debt has on spending -- are students more likely to spend that extra income, relative to the bondholders who would receive it? That's likely less inflationary than, say, just writing people checks during the pandemic (Trump policy) or dropping interest rates very low so people bid up houses and stocks (also a Trump policy).
https://www.richmondfed.org/research/national_economy/macro_minute/2022/mm_10_11_22
these folks disagree with you and they seem to have a pretty good handle on the topic. It's never 1 thing, it's the cumulative effect of all the things.
"However, at the same time, this is also likely to be inflationary. Expectation of additional debt forgiveness programs evokes a moral hazard incentive for college students to take out more loans and for universities to increase tuition rates.1 To the extent that inflation is inherently persistent, any initial price level increase would also lead to sustained inflation over the near future. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that the Fed will need to raise rates by an additional 50 to 75 basis points to counteract the Biden debt cancellation proposal."
If the basis adjustment occurs, what is the impact on the economy and inflation? What is the impact on the cost of college and that increase has what impact on the economy?
Just because it's a small % of the overall bucket doesn't make it good. It still in an unnecessary program that impacts the economy and has ripple effects. 40% of the student debt is for Grad school, something that the Fed govt has no business being involved with. Those folks should deal with the consequences of their decisions and not put that burden to the American taxpayer.
Your first link (from CFRB) said that student loan reduction would raise inflation by 0.15%-0.20%, if Biden got his full 500 billion plan, which he did not. So he got less than a third of that, perhaps you can say that it would have had a 0.05% inflationary effect.
Meanwhile, actual inflation peaked at 9%. 0.05% is a tiny fraction of that. That's because you're ignoring much larger sources of spending (primarily fiscal stimulus and spending during the pandemic).
You could also play the same game with literally any federal spending and with any tax cut, and call that inflationary. Trump added 8 trillion to the national debt:
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-did-president-trump-add-debt
Any line item of his excess spending and unfunded tax cuts are also inflationary. He's not planning to run a balanced budget. And he's proposing tariffs on just about everything, which will raise prices on just about everything.
The fact that you decided to hone in on a tiny fraction of government spending likely says more about you, and what you are resentful of, than it does on any rational analysis of government spending and fiscal policy.
Are you angry that you paid for college and you think other people are going to get something for free? Did you not go to college, and look down on people who did? If so, just say that stuff makes you angry, don't give some bogus argument that a small amount of student loan relief has much effect relative to massive amounts of overspending.
But you are ignoring the fact that the courts said he can't do it. Every time he turns around, he's increasing the budget and putting more groups into this plan. That's why I'm not mentioning anything else, those weren't deemed to be illegal or outside the scope of Fed Govt! If you feel i'm too narrowly focused on this, you are too broad!
Yes I am resentful that my tax dollars and plenty of others, are paying for the poor choices of others. This lesson is not taught in my household but now and entire new generation (see 2008 housing crisis) is learning they won't be held personally responsible and their choices might have consequences. There are people in this country that truly need support, and these programs do nothing for them. It's vote bribe and that's it.
My kid is in college today, she's receive nothing in relief, she's paying full price and meanwhile my taxes are paying for others that have no right to this money - as decided by the highest court in the land!
Why talk about any other program, if we can't agree that this program is a waste of tax dollars, illegal, and unnecessary at the federal level? Once you agree that this stupid, then we can talk about other spending.
Here's a perfect one to start with. Yeah, I know it's small, but the best way to start making a dent is to kill off all this stupid BS that the Fed Govt has no business being involved in!
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/feb/20/mark-neumann/uncle-sam-spends-six-figures-study-coked-birds-cop/
I agree Trump's tariffs would be a terrible idea. But what was the "disaster" caused by the tax cuts he signed?
Trump's tax cut directly hurt the middle class while benefiting the wealthy. First, the tax cuts for middle class and lower income individuals is temporary and will end next year, but tax cuts for the wealthy are permanent. Second, the rate cut for top earners from 39.6% to 37% meant they saved many thousands and even millions of dollars while low income owners had very modest savings, so the trump tax cuts benefited the wealthy in real dollar terms. Third, Trump gave corporations a massive tax cut from 35% to 21% which benefits stockholders and corporate owners (aka wealthy people). Fourth, trump doubled the estate tax exemption so wealthy people can hoard twice as much money across generations. Fifth, pass through high deductions went up, which benefits wealthy business owners.
Finally, the trump tax cuts did all this great stuff for wealthy people while adding 1.9 Trillion to the national debt over a decade. It is an absolute disaster for the working class and lower classes. Trump robbed us and facilitated one of the greatest transfers of wealth to upper classes in history.
So the disaster is the increase in the national debt?
Tax cuts didn't transfer wealth to the upper class. They just reduced the amount transferred FROM them.