I've been eager to read more sober election analyses, looking at policies, and I appreciate this effort to write one.
That said, I couldn't stop laughing when your first point in favor of Trump was, "preserving US institutions". Trump is the guy who, because he didn't like an election outcome, called Georgia officials and tried to pressur…
I've been eager to read more sober election analyses, looking at policies, and I appreciate this effort to write one.
That said, I couldn't stop laughing when your first point in favor of Trump was, "preserving US institutions". Trump is the guy who, because he didn't like an election outcome, called Georgia officials and tried to pressure them to just find more votes. He hatched a plan to send alternate slates of electors for each swing state, and for Pence to choose his electors over the ones that voters had actually selected. Those are blatant attempts to subvert our institutions. And many of those actions are likely illegal, as well. But Trump hasn't been tried, in part because his packed supreme court has helped delay action and reduce the ability for him to face any consequences for his actions.
Suppose that his plan had worked, somehow. Would the new precedent be that both sides always just send their own slates of electors in every election and we fight over which ones are chosen? Would the vice president always just choose who wins? Wouldn't that just lead to permanent single party rule? Do you think Kamala could just certify her own victory this year, regardless of the vote?
You said that Kamala is a threat because she at one point agreed with some proposal to enlarge the supreme court. She can't unilaterally do that. If you're going to hold candidates to everything they've proposed, you're going to have to answer for tons of crazy things Trump has proposed. For instance you have to say that Trump's immigration policy is "mass deportation of every illegal immigrant in the country", rather than the more moderate changes you described. You'd have to say that his trade policy is huge tariffs on everything.
In contrast to this hypothetical court packing that you fear, Republicans already did abuse the rules to boost their supreme court margins, by refusing to appoint a justice in the last year of Obama's presidency and then appointing a justice in the last year of Trump's.
I am sympathetic to a number of your other points. I'm generally not in support of DEI programs. I don't think of myself as woke, though it does seem like wokeness spiked more in 2017-2020 than in the last 4 years. It's quite possible that the left will go crazier under a 2nd Trump term than under a Harris presidency. It's possible that Trump's foreign policy would be better, and that would be worthy of a lot more debate. Deregulation might be a good thing, that's probably case by case basis. Crime is bad, and it spiked in 2020. I voted Republican for many local offices because of that, but I don't think that Trump has much effect on local policing (and, of course, he presided over the increase in crime while Biden presided over the subsequent decline). Censorship is bad, but neutrality is hard to achieve (I initially supported Elon buying Twitter in the hopes it would bring more free speech, but in the end he just boosted his own content, started censoring the other side, and is now trying to influence an election).
If Republicans could field a candidate that supported reasonable right wing policies, without Trump's personality, his ceaseless lying, grifting, and sometimes outright criminality, I'd be open to voting for that candidate. But it's hard for me to vote for him, as is, and it's hard to take his supporters seriously, when they are willing to casually overlook those problems.
Sorry if you’re going to purity spiral over one guy for some reason when all major politicians are dishonest liars including Harris, Obama, Walz, Clintons then you clearly won’t vote for anyone who is opposed to the establishment because in your mind the establishment defines who is an “unreasonable” liar vs reasonable one.
I've been eager to read more sober election analyses, looking at policies, and I appreciate this effort to write one.
That said, I couldn't stop laughing when your first point in favor of Trump was, "preserving US institutions". Trump is the guy who, because he didn't like an election outcome, called Georgia officials and tried to pressure them to just find more votes. He hatched a plan to send alternate slates of electors for each swing state, and for Pence to choose his electors over the ones that voters had actually selected. Those are blatant attempts to subvert our institutions. And many of those actions are likely illegal, as well. But Trump hasn't been tried, in part because his packed supreme court has helped delay action and reduce the ability for him to face any consequences for his actions.
Suppose that his plan had worked, somehow. Would the new precedent be that both sides always just send their own slates of electors in every election and we fight over which ones are chosen? Would the vice president always just choose who wins? Wouldn't that just lead to permanent single party rule? Do you think Kamala could just certify her own victory this year, regardless of the vote?
You said that Kamala is a threat because she at one point agreed with some proposal to enlarge the supreme court. She can't unilaterally do that. If you're going to hold candidates to everything they've proposed, you're going to have to answer for tons of crazy things Trump has proposed. For instance you have to say that Trump's immigration policy is "mass deportation of every illegal immigrant in the country", rather than the more moderate changes you described. You'd have to say that his trade policy is huge tariffs on everything.
In contrast to this hypothetical court packing that you fear, Republicans already did abuse the rules to boost their supreme court margins, by refusing to appoint a justice in the last year of Obama's presidency and then appointing a justice in the last year of Trump's.
I am sympathetic to a number of your other points. I'm generally not in support of DEI programs. I don't think of myself as woke, though it does seem like wokeness spiked more in 2017-2020 than in the last 4 years. It's quite possible that the left will go crazier under a 2nd Trump term than under a Harris presidency. It's possible that Trump's foreign policy would be better, and that would be worthy of a lot more debate. Deregulation might be a good thing, that's probably case by case basis. Crime is bad, and it spiked in 2020. I voted Republican for many local offices because of that, but I don't think that Trump has much effect on local policing (and, of course, he presided over the increase in crime while Biden presided over the subsequent decline). Censorship is bad, but neutrality is hard to achieve (I initially supported Elon buying Twitter in the hopes it would bring more free speech, but in the end he just boosted his own content, started censoring the other side, and is now trying to influence an election).
If Republicans could field a candidate that supported reasonable right wing policies, without Trump's personality, his ceaseless lying, grifting, and sometimes outright criminality, I'd be open to voting for that candidate. But it's hard for me to vote for him, as is, and it's hard to take his supporters seriously, when they are willing to casually overlook those problems.
Sorry if you’re going to purity spiral over one guy for some reason when all major politicians are dishonest liars including Harris, Obama, Walz, Clintons then you clearly won’t vote for anyone who is opposed to the establishment because in your mind the establishment defines who is an “unreasonable” liar vs reasonable one.
Sounds like you have Harris derangement syndrome.
Harris isn’t anything special. Just another establishment Democrat. Pretty typical