2024 GOP Primary

[Monahorns]

The only policies that a President can do to improve the economy is reduce government intervention in the economy. The ups and downs over the last couple of Presidents doesn't fit cleanly into their own time in office. The things the government does have lagging effects and there are an unpredictable myriad of factors that go into the equation.

Broadly speaking here are the only things a President can to do "improve" the economy: reduce the money supply slowly for a designated period of time then hold constant, cut government spending, cut regulations, make use of federal lands easy and inexpensive, and eliminate immigration or only let in those few who are exceptional in their field. To make the money supply solid long term you would have to abolish the Federal Reserve and let different currencies compete with one another for use (gold, silver, US$, bitcoin, etc.). Anything else is meaningless and actually extracts money out of country.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The economic team Trump put together was fantastic. Also, his grasp of how energy affects ALL things is critical - it tilts the playing field of the entire planet. In my opinion even the Abraham Accords came about because of the rise of American energy and the pressure it applied to OPEC countries.
Would DeSantis have done or could he do the same?

This feels like a conclusion searching for and constructing a rationale. What exactly has Ron Desantis (or frankly even Nikki Haley) said to suggest that he's less favourable to energy production and independence than Trump was?

And if you want to apply Trump's record on the issue in his favour, don't you also have to apply his record on government spending and inflation (which were atrocious) against his favour?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Broadly speaking here are the only things a President can to do "improve" the economy: reduce the money supply slowly for a designated period of time then hold constant, cut government spending, cut regulations, make use of federal lands easy and inexpensive, and eliminate immigration or only let in those few who are exceptional in their field

I'm not sure how eliminating immigration would help the economy. That would reduce the labour supply and force up wages, which is inflationary. Keep in mind that there's an ugly social factor that's also driving high immigration that no one likes to talk about. White people in the US and Europe aren't having kids like they used to. They're living for themselves, jeapardizing the long term populations and labour forces of their countries. That's a major reason why business groups and governments are for more immigration.

I agree that it should be reduced, because it has been ridiculously high for decades (mostly driven by the Hart-Cellar Act, which was sold on to the country on ********). However, I wouldn't elimintate it. I'd simply make it merit-based and greatly reduce family unification.

However, if we're going to make immigration a lot smaller long term, we need to start valuing family a lot more, and I don't mean handing out free money for kids. Germany does that (so-called "kindergeld"), and it doesn't really help much. Western culture needs to value it more.

 

[Garmel]

The overspending on Covid was going to happen no matter who was in office. Yes, DeSantis figured it out before Trump but let's not act like he wasn't all in at first.

 

[Horn6721]

Garm yes like other states Desantis did shut down Florida.

 

[Monahorns]

I'm not sure how eliminating immigration would help the economy. That would reduce the labour supply and force up wages, which is inflationary. Keep in mind that there's an ugly social factor that's also driving high immigration that no one likes to talk about. White people in the US and Europe aren't having kids like they used to. They're living for themselves, jeapardizing the long term populations and labour forces of their countries. That's a major reason why business groups and governments are for more immigration.

It helps the low and working class. It also incentivizes technological advancement. Labor rates have been stagnant for a while at the same time productivity has gone up. Those values should follow the same trend. Immigration should be very very low and illegals should be deported by the millions. The forced population growth not only reduces wage rates it increases demand for goods, schools, houses, etc.

I agree that it should be reduced, because it has been ridiculously high for decades (mostly driven by the Hart-Cellar Act, which was sold on to the country on ********). However, I wouldn't elimintate it. I'd simply make it merit-based and greatly reduce family unification.

Very low immigration or no immigration is practically the same. I'm on board.

However, if we're going to make immigration a lot smaller long term, we need to start valuing family a lot more, and I don't mean handing out free money for kids. Germany does that (so-called "kindergeld"), and it doesn't really help much. Western culture needs to value it more.

I agree but that is a mainly a cultural thing. Need more Christians and need those Christians to be more on the conservative side. Improving wages and decreasing inflation through stable money makes family formation easier as well.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Garm yes like other states Desantis did shut down Florida.

Very briefly when things weren't known, and Trump ripped him when he reopened. It isn't remotely fair or honest to fail to point that out. It's like saying Rittenhouse shot people without mentioning that they were attacking him.

 

[HalRex]

This feels like a conclusion searching for and constructing a rationale. What exactly has Ron Desantis (or frankly even Nikki Haley) said to suggest that he's less favourable to energy production and independence than Trump was?

And if you want to apply Trump's record on the issue in his favour, don't you also have to apply his record on government spending and inflation (which were atrocious) against his favour?

I conclude that the team Trump put together and the policies he set forth by virtue of that teams' recommendations were prescient and successful. A major point being that he actually did it - he's proven. Who knows, maybe Desantis/Haley could do the same but we don't know do we? Don't get me wrong, I like Desantis and would certainly choose him or even Haley over Biden or any other Democrat. The problem with Desantis is that he doesn't inspire and lacks the charisma that many look for in a leader. He's very conservative which is fine w/me but may go too far for a significant portion of the electorate. Haley is a bit too old guardish for me despite her relative youth. She's really smart in many ways and her pitch is well considered from a political standpoint. If Haley were on the ticket as VP next to Trump I think it would serve both well because of her current stance and rhetoric regarding abortion. Also, as a successful VP to Trump she would be in great position to achieve her ultimate goal in 2028- the presidency.
With regard to Trump's spending, I don't disagree. It was way too much. No president will make all the right moves or decisions. Hindsight seems always to be 20/20. I try to look at the performance as a whole rather than single out specific policies (or even behaviors) which I may like or dislike. I also try to understand the political forces that are in play and how those forces effect policy. We all hope that the political pressures exerted originate from the people but, at least in my view, that's not always the case. Too often corruption and personal gain act to influence. A couple of the things I like about Trump are that his decisions, for the most part, are not purely political - they are the right moves regarding the issue in front of him. The second thing is that he is competent to make decisions based on available information and is not unduly married to a hard position. This is in huge contrast to Biden who makes no decision not based on politics or personal gain and has never had much in the way of competency on any topic.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I conclude that the team Trump put together and the policies he set forth by virtue of that teams' recommendations were prescient and successful. A major point being that he actually did it - he's proven. Who knows, maybe Desantis/Haley could do the same but we don't know do we? Don't get me wrong, I like Desantis and would certainly choose him or even Haley over Biden or any other Democrat. The problem with Desantis is that he doesn't inspire and lacks the charisma that many look for in a leader. He's very conservative which is fine w/me but may go too far for a significant portion of the electorate. Haley is a bit too old guardish for me despite her relative youth. She's really smart in many ways and her pitch is well considered from a political standpoint. If Haley were on the ticket as VP next to Trump I think it would serve both well because of her current stance and rhetoric regarding abortion. Also, as a successful VP to Trump she would be in great position to achieve her ultimate goal in 2028- the presidency.
With regard to Trump's spending, I don't disagree. It was way too much. No president will make all the right moves or decisions. Hindsight seems always to be 20/20. I try to look at the performance as a whole rather than single out specific policies (or even behaviors) which I may like or dislike. I also try to understand the political forces that are in play and how those forces effect policy. We all hope that the political pressures exerted originate from the people but, at least in my view, that's not always the case. Too often corruption and personal gain act to influence. A couple of the things I like about Trump are that his decisions, for the most part, are not purely political - they are the right moves regarding the issue in front of him. The second thing is that he is competent to make decisions based on available information and is not unduly married to a hard position. This is in huge contrast to Biden who makes no decision not based on politics or personal gain and has never had much in the way of competency on any topic.

You hail Trump's economic policy as a point in his favour and against Desantis - not based on policy proposals but on Trump's record. That's fair to do, but it's not fair to do that and then rationalize his record on spending as you seem to. That's not just a minor, "nobody's perfect" kind of detail. It's a massive failure. Understand that Trump was a bigger spender than Barack Obama was, and we considered him very reckless.

It's just remarkable that the same people who dismiss Paul Ryan as a big cuck and sellout even though he actually cut spending during the Obama Administration hail Trump as this big tough conservative, even though he ran to both Ryan's and Obama's left on spending. It's baffling. But since Trump was doing it, most of us don't care. We'll give the obigatory "he should have spent less," but we don't hold it against him even compared to other Republicans whose records on the matter are much better (since besides Joe Biden, everyone's record is better).

 

[mchammer]

Well, Georgia lawsuit isn’t going to happen before the election:

 

[mchammer]

 

[mchammer]

 

[mchammer]

 

[mchammer]

It’s not Haley apparently.

 

[Monahorns]

It’s not Haley apparently.

Hallelujah!

 

[mb227]

It’s not Haley apparently.

There was no way he was going to select someone who refuses to speak against child mutilation in the name of parental delusions...to say nothing of Haley's clear desire to have us embroiled in more endless wars.

 

[ViperHorn]

There was no way he was going to select someone who refuses to speak against child mutilation in the name of parental delusions...to say nothing of Haley's clear desire to have us embroiled in more endless wars.

I agree with your position on mutilation, but the "endless wars" are a product of confused policies toward those who want to take over their neighbors. Iraq is an example of trying to please coalition partners rather than acting to protect the Iraqi citizens which was the whole point at the end of the first Gulf War.

 

[Mr. Deez]

It’s not Haley apparently.

"Probably" is pretty meaningless in politics especially with this much time before it has to be official. It could still very well be Haley. It's rumoured that he wants a woman. Kristi Noem blew it when she vetoed a trans bill (that she later signed) and when she decided to bang Corey Lewandowski.

Elise Stefanik wouldn't be bad, but she's not even 40 years old and is in line to be Speaker of the House, which will become a good job again someday. She'd be foolish to give that up for a chance to be VP.

Haley is at the end of the line. She has already been governor, and North Carolina already has 2 GOP senators, neither of whom are very old and therefore likely to retire soon. She's in an ideal position to become VP, and would be good at advocating for Trump and making him look normal.

 

[mb227]

"Probably" is pretty meaningless in politics especially with this much time before it has to be official. It could still very well be Haley. It's rumoured that he wants a woman. Kristi Noem blew it when she vetoed a trans bill (that she later signed) and when she decided to bang Corey Lewandowski.

Elise Stefanik wouldn't be bad, but she's not even 40 years old and is in line to be Speaker of the House, which will become a good job again someday. She'd be foolish to give that up for a chance to be VP.

Haley is at the end of the line. She has already been governor, and North Carolina already has 2 GOP senators, neither of whom are very old and therefore likely to retire soon. She's in an ideal position to become VP, and would be good at advocating for Trump and making him look normal.

Haley endorses child mutilation by parents drinking the tranny kool-aid which makes her a no-go for ANY Republican.

 

[mchammer]

"Probably" is pretty meaningless in politics especially with this much time before it has to be official. It could still very well be Haley. It's rumoured that he wants a woman. Kristi Noem blew it when she vetoed a trans bill (that she later signed) and when she decided to bang Corey Lewandowski.

Elise Stefanik wouldn't be bad, but she's not even 40 years old and is in line to be Speaker of the House, which will become a good job again someday. She'd be foolish to give that up for a chance to be VP.

Haley is at the end of the line. She has already been governor, and North Carolina already has 2 GOP senators, neither of whom are very old and therefore likely to retire soon. She's in an ideal position to become VP, and would be good at advocating for Trump and making him look normal.

SC, not NC

 

[mchammer]

 

[mchammer]

 

[Gylcomer]

I'm not sure how eliminating immigration would help the economy. That would reduce the labour supply and force up wages, which is inflationary. Keep in mind that there's an ugly social factor that's also driving high immigration that no one likes to talk about. White people in the US and Europe aren't having kids like they used to. They're living for themselves, jeapardizing the long term populations and labour forces of their countries. That's a major reason why business groups and governments are for more immigration.

I agree that it should be reduced, because it has been ridiculously high for decades (mostly driven by the Hart-Cellar Act, which was sold on to the country on ********). However, I wouldn't elimintate it. I'd simply make it merit-based and greatly reduce family unification.

However, if we're going to make immigration a lot smaller long term, we need to start valuing family a lot more, and I don't mean handing out free money for kids. Germany does that (so-called "kindergeld"), and it doesn't really help much. Western culture needs to value it more.

According to Peter Zeihan, the Japanese have developed and successfully implemented an economic model that accounts for declining demographics.

This Administration does not want higher-skilled and better educated migration from Eastern Europe. They are possible conservative voters, which they tend to be. The predominantly conservative parts of Deutschland are the eastern states that were once part of the Soviet Union.

 

[Mr. Deez]

It helps the low and working class. It also incentivizes technological advancement. Labor rates have been stagnant for a while at the same time productivity has gone up.

Reducing immigration does help the lower and middle classes. That is true. I'm not sure that it encourages technological advancement. Usually heightened competition for wealth leads to technological advancement.

Immigration should be very very low and illegals should be deported by the millions.

I would go to very very low numbers for a while, because of how long we've been at very very high numbers. We need to deport those here illegally, and we need to assimilate those here legally. That takes time.

Long term, I'd have levels vary according to labour needs, and immigrants would be chosen based on merit, and yes, I would discriminate on the basis of cultural background (not race). Furthermore, I wouldn't let them bring anyone other than immediate family - spouse and minor children. Most of all, I'd encourage assimilation rather than discourage it as we do now.

The forced population growth not only reduces wage rates it increases demand for goods, schools, houses, etc.

Yes, but with more people, it's easier to increase the supply of those things.

I agree but that is a mainly a cultural thing. Need more Christians and need those Christians to be more on the conservative side. Improving wages and decreasing inflation through stable money makes family formation easier as well.

It is cultural, which makes it harder to fix. However, it has to be fixed. Religious people tend to value family more and therefore have more children. That's true of Christians, Muslims, and Jews. (That's one of the reasons European elites don't mind importing Islamic labour. Muslims have kids.) However, I don't know how to change course when the wrong course has already been set.

Western Europe has been grappling with this problem for decades. They've tried giving out free money, but that doesn't do much good, because it isn't about money. It's about values. Kids are a lot of work, and they can be a pain in the ***. That's true if you have money or if you're broke. If you don't value family and children, you're not going to have them. And this sounds harsh, but your average white, Western young person (18 - 4) is friggin' lazy, and doesn't value family. So they're largely not having kids, especially not in meaningful numbers. It's sad, because they will eventually value them. They'll one day be too old to party and travel, and they'll wish they had adult children and grandchildren, but by then, it'll be too late.

 

[Mr. Deez]

According to Peter Zeihan, the Japanese have developed and successfully implemented an economic model that accounts for declining demographics.

That is yet to be seen. Right now, they're trying to follow the Western European model of handing out free money to have kids, so they are trying to get people to have kids. We'll see if it works better than it's working in Europe. Germany actually has seen an increase in its fertility over the last 8 or so years, but are those Germans having kids or Muslim immigrants? I would guess it's mostly the latter.

This Administration does not want higher-skilled and better educated migration from Eastern Europe. They are possible conservative voters, which they tend to be. The predominantly conservative parts of Deutschland are the eastern states that were once part of the Soviet Union.

Definitely true. They do not want immigrants from anywhere that would be predisposed to be favourable to traditional Westernism. They want Muslims and Latin Americans from non-communist or former communist countries.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Haley endorses child mutilation by parents drinking the tranny kool-aid which makes her a no-go for ANY Republican.

She has said mixed things on the issue, but so has Trump. She could take a states' rights position (which is frankly where the issue broadly belongs with some exceptions that involve the federal government) and backpedal on the issue. In fact, she has already done that to a point. The job of the VP is to balance the ticket. Trump is already going to get high GOP turnout, despite his own mixed record on a myriad of issues. (Nobody really cares.) He needs someone to sell him to moderates and independents the way Mike Pence did in '16, so he doesn't get clobbered in the suburbs. She can play that role pretty well.

 

[ViperHorn]

Well stated Mr. D.

 

[mb227]

#NeverNikki

 

[Horn6721]

I hope BUT we HAVE to a Repub elected and if she helps the women vote then sign her up

 

[Run Pincher]

I hope BUT we HAVE to a Repub elected and if she helps the women vote then sign her up

Certainly that's a key point. I think it has to be a woman to have any chance in the general. I Black conservative like Tim Scott won't do anything to move the needle on the minority vote.