IkePoR said:
Would you look at that - more Trump derangement. You know, for people who hate "sandwich A" so much, you sure do like talking about it. |
Honestly, this is such an obvious bad faith statement that it should disqualify you from any further conversation. Discussing one of the candidates for the presidency in a topic in a topic about US politics is a perfectly sane thing for a United States citizen to do. You've spent far more time trying to explain why people shouldn't vote for Kamala, and you don't even go here.
You are resorting to the Trump derangement argument because it allows you to dismiss criticism without actually addressing it. If you can't come up with a better response than "oh well you're crazy" why should anyone waste their time on you? Pure ad hominem attack.
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this one time. And, I'll even go through the rest of this post without saying anything negative about Trump. Because the specific details aren't important as your argument is not valid. Even if everything you said was true, it would not lead to the conclusion you're claiming.
https://courses.umass.edu/phil110-gmh/text/c01.pdf
Now, back to my statement: I've found it difficult to meet one American that says they're having a better time over the last four years verses the prior four. You didn't address this, many leftists don't either.  When I ask why they'd vote for Kamala, there's lots of platitudes(check) and diverting(check), before finally falling on "Trump's just x."(check) No policy they like or often even know about the candidate chosen for them, no honest fandom for their candidate, no moral reasoning for their candidate. They just hate the other guy.(check, check, check) I see this continues to be the case on these forums. How disappointing. |
First off, I specifically said I would give you my reasons for supporting Kamala beyond Trump's negatives if you gave your reasons why one should support Trump. Unsurprisingly you declined the opportunity, because if you do not have good reasons it's much easier to demand others explain theirs than to actually give yours. Which is your entire point I think. So, more hypocrisy.
Again, I'm perfectly willing to defend my support of Kamala, but only if it a fair game where we are both defending our positions. The burden of proof should be even in this scenario.
As for why leftists won't address that, I will happily explain.
There is simply no reason anyone should care about your anecdotal evidence. It's quite possible that you are just an incompetent person who is having trouble finding something that should be easy to find. I don't know how you're getting your results, so I can't possibly explain them. Plus, I don't actually know that these people didn't give a perfectly good response. I just have your word, and considering the consistent dishonesty you've shown here, that doesn't mean much to me.
So, I don't know how anybody could be reasonably asked to explain things you say you heard from people we have never met and cannot talk to. Really, all I have to say is, "well lots of Americans I know are better off than they were four years ago." That is my honest experience, and I've provided just as much evidence as you have. So, we're kind of at a stalement then, aren't we?
What we would then want to do is try to find some actual data. When we do, we find your results are wildly inconsistent with research companies that actually poll these sorts of things. For example, the financial times found that among democrats, who are obviously likely to be the ones you are talking about supporting Harris, about 24% of people say they are better off under Biden than they were under Trump, whereas about 31% say they are worse off. The remaining 45% feel that their personal situation is largely unchanged. (note this refers only to finances, which is the area where government policy would be most directly relevant. I have not found reliable polls asking just generally if people are better off.)
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article281792688.html
This is consistent with other polls. For example, a poll specifically among 18-24 year olds found that 39% of people disagree with the statement "I am better off financially than I was four years ago", 29% agree, and the the remaining third or so neither agree nor disagree.
Another poll found that 24% of people said that they were better off than they were four years ago and 41% feel they are worse off.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/better-off-were-four-years-150219429.html?guccounter=1
Now, before you change the subject, I am aware that the number of people who say they are worse off is higher, but that's not relevant to your claim. You claimed that it was hard to find a single American who said they were better off than they were four years ago. Yet, the data shows that there is a not insignificant amount of people who do feel they are better off. Conservatively, we could say it's at least 10% and possibly around 25%. And specifically among people voting for Harris, the ones you're talking about, it should be at least about 1 in 4. About the chance of drawing a Spade from a deck of cards. Really shouldn't be that tough.
There's also the fact that you are demonstrably lying. Literally, the first person who responded to you said they were doing better than they were under the Trump administration. Literally the first reply. I'm also doing better, which makes two out of the handful of Americans posting here. An honest person would have to stop making that claim, but don't worry, that doesn't apply to you.
So, nobody should take you seriously on this. But, since I don't want to be accused of dodging the question, I'm going to meet you way more than half way and assume your experiences are legitimate.
In that case, it is absolutely stupid for you to ask that I explain the motives of people I've never met and who may or may not exist. All I could do is speak for myself. And during the Trump presidency I had a literal nervous breakdown, had to quit my job, had to move in with my parents, and was generally just keeping it together. During Biden's administration, my salary is thrice at what it was during the Trump presidency (the period where I was working), my mental health is pretty darn good, my physical health is much improved, and I'm actually having a pretty good time overall. Now you've found two people, and you weren't even trying. I guess now if you were an honest person you'd have to stop making that claim, huh?
But, does the fact that I'm better off mean I should vote for Harris? No, that would be stupid. Because none of my personal successes had much to do with Biden and Harris, and my failures had nothing to do with Trump. When it comes to my personal situation, my own actions and efforts have a far greater impact than federal policies. A couple of Biden's policies did help me tangentially, but for the most part I give him and his administration zero credit for my personal situation, and Trump zero blame for the more negative experiences during his administration.
Voting purely based on how much my life has changed for the positive or negative would only make sense if I believed that my personal fortunes were solely based on the government, and more specifically dependent on who was the president. I do not believe that to be the case for most people. There are some scenarios where the government's decisions can have significant life altering ramifications for an individual (say a woman having an ectopic pregnancy in a state which bans abortion) but for most people most of the time, it is unlikely that government policies are going to directly determine how well they are doing at any given time. Especially if we are only considering the executive branch of the federal government as if state governments, local governments, and the legislative/judicial branches of the government don't exist.
Hence, it is perfectly reasonable why a person might feel they are not doing better but still want Harris to be president. There is literally no contradiction there. Republicans claim to be the party of personal responsibility, yet if my life isn't better, it's the old thanks a lot Obama argument.
I believe I gave a thorough and detailed answer to the question. If you're interested in an honest conversation, you can show that by answering mine. You're of course also free to challenge my answer if you disagree, but the great thing about this form of communication is that we can address multiple points at the same time. So, no need to do that thing people do where they refuse to give their own answer until the other person has satisfactorily answered their question, but then endlessly nitpick so they never have to present their own case. Not that you would ever do something so transparent and weaselly.
So, I have two very simple questions. They are yes or no questions, and I can not think of any reason not to give a yes or no, unless you don't like the conclusion that honest answers would yield.
1. Is it possible for one to be doing worse than they were four years earlier despite a president making sound policy decisions?
2. Conversely, is it possible for one to be doing better despite a president making terrible policy decisions?
Very simple questions with a very obvious answers. Let's see if you'll actually answer. And if your answers to those questions is yes, which lets face it, they should be, then your entire premise is nonsense. Whether I'm doing better or worse than four years ago should not determine how I vote.
Last edited by JWeinCom - 23 hours ago
