The way I think about it is that Harris guarantees continued mediocrity and passivity, at best. Trump presents a massive range of uncertainty between brilliant successes (e.g. the Abraham Accords) and spectacular blunders (e.g. pulling out of the TPP). Given the choice of a guaranteed eventual slide into Macur-Olson-style decline and the…
The way I think about it is that Harris guarantees continued mediocrity and passivity, at best. Trump presents a massive range of uncertainty between brilliant successes (e.g. the Abraham Accords) and spectacular blunders (e.g. pulling out of the TPP). Given the choice of a guaranteed eventual slide into Macur-Olson-style decline and the chance of a lasting recovery, I'll roll the dice.
My greatest worry with Trump is that he will fail to support Ukraine. However, the present administration is already doing that, for all practical purposes. The Jake Sullivan appeasement cabal has demanded that Ukraine fight with one hand tied behind its back, in a show of dishonorable cowardly sanctimony that the world has scarcely seen before in all of history. Not content with slow-walking our own military aid that we so proudly trumpeted, the administration is even forbidding other countries from transferring weapons such as F-16s and such to Ukraine. I could go on for days on the subject, or you could read Trent Telenko on X.
So I'm not sure what gain would come from supporting Harris, on that front.
The way I think about it is that Harris guarantees continued mediocrity and passivity, at best. Trump presents a massive range of uncertainty between brilliant successes (e.g. the Abraham Accords) and spectacular blunders (e.g. pulling out of the TPP). Given the choice of a guaranteed eventual slide into Macur-Olson-style decline and the chance of a lasting recovery, I'll roll the dice.
My greatest worry with Trump is that he will fail to support Ukraine. However, the present administration is already doing that, for all practical purposes. The Jake Sullivan appeasement cabal has demanded that Ukraine fight with one hand tied behind its back, in a show of dishonorable cowardly sanctimony that the world has scarcely seen before in all of history. Not content with slow-walking our own military aid that we so proudly trumpeted, the administration is even forbidding other countries from transferring weapons such as F-16s and such to Ukraine. I could go on for days on the subject, or you could read Trent Telenko on X.
So I'm not sure what gain would come from supporting Harris, on that front.
A thought experiment.
Take 20 employees who are making 100K/year. Give them each a dime.
Tell them if they get heads their salary jumps to 200K/year, if tails then they get fired. Or they can choose not to flip and stay at 100K
Now how many of them flip the coin? We can’t really know of course, but we can know that:
a) someone who is on the verge of quitting or getting fired would risk it.
b) someone confident they could easily get another 100K job would risk it.
c) someone who is an absurd thrill-seeker who does dangerous outdoor activities could
d) someone who has a ton of money in the bank and doesn’t really need their salary to survive
Now who wouldn’t make such a risk? Obviously those in some degree of financial jeopardy with responsibilities they can’t risk on a coin flip.
In America are there more in the former category or the latter? 🤔