His handlers are desperately trying to get him to sound like he knows what he’s doing, to no avail. — Wayfarer

The more the handlers try to control the wild beast, the more it rebels.

There’s a chance that he will actually become pathetic — Wayfarer

If the dangerous beast escapes the handlers and flees in a final flailing effort at freedom, sympathy may prevent it from being shot.

Pretty clear Trump wont win now.

I do think, though, that it's pretty clear it's not Kamala winning but Trump leaning into all his worst aspects - as if that were the way to win an election smh. Even his voters probably prefer someone cogent, but dangerous, to someone intransigently irrational (and dangerous). And that's just perceptions - im sure the reality is worse for both.

What's worse, Trump is lying about the 2024 election before it even occurs. His current lie is that Biden's decision not to run is 'a coup' or is 'not constitutional'. Pretty soon all the MAGA stooges will be baying that in unison (although there are quite a few Republicans being obliged to admit that it's really not true.)

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/politics/donald-trump-harris-election-outcome-denial/index.html

The US electorate has an attention span of about two weeks. It's too far off. Just a few weeks ago it was a shoe in for Donald Trump after he got shot, reacted iconically to it and Biden was still running.

For now it looks good though. So then I'm wondering what will the Trump cult morph into next? Assuming Trump is done after losing this election and doesn't stick around for the next election.

Yes, that may be true.

I think something we could probably agree on though is that your description of the last lets say 10 weeks indicates that Trump's voters rely on spectacle. The election cycle is not one (in this sense). So, either he pulls a Jan 6 (don't bother arguing with this, but to clarify, I do not think he incited anything on that occassion) properly, or he doesn't get a look in. And even in the former case, I think he'd just be arrested for it given he isn't in office.

I think it's going to be quite clear that Trump cannot run again in '28. He'll be in his 80s, and the hypocrisy would be too much, if nothing else. I also just htink he's run his course (speculatively). He's declining even among those who try to take the 'view from nowhere' and give hte devil his due. I was essentially in that position, but it's now clear with Biden out of hte running that Trump is simply not an electable character once octogenerial. You can kind of get away with what he's doing as the more spritely candidate - and he doesn't have the wit of Regan to pull it back in his favour. His actual politics don't seem to matter that much to that group voting for him.

Also, fucking hell. Discussing the elections of the '20s (as oppsoed to 90s/00s/2010s) is spinning my head.

So then I'm wondering what will the Trump cult morph into next? — Benkei

Probably rabid domestic terrorists ...

The Trump campaign was hacked and the data given to the press, but they won’t report it because publishing emails is now verboten for them. Are you all upset?

Trolls asking troll questions. :yawn:

Not a single interesting thing has come out of you.

Is the troll still talking? :yawn:

My eyes glaze over whenever I see your name, Xtrix. No good questions, responses, and even the insults are boring. Gotta try harder, man.

My eyes glaze over whenever I see your name, Xtrix. — NOS4A2

Whenever you see my previous screen name? :lol:
Even your jabs don’t make sense.

No good questions — NOS4A2

They can’t all be on the level of reading the NY Post for my opinions and then trolling on an Internet forum with stupid questions like “are you all upset?” That level of genius is monopolized.

I just wonder whenever I write a post, your name appears shortly after. It’s odd.

The Trump campaign was hacked and the data given to the press, but they won’t report it because publishing emails is now verboten for them. Are you all upset? — NOS4A2

It's an opportunity for Harris to take the high road and decry foreign intervention. Has Donald ("I love Wikileaks") Trump said anything about it? I'm curious what your view is, considering what you've said about foreign interference in the past. Do you think it would be appropriate to release it at politically strategic times, like Wikileaks did (working with Roger Stone)?

I do think it’s appropriate because it’s newsworthy. The duty of a journalist is to publish it.

Ok.

Unrelated question, more related to our exchange in the other thread.

Trump recently said that social security recipients shouldn't have to pay taxes on their benefits. How do you suggest we treat that statement? Promised policy?; whistful rift to be ignored?

Full disclosure: I started receiving SS this year, when I turned 70.

I like the idea, personally. I’m against all taxes. I also think it is fundamentally absurd to tax money that has already been collected as taxes. So I’d treat the statement as a good one.

What do you think about it?

It would be reckless to pass it because it would exhaust the SS trust fund sooner. Per current law, when the trust fund is exhausted, benefits will have to be reduced to match current contributions. So as an isolated promise, it's simplistic and dumb. I also think it has no chance of passing because enough members of Congress will understand everything I just said.

A more reasonable campaign promise, which unfortunately no one is making, is to fix the SS funding problem with a comprehensive overhaul. Even in such an overhaul, I can't see eliminating the tax on benefits, because it would have to be traded off with more revenue.

It's fine to have a philosophical opposition to taxes, but practical considerations can't be ignored. SS started being taxed under Reagan. It was a back-door method of reducing benefits for the more well-off, in order to extend the life of SS.

It makes no sense to me. The money in the fund has already been confiscated as taxes, for example, via payroll taxes, and added to the fund. That is money that has already been taken from you. How does confiscating that money a second time help you any?

It makes no sense to me. The money in the fund has already been confiscated as taxes, for example, via payroll taxes, and added to the fund. That is money that has already been taken from you. How does confiscating that money a second time help you any? — NOS4A2

I have no problem with your philosophical point of view here, but you're ignoring the practical problems I brought up.

—

I have no problem with your philosophical point of view here, but you're ignoring the practical problems I brought up.

I was addressing your point that it would “be reckless to pass it because it would exhaust the SS trust fund sooner”. How does taxing your social security benefits, in other words taking money from your benefits, replenish or otherwise reduce the exhaustion of the fund?

Raising the cap on taxable social security income levels would more than fix the problem. Only those who benefit the most would see a SS tax increase. Somewhere around 175K yearly.

The taxes on SS benefits go into the Social Security Trust fund. I verified that here:

"Congress passed and President Reagan signed into law the 1983 Amendments....

... The additional income tax revenues resulting from this provision are transferred to the trust funds from which the corresponding benefits were paid. Effective for taxable years beginning after 1983."

Raising the cap on taxable social security income levels would more than fix the problem. Only those who benefit the most would see a SS tax increase. Somewhere around 175K yearly. — creativesoul

It might offset this particular (effective) benefit increase, but I don't think it would completely solve the overall funding problem. I feel strongly that reform ought to be comprehensive, rather than helping out one or another interest group.

I'm not being self-serving here. I started receiving SS benefits when I turned 70, and get almost the maximum benefit. This would be net me a good bit of extra money.

Ever read/listen to Robert Reich?

Yes, and I have a lot of respect for him. Tell me what he's said.

Pretty much what I just did. :wink:

Another element of perceived unfairness is the Government Pension Offset - which eliminates the spousal SS benefits for many retired teachers and others. If my wife had never worked, she'd be entitled to receive a benefit 50% of my own, and when I die- it bumps up to 100%. But my wife worked as a teacher in Texas, and paid into their pension system and not SS. So she gets nothing, either before or after I die. It pisses her off. I accept it. We always knew about this, and planned accordingly.

Periodically, there are bills proposed to eliminate the problem in whole or in part, but the problem is always the same: paying for it. There's no free lunch (modern monetary policy theory nonwithstanding).

Still, if less and less workers put money into the fund, and more and more recipients seek to benefit from it, exhaustion of the fund is inevitable. The aging population and lower birth rates make this reality an increasing concern.