In my view, it plays into the narrative of the MAGA/Trump mediaverse, which is investing a lot of hype and hot air into bringing about this outcome. And believing it means they're succeeding, so I refuse to believe it! — Wayfarer

I was reading how the economy was under his leadership and the economy was actually going well. When the pandemic hit, it was used against him like a perfect storm.

I was reading how the economy was under his leadership and the economy was actually going well. — L'éléphant

Trump never exhibited leadership. Everything he says and does is only for the sake of himself. If the economy goes well, he will claim credit (he did it yesterday, even though he's not in office) but when it goes badly, it's never his responsibility.

Everything he says and does is only for the sake of himself. If the economy goes well, he will claim credit (he did it yesterday, even though he's not in office) but when it goes badly, it's never his responsibility. — Wayfarer

You make him sound almost like a politician!

:-)

I was reading how the economy was under his leadership and the economy was actually going well. When the pandemic hit, it was used against him like a perfect storm. — L'éléphant

The economy was doing well, and the summers weren't as hot. A President doesn't control either the weather or the economy.

Regarding the economy, it would be appropriate to point to policies that may have had some impact. The Paul Ryan tax cuts passed under Trump, and tax cuts stimulate the economy. They also reduce government income and thus drive up the deficit. It has the potential to could increase private funds available for investment, but in practice- much of the savings goes into stock buybacks and higher net profits - increasing private wealth.

Biden's infrastructure bills have increased government expenditures, which drives up deficits - but they are also direct investments in the economy - creating jobs and investment opportunities, stimulating the economy.

So my point is simply that one needs to judge policy and ots impact, not simplistically blame or praise for the current state of the economy.

So my point is simply that one needs to judge policy and ots impact, not simplistically blame or praise for the current state of the economy. — Relativist

A policy enacted today may not show effects on the ground until two or three years in the future. The fallout from bad policies may not be felt for several years. Other, uncontrollable circumstances alter the course of planned operation. Policies, circumstances and unplanned events interact along the way, setting up cross-currents that are impossible either to predict in advance or trace in hindsight.
You can attribute some outcomes to a specific policy, but most economic situations are just that: situational.

Indeed. it's impossible to categorically attribute policy to results. But economists study these things, and this can give us a basis to judge the policy. It's far from perfect, but it's a superior basis to merely blaming or crediting a President for the price of gas or bread.

For sure. Especially as presidents have the least direct control of what wording, what particular details of constraint, what modifications and exceptions are contained in a bill as it's eventually passed.
The public rarely has the patience to consider such nuances, and journalist these days do very little to help the public understand them. It is thus with all political policy. We hear a candidate pronounce some slogan or platitude and many of us assume, without further consideration, that that is what that politician actually causes to happen. It usually isn't.

The economy was doing well, and the summers weren't as hot. A President doesn't control either the weather or the economy. — Relativist

Where in my post did I say that Trump controlled the economy that was doing well. I stated a platitude -- the economy was doing well. A great economy helps any sitting president.

I think from what I'm reading in this thread, there's a lot of psychological fear of the idea that Trump might be president again.

The Paul Ryan tax cuts passed under Trump, and tax cuts stimulate the economy. — Relativist

You mean the 2017 tax cuts and job acts. What were the votes? Did both parties vote for it?

I think from what I'm reading in this thread, there's a lot of psychological fear of the idea that Trump might be president again. — L'éléphant

Not 'psychological'. Fear, period. Although as I’ve said, I don’t believe it.

It occurs to me, speaking of psychology, that Trump’s thinking is entirely and completely subjective.

Not 'psychological'. Fear, period. Although as I’ve said, I don’t believe it.

It occurs to me, speaking of psychology, that Trump’s thinking is entirely and completely subjective. — Wayfarer

The phenomenon Trump is relevant because it challenges many people's notions about the world, truth, reality. Notions they hold sacred.

What does the fact that Trump and people like him can do well in this world say about the world?

If one fears that such people can do well in this world, what does this say about oneself?

How is it that despite all of one's presumed objectivity and moral and cognitive superiority, one still has such fears as above?

I think from what I'm reading in this thread, there's a lot of psychological fear of the idea that Trump might be president again. — L'éléphant

A lot of fear that people refuse to address, refuse to introspect.

What does the fact that Trump and people like him can do well in this world say about the world? — baker

Nothing about 'the world' in particular, but a shameful reflection of the American electorate. The fear is simply for the destruction of civil society that would ensue from his re-election, although I'm sure that it won't happen.

In case you haven't been paying attention:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/877051

Isn’t Hunter’s laptop relevant? — praxis

It’s only biased when it’s the bad team.

Where in my post did I say that Trump controlled the economy that was doing well. I stated a platitude -- the economy was doing well. A great economy helps any sitting president. — L'éléphant

I was responding to that platitude, not making an accusation.

I think from what I'm reading in this thread, there's a lot of psychological fear of the idea that Trump might be president again. — L'éléphant

Yes, there is. It seems irrational

You mean the 2017 tax cuts and job acts. What were the votes? Did both parties vote for it? — L'éléphant

No. It received no votes from Democrats.

The fear is simply for the destruction of civil society that would ensue from his re-election, although I'm sure that it won't happen. — Wayfarer

Whence that fear?

Come on, as a Buddhist, you should do better.

Straight out of a right-winger's playbook. I can turn on our local right-wing tv station or listen to the right-winger opposition in our parliament, and it's the same kind of talk, the same arguments, just the names are different.
— baker

What are you talking about? How is any of that right-wing? How is caring for democracy against the right-wing manipulation and power plays of demagogues even remotely similar to a right-wing playbook? — Christoffer

You do realize that right-wingers present themselves as the great "defenders of democracy"? That they accuse the centrists and lefties of "demagogy"? That they are "working hard" to "educate the people" and to open their eyes to make them "see the truth"?
This is right-winger language.

Caring for democracy is to get rid of the demagogues and the entire US system is built upon the actions of demagogues. Elections in the US are about appearances, not policies. It's about abstract values like "family" and "God", not philosophically sound moral principles. It's a theatre aimed at fooling the people to believe they have a good father or mother caring for them from their white house throne. It's an autocratic system in which an economic elite make shakespearian power plays for the throne and the servants in congress to play manipulation games while laws are controlled by a supreme court where enough deaths on one side can make the entire foundation of law fundamentally unbalanced.

It's not "Shakespearean". Please.

You do realize that right-wingers present themselves as the great "defenders of democracy"? That they accuse the centrists and lefties of "demagogy"? That they are "working hard" to "educate the people" and to open their eyes to make them "see the truth"?
This is right-winger language. — baker

That they take concepts, words and language and twist them does not mean the core of their sentences mean the same. That they manipulate people through twisting language just becomes another tool of power.

If people can't tell the difference between propaganda and analysis... well, then there's nothing to be done. If you can't understand the difference, then how could anything ever put you into expanded perspectives?

It's not "Shakespearean". Please. — baker

It's not wrong either.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/fulton-county-da-fani-willis-acknowledges-personal-relationship-specia-rcna136871

What a disgrace. In a trial like that there can't even be a hint of impropriety. I hope she gets fired and spends the rest of her career as a public defender.

How is it relevant? Is everyone associated with the prosecution of a case against Donald Trump supposed to refrain from any sexual relationships until the trial is over? What, exactly, is the conflict of interest, here?

I think it would have been more prudent for her not to get involved in this relationship at this time, but I agree with her that:

any personal relationship among members of the prosecution team does not amount to a disqualifying conflict of interest or otherwise harm a criminal defendant.

Because Trump's actions are indefensible they have resorted to attempts to discredit her by creating a trumped up "scandal".

Just playing Trump's call to Raffensperger should be enough to get him locked up no matter who the prosecutor is. But there were already questions about Nathan Wade, his lack of experience, and all the money he's gotten so far, and now every potential juror is going to know she was fucking him when she gave him the job. It's totally unprofessional, and people are going to think, if she's unprofessional about that, what else is going on?

It's totally unprofessional, and people are going to think, if she's unprofessional about that, what else is going on? — RogueAI

Do you mean the same people who don't give a shit about Ivanka and Jared being given jobs by the White House, or different people?

every potential juror is going to know she was fucking him when she gave him the job. — RogueAI

According to Willis, she was not romantically involved with Wade when she hired him.

What surprises me is the naiveite displayed. How can one study a group of some of the most accomplished character assassins living today and imagine that you have a magic shield of privacy?

According to Willis, she was not romantically involved with Wade when she hired him. — Relativist

That's true. Republicans have subpeoned her. I'm curious what she'll say under oath.
Elie Honig has a good piece on all this:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/fani-willis-has-problems-upon-problems/ar-BB1hFdFk

It's in her court filing. If she lied on it, her law license is in jeopardy.

Good point. Why do you think she picked Wade then?

She says in her filing that she's known and respected him a long time.