[hrothgar]

I a cautiously optimistic about the election itself

I have very big concerns about the process that will follow thereafter.

I think that the Trumpists understand that their only real chance of winning is throwing this to some combination of the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives.

This has the potential to get very very ugly.

[Winstonm]

 hrothgar, on 2024-August-24, 06:28, said:

I a cautiously optimistic about the election itself

I have very big concerns about the process that will follow thereafter.

I think that the Trumpists understand that their only real chance of winning is throwing this to some combination of the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives.

This has the potential to get very very ugly.

There is all manner of subterfuge being tried even now. I just read that Ohio had found a way to disenfranchise 150,000 registerd voters. It won't be over until the inauguration if the fascists have their way.

[johnu]

 hrothgar, on 2024-August-24, 06:28, said:

This has the potential to get very very ugly.

GOP group claims Kamala Harris is ineligible to be president due to Dred Scott decision

I couldn't disagree more. Things are already very very ugly

First there was the well known Trump birtherism claims against Barack Obama, and Trump claims that Ted Cruz was not eligible to be president in the 2016 campaign because he was born in Canada and one of his parents wasn't a US citizen, and Trump claims this year that Nikki Haley was not eligible to be president because her parent were born in India.

Echoing the previous Trump claims against his fellow QOP, this right fringe QOP group fully joins Trump in casting doubt on Kamala Harris's right to be president. Without going into the details of the Dredd Scott case, I'll just note that it was overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments which were adopted after the Civil War. In a bit of irony, it was primarily Republicans who were against the Dredd Scott decision, and Democrats (primarily in the confederate states) who were for it. And today's QOP claim to be the party of Lincoln is the ultimate gaslighting of America.

The problem is that if this becomes a lawsuit and gets to the Supreme Court, there are 2 sure votes (alleged justices Thomas and Alito) who would vote against Harris, and possibly all of the other 4 QOP members of the court.

[Al Phalpha]

All other things aside, I find this to be a very interesting observation.

[kenberg]

 Al Phalpha, on 2024-August-24, 18:07, said:

All other things aside, I find this to be a very interesting observation.

If I were running for president, the last thing i would want is an endorsement from RFK Jr.

I guess since you posted this it is fair to ask: You think RFK Jr is a person whose opinions should be taken seriously?

I know people who have voted for Trump. I do not believe that I know anyone who would pay any attention whatsoever to anything RFK Jr. says.

[mycroft]

If you ever watched anything on the left side of social media, you'd know that it has been just assumed that the "independent" RFK bid was an attempt to split the non-Trump vote. After all, it has worked for the last 50 years (not 100% sure how Perot worked, but apart from that). In other words, "money for the RFK run" was "money for Trump, that bypassed contribution maximums" (and since the Lara pronouncement, "actually went to elect Republicans, rather than someone's legal bills").

But this time, there was evidence it was pulling more from the Republican Party than the Democrats. Again, it looks like a "centrist candidate" was acceptable to "I don't like the way the Republicans are going, but I can't vote Democrat", and not at all acceptable to "I hate how corporate/status quo/right-wing the Democrats are, but Project 2025 is anathema" leftists (you know, the ones that "think the country is going in the wrong direction" but aren't supporting the Republicans?) Why, would you think, would someone who wishes the Democrats would actually listen to their progressives think that a "centre" candidate is better?

And much as I am still not sure that changing horses mid-campaign is the right move (it certainly looks like it's working, though!), the 30-year-younger candidate seems to finally be listening to people her age, rather than the Democratic Powers-that-be - and they are listening to the under 50s. There seem to be a few of them (I mean, who noticed?), and they have opinions on how the last 40 years of policies have worked for them. So there is hope for something more than the "Democratic Ratchet" to vote for for them.

So, no, I'm not *at all* surprised that the campaign has imploded now that "things are getting tough", nor that when he turned his cloak, it was red and not blue.

Did you see the reaction of his family, by the way?

[johnu]

mycroft, on 2024-August-24, 20:30, said:

In other words, "money for the RFK run" was "money for Trump, that bypassed contribution maximums"

As I noted earlier in this thread, Timothy Mellon has (now) donated $115 million to a Trump PAC making him Trumps largest donor, in addition to donating $25 million to RFK Jr, making him RFK Jr's largest donor as well. That apparently backfired since RFK Jr was pulling more votes from Trump than from Biden or Harris.

[kenberg]

mycroft, on 2024-August-24, 20:30, said:

If you ever watched anything on the left side of social media, you'd know that it has been just assumed that the "independent" RFK bid was an attempt to split the non-Trump vote. After all, it has worked for the last 50 years (not 100% sure how Perot worked, but apart from that). In other words, "money for the RFK run" was "money for Trump, that bypassed contribution maximums" (and since the Lara pronouncement, "actually went to elect Republicans, rather than someone's legal bills").

But this time, there was evidence it was pulling more from the Republican Party than the Democrats. Again, it looks like a "centrist candidate" was acceptable to "I don't like the way the Republicans are going, but I can't vote Democrat", and not at all acceptable to "I hate how corporate/status quo/right-wing the Democrats are, but Project 2025 is anathema" leftists (you know, the ones that "think the country is going in the wrong direction" but aren't supporting the Republicans?) Why, would you think, would someone who wishes the Democrats would actually listen to their progressives think that a "centre" candidate is better?

And much as I am still not sure that changing horses mid-campaign is the right move (it certainly looks like it's working, though!), the 30-year-younger candidate seems to finally be listening to people her age, rather than the Democratic Powers-that-be - and they are listening to the under 50s. There seem to be a few of them (I mean, who noticed?), and they have opinions on how the last 40 years of policies have worked for them. So there is hope for something more than the "Democratic Ratchet" to vote for for them.

So, no, I'm not *at all* surprised that the campaign has imploded now that "things are getting tough", nor that when he turned his cloak, it was red and not blue.

Did you see the reaction of his family, by the way?

First a side issue. The link you posted goes to X. When Twitter first started it seemed silly. I recall hearing an interview with a celeb tweeter who had a zillion (or some such) followers. Every day he tweeted what he had eaten for breakfast. Later, as Twitter became more mainstream, I created an account but still I never tweeted and I don't know if my account survived the change to X. When I clicked on the link you posted it asked me to either sign in or create an account. I thought that over and decided not to do either. I was cautious about Twitter but I am more cautious, perhaps paranoid, about X. I don't trust Elon Musk. I might be overcautious, probably I am, but at least for the moment overcaution seems right.


As to the purpose of the RFK Jr. candidacy. There are at least a couple of ways of looking at it, there is his purpose and there is the purpose of those who supported him. He has brainworm problems, both literally and metaphorically, so I am not sure he planned his candidacy to benefit Trump. I am skeptical that he can plan much of anything.. But I can well imagine that some of his support came from people who thought his candidacy would draw votes away from the Dems.. Maybe at first that was working. But as his support has gone down I think the only support he has left comes from fans of various conspiracy theories, and those folks are much more inclined toward Trump than Harris. I guess Trump is happy to have his support.

[pilowsky]

kenberg, on 2024-August-25, 05:16, said:

First a side issue. The link you posted goes to X. When Twitter first started it seemed silly.

You made a good choice. It hasn't become any wiser.

[Winstonm]

pilowsky, on 2024-August-25, 06:04, said:

You made a good choice. It hasn't become any wiser.

Neither has Musk.

[kenberg]

I thought about it and decided to log on to X. It turns out that I do have an account. I found the post that mycroft linked to. And the umerous replies to that post. Then I tried to log out. Most apps (if apps is the right word) have an easy to find log out place to click. None that I could find on X. Hopefully I get automatically logged out after a while. I don't think I will be back.

[mycroft]

Sorry about that - but that's where she posted it. I'd have sent you to other places, like the Great Orange Satan if I knew that was the issue.

(Now that one is equally biased, probably as far to the left of the Overton Window as Fox is on the right. It would be interesting to see what happened if Our Friend Al was willing to try reading his news from DK for a week "just to see how the other half sees the world". It might not be possible to do so without potential damage to computer, though (Opera on my phone seems to want to send me, because I won't let it train its suggestions on my reading, always to Fox and NYPost, and the urge to throw is high), and I wouldn't want that.)

[kenberg]

mycroft, on 2024-August-25, 12:23, said:

Sorry about that - but that's where she posted it. I'd have sent you to other places, like the Great Orange Satan if I knew that was the issue.

(Now that one is equally biased, probably as far to the left of the Overton Window as Fox is on the right. It would be interesting to see what happened if Our Friend Al was willing to try reading his news from DK for a week "just to see how the other half sees the world". It might not be possible to do so without potential damage to computer, though (Opera on my phone seems to want to send me, because I won't let it train its suggestions on my reading, always to Fox and NYPost, and the urge to throw is high), and I wouldn't want that.)

No problem at all. From time to time i have thought I might see if mt Twit account morphed int an X account and it seems that it did.

Everything below can (should?) be ignored

I jad read eslewhere, mpre than once, that the "other Kennedys" were pretty unhappy with RFK Jr. political but I think mostly they take some of what he says personally..

We stumble across all sorts of information. Recently my olderdaughter was, for some reaon that I foget, looking up stuff about Google cofounder Sergei Brin, Among other things she learned that Nocole Shanahan, RFK Jrs running mat, was married (for a while, not a long while) to Brin.

That fact will probably not influence the election. And I seriously doubt Brin wishes to comment.

One of my grandsons works for Elon Musk. Tha probably won't affect the election either.

And Musk will gassist some astronauts in gettng back to Earth. That won't affect the election but it might, probably should, affect Boeing.

Everything is interconnected. Sort of.

[kenberg]

I have been giving casual thought to possible Harris policies. It could be interesting to hear other opinions.. . Here are a couple of mine.<br style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
A. Taxes. Becky and I make nowhere near 400 K a year, but I would not mind an increase in my taxes if it was to support some important needs. I drive over bridges, I don't want them falling down, I am willing to be taxed for needed repairs. And for other things. Yes, I think the rich are paying too little, some of them far too little, so would want their taxes increased as well. But I am up for paying a share. We do have to reduce the national debt. At least not increase it.
B. Grocery prices. They have gone up a lot; we all know that, but I am skeptical as to price gouging being the main issue. We buy most of our groceries at a store called Martin's. It is related to the Giant chain. A Safeway is walking distance from Martin's, and there are two or three other grocery stores close by. Unless there is substantial collusion among the owners, gouging would lose customers. BUT. There are neighborhoods where grocery stores are few and far between. I can imagine the prices are elevated at those stores. As I understand it, these neighborhoods have crime issues that make stores unlikely to open there. I saw some pretty clear examples of this in an area where I once lived. I am short of ideas on how to solve this problem but I doubt that laws forbidding price gouging is the answer.
C. National Borders. It's a mess. Biden has had some success, and the success would have been a good deal stronger if Trump had not torpedoed a bi-partisan bill hee negotiated. But still, it's a mess. We do not need massive deportations of the Trump type, but we need a clear and workable plan. I hope we hear of one.
D. Foreign Policy. Oh my, I am going to save that for another post.

Harris is running as the change candidate. A wise choice, I think. We could think about what changes we might like.

[Winstonm]

Two positive changes have already happened this week: 1) The Special Counsel has appealed the idiotic dismissal of the Trump document case in Florida. The dismissal will be overturned without a doubt. 2.. The Special Counself has re-indicted Trump for attempting to overthrow the election, taking into account the also idiotic ruling of the SCOTUS that presidents have immunity for crimes commited while engaging in "official duty".

[shyams]

 kenberg, on 2024-August-27, 14:20, said:

A. Taxes. Becky and I make nowhere near 400 K a year, but I would not mind an increase in my taxes if it was to support some important needs. I drive over bridges, I don't want them falling down, I am willing to be taxed for needed repairs. And for other things. Yes, I think the rich are paying too little, some of them far too little, so would want their taxes increased as well. But I am up for paying a share. We do have to reduce the national debt. At least not increase it.

I hope you are aware that your national debt will definitely keep increasing unless they do something super drastic, right? This is irrespective of who is in power and regardless of any proposed tax increases. The total income streams of the US Federal Govt are significantly lower than the total expense streams. This is factual, and is unconnected to one-time expenses, or special initiatives or whatever. Even the GOP style "cut expenses" budget will not achieve a budgetary surplus in any year.

BTW, at a practical level, your nation's taxes do not go towards repairs.

 kenberg, on 2024-August-27, 14:20, said:

B. Grocery prices. They have gone up a lot; we all know that, but I am skeptical as to price gouging being the main issue. We buy most of our groceries at a store called Martin's. It is related to the Giant chain. A Safeway is walking distance from Martin's, and there are two or three other grocery stores close by. Unless there is substantial collusion among the owners, gouging would lose customers. BUT. There are neighborhoods where grocery stores are few and far between. I can imagine the prices are elevated at those stores. As I understand it, these neighborhoods have crime issues that make stores unlikely to open there. I saw some pretty clear examples of this in an area where I once lived. I am short of ideas on how to solve this problem but I doubt that laws forbidding price gouging is the answer.

There is a significant difference between "price gouging" laws and "price control". Price gouging laws have existed & continue to be in force in numerous Western economies. Price control is the thing that is taboo.

From what I read (and based on my analysis), Kamala Harris talked only of price gouging (in her recent declarations). However, her choice of ambiguous phrasing in numerous statements leaves her open to attack on "price control" and "socialism". There remains a possibility that the ambiguity in her assertions is deliberate but that's something for Americans (and US media to handle.

 kenberg, on 2024-August-27, 14:20, said:

C. National Borders. It's a mess. Biden has had some success, and the success would have been a good deal stronger if Trump had not torpedoed a bi-partisan bill hee negotiated. But still, it's a mess. We do not need massive deportations of the Trump type, but we need a clear and workable plan. I hope we hear of one.

Yeah, its all Trump's fault. Always has been, always will be. I simply cannot justify nor tolerate a contrary opinion so I agree with you vehemently!!!! note four exclamation marks to signify vehemence

[hrothgar]

Couple quick comments about price fixing / price gouging.

The uncle of one of my closest friends went to jail for price fixing the Lysine market. (I'm talking about Mick Andreas)
These things happen far more often than folks might think.

With respect to grocery prices:

1. I have no doubt that supply chain disruption had a major impact on grocery prices, especially with respect to meat and eggs

2. At the same tie, I also recall that I could get 6 fresh bulky rolls for a dollar 7-8 ears back and now they're 68 cents each. Wheat prices spiked enormously in 2022. However, they are back down to normal and the prices seem sticky. (On the grocery front, there has been incredibly consolidating in this industry)

[johnu]

 shyams, on 2024-August-27, 23:37, said:

From what I read (and based on my analysis), Kamala Harris talked only of price gouging (in her recent declarations). However, her choice of ambiguous phrasing in numerous statements leaves her open to attack on "price control" and "socialism".

Most Americans love socialism, e.g. Social Security, Medicare, price controls on medications/drugs, Affordable Care Act, farm subsides, etc. Americans also hate price gouging, as 37 states and DC have anti price gouging laws.

[kenberg]

I am glad tp see responses. I hope to respond to them. First Shyams:
\

Quote

<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);">I hope you are aware that your national debt will definitely keep increasing unless they do something super drastic, right? This is irrespective of who is in power and regardless of any proposed tax increases. The total income streams of the US Federal Govt are significantly lower than the total expense streams. This is factual, and is unconnected to one-time expenses, or special initiatives or whatever. Even the GOP style "cut expenses" budget will not achieve a budgetary surplus in any year.<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);"><br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);">BTW, at a practical level, your nation's taxes do not go towards repairs.

My bridge example was badly chosen. The Feds have been involved after the Key Bridge collapse in Baltimore and they were involved after the I-35 collapse in Minneapolis but those were both major collapses not repairs.


My point, badly phrased, is that I am up for an increase in my taxes if the money goes to worthwhile projects.


I probably even favor getting some of the funding by increasing my taxes. I am uneasy with plans that go: Well, we will do this, and we will do that, and we will do these other things and don't worry, Elon Musk and his rich buddies will pay for it all. I think I prefer: Here are some things we would like to do but we will need some money from you to do it. This seems more realistic. I am used to payiing for something that I want. Yes, I think the rich need to pay more, loopholes need to be closed and so on. But I do not think planning several major programs with no expense coming to me is realistic.




As to the federal debt, I first said I want it to go down, then I modified it to at least it should not go up, I am willing to even accept that the rate of growth should just be slowed. In short, I am saying that it needs to be taken seriously. Some years back the idea was that the federal debt is not the same as personal debt and so we need not worry. The first part of that statement is true, but I think many economists are less willing to believe the second part under our current circumstances.

[kenberg]

 hrothgar, on 2024-August-28, 03:58, said:

Couple quick comments about price fixing / price gouging.

The uncle of one of my closest friends went to jail for price fixing the Lysine market. (I'm talking about Mick Andreas)
These things happen far more often than folks might think.

With respect to grocery prices:

1. I have no doubt that supply chain disruption had a major impact on grocery prices, especially with respect to meat and eggs

2. At the same tie, I also recall that I could get 6 fresh bulky rolls for a dollar 7-8 years back and now they're 68 cents each. Wheat prices spiked enormously in 2022. However, they are back down to normal and the prices seem sticky. (On the grocery front, there has been incredibly consolidating in this industry)

This sounds as if we may be in agreement, at lest mostly. I don't even know what Lysine is, let alone knowing anything about the market, but I gather it's different from bulky rolls. You can go to a different store for bulky rolls, or if they are too high priced everywhere you can skip eating bulky rolls. That probably suffices to slow down price gouging on bulky rolls. I suppose some sort of bizarre bulky roll collusion is possible but it seems unlikley.

I do think that the problem of having few if any grocery strores in some neighborhoods does affect prices.