I seem to be frustrating you with my answers, but I am doing what I can to be helpful. That is genuinely my goal here. Simple understanding is what the original question was about, since not too many people here understood why people supported Trump, and understanding, not political fighting is my entire point in engaging. I don’t actually feel any need (or even desire) to defend Trump or bash Biden/Harris. If you wanted to have a conversation on specific scenarios, you may need to suggest them yourself. ‘If <scenario A> happened’, what would you think?′ I would answer, though I might also explain why I think it doesn’t apply if that seems pointed. You might also want to read my responses to Pazzaz if you want to understand how I engage with a more limited question in greater depth. We had a lot of fundamental disagreements, but I think we understood each other’s points well and recovered from misunderstanding each other.
I listed why getting exactly the best 10 on short notice was impossible, and then I answered all of your questions as you asked them other than them not literally being the best possible reasons. You can not like the reasons (it may even be reasonable), but I answered your questions. You wanted to know details about why, and I gave them to you. If you are trying to understand them, try not to assume things are irrational when you don’t understand at first. I believe the frustration you express throughout your responses is making you miss what I am actually saying. You seemed to pattern match what I am saying to things you haven’t liked in the past about kinds of answers, rather than considering them as pieces. I think that a lot of the time you don’t realize that I am saying I want a certain approach to solving problems. If you want a more specific conversation, you may need to reduce the scope of what you are asking considerably.
I mentioned an exact mechanism for lowering regulation, and explicitly told you it was about the mechanism rather than an individual regulation. That is an exact answer.
Inflation was much lower than with Biden, who had literally the worst in my lifetime, which is why I wrote ‘Kept inflation low’ rather than ‘Made inflation low’. He didn’t make it explode, while Biden did, and we could directly compare their results. I make it clear in the Biden part that Biden is at fault for inflation, not that there was necessarily any special policy during the Trump years.
I wrote ‘Kept unemployment low’ because unemployment was low. Things going well doesn’t have to be a change, but it is still valuable. I evaluated his entire presidency, not just what he changed. A good president doesn’t ruin things their predecessor had at a decent level.
Some presidents start new wars. Some don’t. It isn’t entirely up to them either way, but it isn’t irrational to think a president that doesn’t start new wars is better than one that does, all else equal.
I explicitly told you how he lowered taxes. He lowered the marginal rates in corporate taxes, and increased the standard deduction for normal citizens. Those are exact details. I could have added the numbers, (for instance, marginal corporate tax rates went from about 35% to 21% if I recall correctly,) but you don’t really seem to care about them.
Donald Trump spoke more to the populace than other presidents, and his theme was more often the greatness of America. Neither Obama nor Biden spoke frequently of that subject from what I saw.
Vague reasons can be important too, and saying that, as far as I know, he didn’t support anything I find egregious is completely clear. If he’d done things I thought were terrible I obviously would lessen my support or eliminate it. I also acknowledged that we were unlikely to agree on the interpretation of any of the events you find egregious.
‘Worked within the structure of the government’ means I think his actions were all completely legal, and not overly disruptive of the functioning of the government. It’s an important part to note when his foes constantly claim he didn’t. His actions in regards to disputing the election followed precedent, and it had been previously ruled by courts that disputes must involve an alternate slate of electors or they are moot; claims otherwise were clearly just meant for outrage. His speech did not foment a mob to the capital, as I explain at length in a reply to someone else; it was not physically possible for someone to listen to his speech to the end and be there for the early stages of the capital riot (and it was just a riot, not some kind of insurrection). He also didn’t ever support the riot. Additionally, the left supports a lot of riots.
‘Was the person actually doing the job’ is a clear contrast to Biden, who was mentally unfit for much or perhaps all of his term. It also means he was making the decisions, not just letting bureaucrats and underlings determine things.
Supreme court justices that rule against him (as happened many times) are hardly evidence of Trump selecting purely for loyalty to him or the party. His judicial choices are roughly as moderate as the people they replaced, except for one of them being slightly center-right (Amy Coney Barett) instead of left. I never said why he selected them either; I only said he did a good job, and that he selected textualist and originalist judges. Results matter for judging the process.
There is an obvious meaning to saying I selected Trump to keep doing what he was doing. Past results aren’t proof of future ones, but they are a good place to start. When you select a president, you are selecting the system.
‘Enforcing the border’ was clearly about keeping out new illegal crossers and the things they bring with them, which Biden did abysmally and Trump did much better. This is a security concern. The “more generally, enforce the laws that the left doesn’t” is a simple statement of fact, but also a pointer to which crimes I want enforced more. Rioting was supported by Democrats throughout both Trump’s and Biden’s terms. Many Democrat run cities and states also refuse to prosecute many crimes, for example, California for a long time refusing to prosecute theft in many jurisdictions. I clearly acknowledged that federal law enforcement will only have a small effect on most of them because most crimes are state level crimes. I never said that Democrats don’t enforce any laws; I only said that I want the ones they don’t enforce to be enforced. I didn’t even say that they enforce fewer laws than the Republicans.
You keep claiming ‘evil taxes’ as if that is somehow related to my points. I never called taxes in general ‘evil’ at all. This is a clear misrepresentation. I also already said which taxes I wanted to not expire; corportate marginal rates that were lowered, and a higher deduction for individuals.
You keep ignoring points you don’t like. Being willing to confront China is an obvious foreign policy objective that many people share. Foreign policy is one of the primary responsibilities of the presidency. I explicitly state that I don’t know what China will do, but that I believe they will need to be confronted.
I clearly explain later why preventing Kamala Harris from becoming president is a good thing from my perspective. It is okay to write your response in order, but you should acknowledge when I have addressed your point. Additionally, in a two party system, it is normal to vote against a candidate you dislike as well as for the one you like.
These points aren’t arguments. They are reasons, as I directly state. If you want to understand, you need to understand the reasons, not simply the arguments. I am not here to argue. And, as I explain later, I want the Democrats to avoid accruing more power because I believe they are more powerful than the Republicans, as well as because the platform the Democrats subscribe to is worse.
We should only make good deals with foreign powers, and that means all of them. I can’t see the future spotlessly, so I obviously don’t know which deals he should take and which he should walk away from before they have been offered. Again, you asked for what I voted for him to do, and that is not some specific deal, but an approach.
Presidents often don’t support Israel. Many times presidents have urged Israel to not use means at their disposal to protect themselves. There is no use pretending that there is never a president that supports Israel less than others. Also, when I am selecting someone to do something, that doesn’t necessarily mean that I know the other candidates won’t do it. I could even believe that they will. As I write later, I had more faith in Biden supporting Israel than Harris, and Trump more than Biden.
I very clearly never said I wanted war with Iran. I said I wanted them to not get nukes Those are two separate things. Who wants rogue powers to get nukes? I also don’t like war, and explicitly stated that one of the things I liked about Trump’s first term was ‘no new wars’. A well followed deal would obviously be preferable, and Trump prefers that as well. Even now he is attempting to negotiate with Iran despite his ally (Israel) thinking it is pointless. I definitely would prefer a workable nuclear deal to war with Iran.
Biden literally dropped out of the presidential race because of his inability to keep doing it mentally was noticed by the country at large, including the Democrats who forced his replacement, and perhaps physically. We later learned he has advanced cancer which also takes a toll, especially if they were treating it aggressively (which we don’t know).
Trump, on the other hand, gave countless demanding long speeches where he improvised to the satisfaction of the crowds and seemed physically well during them. He is an old man, but one in much better physical and mental condition than Biden.
Your claim that we should ‘stick with facts’ seems difficult when you refuse to engage with the facts I provided.
Calling border enforcement ‘a joke’ is obviously a statement of values, but also clearly true if you consider a massive influx of illegal immigrants a problem. The Biden administration clearly kept a very porous border.
I don’t consider promises of future infrastructure to be an accomplishment of Biden’s. Likewise, I don’t think all of the promises of future infrastructure people have given Trump after his tariffs to be an accomplishment until they come true. Our infrastructure did not suddenly become great. See also ‘bipartisan’. The money spent here also leads into the next point...
Raining money from the sky led to very high inflation during the Biden administration. His administration kept pouring government money into these giveaways extremely far into his term, after the inflation was already roaring. Again, inflation was literally the highest since Carter. It did come down toward the very end of his term, but the damage was already done. And extremely high inflation is obviously a point against him.
You like to claim that I ‘stated without evidence’ things when you asked for reasons, not ten paragraphs on each item. You asked many questions, and this isn’t a research paper. Your calling me ‘super racist and super sexist’ is mere ad hominem sneering. It was stated at the time (and no, I didn’t memorize exactly when) that Biden was looking for a black female vice president and a black female supreme court justice. When he found them, that means that it appeared to be based on those things, regardless of what their personal merits may or may not be. If a business said ‘only women may apply’, then you know they are selecting on the basis of whether the people are women or not. This is true even if they end up hiring the person who would have been single best candidate even if they didn’t have that rule. I also later state exactly why I am against Kamala Harris, it is an entire section. When I was reading about Ketanji as a nominee, there seemed to be very little support for her, and I haven’t heard any since. It is fair to call what Biden did racist and sexist when he stated it was about that. (And no, I don’t have the time to find that again.)
I definitely believe that Trump was and is divisive, which I noted explicitly! It is still a negative for Biden who was equally divisive. You never asked what I thought was negative about Trump (which I explicitly stated were serious), or positive about Biden/Harris, which I noted at the end of the comment. I very much had a number of them, but you were already objecting to the length. You could have simply asked for my positives regarding Biden and negatives regarding Trump.
Anyone who thinks Biden didn’t support the legal attacks on Trump was clearly not paying attention. And as I clearly state, I believe the legal attacks on Trump were meritless. I never attempted to make an argument on that point in this subthread.
Biden’s corruption is well known, but again, I was answering your questions about my reasons, not trying to prove anything.
Trump didn’t get an airplane, the United States of America did. This is entirely normal. Stop twisting things. I also don’t believe the other things you stated.
An ‘unprecedented pardon’ is unprecedented regardless of if you think it was okay. The length, generality, and preemptiveness were all unprecedented. He did it for Hunter and Fauci over a long period of time, and Hunter’s was literally unrestricted! I don’t remember the other names, but looking at an article, he also pardoned several other family members. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8r5g5dezk4o “In the final minutes of his presidency, Joe Biden pre-emptively pardoned several family members, including his brothers James and Frank Biden, and sister Valerie Biden Owens.” (The excerpt is the first paragraph.)
Then you again dismiss anything you don’t want to hear. You asked for reasons why I was against Biden, and that I felt he didn’t respect “the constitution, laws of the land, or the importance of faithfully executing his duties as president.” is obviously one of my more important reasons. You are objecting to my being honest.
As we get to Kamala Harris, you again simply sneer rather than wanting to know what my reasons are. “I don’t know” of her accomplishing things is extremely specific. You could try to make an argument that she accomplished things, rather than simply implying I don’t like justice for children. Also, a name is not an accomplishment. How did it actually improve justice for children?
Kamala Harris dropped out of the primary because she had no support among Democrats. It was during said primary and after that I heard many Democrats (not just a few) say such things. I don’t have links. Why would I have saved them?
Kamala campaigned and did not put forth an overarching vision in a way that reached people, which is perhaps why she lost. An unexpressed vision is not a vision that makes sense to voters. I read many things relating to her campaign, but it is literally on Kamala for needing to get her vision out there, if indeed she had one. What exactly did she think that America should be like. If you like, you could state what you believe her vision was (though you don’t need to). (Trump’s was literally his slogan ‘Make America Great Again’, which he then constantly expanded with specifics.)
You are seriously out of step if you think Biden being so incapable that he couldn’t run a campaign would leave him capable for the much more difficult job of being president. They replaced him as candidate for a reason. Running for president is hard, but it is still the easy part. If, in fact, he was perfectly capable and they forced him out to run Kamala that is also bad! And if that were the case, she should have said so.
Everyone knows there were a massive number of illegal immigrants during Biden’s term. Stop pretending otherwise.
You shouldn’t accuse me of bad faith when you refuse to understand or engage with so many of the things I am saying. Everyone know that the Democrats, including Kamala Harris, supported DEI.
How does calling a wealth tax ‘the worst tax’ mean that I think taxes are evil? Also, a reason, not an argument. If you really wanted to know why I am against wealth taxes, you could have just asked that. Wealth taxes fundamentally force people to stop having goods or other items and convert them to money, regardless of whether or not that makes sense, since wealth is not usually in the form of money. For instance, if a stock doubles in value, you now have to sell either that stock or other stocks if there is a wealth tax on stocks, regardless of if that makes sense. If I recall correctly, she and her proxies supported a tax on ‘unrealized’ capital gains, which is a wealth tax on stocks. Also, capital gains taxes are themselves bad even on already sold stocks, but I don’t think you want to go over that too much.
Sneering at me is also not a rational argument. She was clearly against what she and her proxies claimed was ‘price gouging’ and laws against price gouging are literally a form of price controls.
It is simple logic that if you can prevent someone from becoming president by simply claiming that they are a criminal, that people will claim there opponents are criminals. As already mentioned, I believe the charges were all baseless, and thus lawfare, as do a very large number of other people. Everyone already has their position on this matter, so there is little point discussing it further.
Why do you constantly mock the idea of taxes mattering? And I even say which ones.
I think you shouldn’t accuse me of ad hominems just because you don’t like my statements. It isn’t an ad hominem to state that she wouldn’t reform the government, it is a simple statement about her counterfactual actions as president. I obviously wouldn’t be able to prove what Kamala would have done even if she was trying to, since she never became president. But she made few or no statements that I interpreted as wanting to reform the government, while the opposition made a great many (whether you chose to believe Trump or not).
I don’t have links for her doing so right now, but have you read the news lately? About the anti federal government riots/ The Democrats are very clearly favoring ‘protestors’ that are doing quite a bit of rioting, and have done so in many other cases over the years.
We do vote for president. This is why we could reject the Democrats switching out their candidate without consulting the country. It would obviously be a precedent if the voters had simply gone with what the party did.
You seem fixated on the idea of calling me irrational. It is an entirely rational to not want the president to lead from behind. You could say that you believe the premise that she would is wrong, but you didn’t.
Then you claim the next point is somehow ‘random words’. It is very clear they are not. I am stating that those things (cheap prices, functional markets, abundant goods, physical safety, and equal enforcement of laws) seem to be in conflict with DEI and green energy, and that she would choose the latter. Again, you could disagree that it is true, but nothing about it is random. (And all of those things obviously go together.)
Then you accuse me of irrationality and a lot of bad faith when you simply refused to engage meaningfully with what I said. Should I believe that you are operating in good faith? I hope that you are and we can turn this conversation around.
I can assure you that literally everything I wrote was in good faith, as an attempt to answer your questions honestly. I am still willing to respond if you engage with what I wrote in the areas you respond to, or if you ask genuine questions in an attempt to understand, not fight. Limiting your questions might get more focused answers if that is what you object to.
Your final claim that I missed a question is untrue. “what would it take you to regret voting for Trump and admit that he is a disaster as a president? (be realistic no zombie apocalypse scenario allowed)”. I answered it in the sixth paragraph.
”There is only one thing that would make me regret voting for Trump: The feeling that America is worse off because of Trump being president than if he hadn’t been. Yes, a feeling. It’s vague for a reason. I can and do compare general factors for goodness and badness multiplied by his responsibility for them versus counterfactuals, but after that, it is all intuitive. All analyses I do on any subject are heavily dependent on intuition. Comparing a gestalt to a counterfactual gestalt is hard to put into small details. I don’t stare at the trees to discover the broader trends of the forest.”
There is no way I could give a more precise response to a completely open counterfactual, and still be telling the truth. Once again, you can object to my answer for various reasons, and claim it is a bad answer, possibly including that you don’t like to base evaluations off of feelings, but the claim I didn’t answer is false. (It might be quite reasonable to accidentally skip it, but I did answer.)
To briefly defend feelings, I see feelings as a shorthand for the entire situation. It is not possible to keep infinite details in mind, but you can aggregate them together (in a somewhat unreliable way) subconsciously, and then use those to determine how your conscious mind reacts to the number of things it can process in more depth. The conscious mind is much better at logic, but much worse at using all of the information you get. You can train your mind by carefully evaluating it before adding it to the pile, but you still add it to the pile in the end. And be careful in using it of course, because feelings are often wrongly applied.
A lot of people have bad feelings about engaging with political opponents from many unproductive engagements, and this makes everything look worse when you know an opponent is making the statements and /or questions (including to me). This is reasonable, but I don’t think it is serving you well when you meet someone who is engaging in good faith (which again, I assure you I am, even though I find your responses very frustrating as well).
I believe that the most important fundamental flaw for Futarchy isn’t what is written here, but that the flaw this essay identifies is in fact sufficient to be described as an important fundamental flaw. I do not believe it is possible to patch out the most fundamental flaw.
My thought is that the most fundamental flaw is that you are asking for how people think the question will be resolved, and not the thing that is being referenced, so I think that prediction markets in general should be seen as just a (slightly unusual) type of opinion polling where you can theoretically win money by guessing other people’s opinion’s in the future. It’s very meta. Prediction markets are very heavily selected for a specific type of person, so it is also an extremely biased poll. I do not believe that the self-selection is notably for accuracy. The chance to win money is likely to lead to notably more rigor than many other forms of polling (but also attracts gamblers).
Futarchy is just an unusual patch on top of prediction markets, and doesn’t fundamentally change what a prediction market is. Like noted in the essay, that question is: what is the world like if this happens? And not: what effect does doing this have?