Probably, reluctantly agree with you. It's hard when all choices are poor and the goal is to find the best bad choice. Trump is unpredictable as a narcissist, he scares me. But the marxist-ish policies of Kamala's team I think scare me more at the moment. Two things I think you didn't mention that bother me: I understand powerful people have alway controlled media but we are in an area where most corporate media controls lean left. We aren't teaching people how to think through dialectic dialogue but rather what to think thru propaganda. Secondly, the democrats have drifted into feeding the international war machine as it is tied to big corporate money and outdated post war policies. Even though Trump is admittedly a loose cannon, he is a mercantilist and appears less prone to war. Either path we take is a dicey one. Appreciate your take and risk in putting it out into cyber space.
The idea that the media leans left is an old Rush Limbaugh trope that needs to die because it's not true anymore. I mean, there's a whole bunch of "parody" accounts about how bad it's become.
I try to follow people outside of mainstream media from all sides including international news channels. I don’t listen to Fox News, and I think that if Republicans of today had a chance, they would also control the narrative like the Democrats currently do.
The contrarian space is challenging because there’s plenty of conspiracies out there, but I still think that finding thoughtful contrarians is a better way to find a forward path than landing in a party line.
Michael Green took a plunge into a contrarian view while trying to stay centrist, this is a reason I respect him.
Excellent and courageous. In my opinion the most important thing about this election is that the fight for our future won’t be over no matter who we pick. We have a lot of hard work ahead of us to heal our society and fulfill our potential and purpose. No candidate will do this for us….they are just humans after all.
Kamala would TRY AT LEAST to heal our society, "work across the aisle", and be a President for everyone, even folks of the opposite party. Trump doesnt even pay lip service to that ... Plus his election denying and theatrics make our societal & political divides wider and more bitter
Kamala will mostly be a Biden2, continue most of his efforts. Joe Biden reached across the aisle as much as possible, Kamala had a large roll in Congress whipping votes and squeaking through some bills that got Republican votes such as infrastructure etc. The immigration bill was really a concession by Biden and Democrats on nearly every point and has everything Trump wanted but was sunk only because of Trump's pernicious influence and against America's interests. So yes I think the Demos including Kamala want to work across the aisle, have proven this again and again and are less poisoned by ideology, more able to compromise, are pragmatic. She says so, I believe her because Biden tried to be everybody's president as evidenced in word and deed by working across the aisle, and Kamala was there and anyway her pragmatism demonstrated on many other issues, such as Israel lately.
Your exposure to Harris' efforts is a meaningless trifle as evidenced by such an ignorant remark. Her bravery regarding affordable housing alone proves you have no idea what you're talking about.
In an era where few politicians work across the aisle, it’s highly unlikely any politician from a one-party state would pursue such a strategy. They literally are unpracticed, and if you had been paying any attention to California politics and the rampant corruption throughout its one party system - Google LA City Council, City of Oakland etc. - you’d realize this.
You want to compare scale? Did she mobilize felons & domestic terrorist and pressure election officials to lose ballots. Obvioysoy not. Of course, there was also the concession speech. So no, she isn't an election denier.
Yes, Hillary Clinton has made statements suggesting that she views Donald Trump's presidency as illegitimate. Specifically, in various interviews and public appearances after the 2016 election, Clinton expressed doubts about the legitimacy of Trump's win, largely due to concerns about Russian interference in the election process.
Key Points:
Interviews and Comments: In a 2019 interview with CBS News, Clinton stated, "I believe he knows he's an illegitimate president," referring to Trump. She suggested that the election results were influenced by factors outside the normal electoral process, particularly Russian interference.
Election Interference: Clinton and others have argued that Russian interference, as detailed in reports by U.S. intelligence agencies, played a significant role in the 2016 election outcome. This interference included cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and other efforts to influence American voters.
While Clinton has stopped short of formally declaring Trump an illegitimate president, her remarks strongly imply that she questions the validity of his presidency based on the circumstances surrounding his election victory.
Since you source the highly reliable ChatGPT, here's wikipedia:
The Muller investigation concluded in March 2019. The report concluded that the Russian Internet Research Agency's social media campaign supported Trump's presidential candidacy while attacking Clinton's, and Russian intelligence hacked and released damaging material from the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations.[14] The investigation "identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign", and determined that the Trump campaign "expected it would benefit electorally" from Russian hacking efforts. However, ultimately "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities".[15][16][17] Mueller said the conclusion on Russian interference "deserves the attention of every American".[18]
I agree that foreign influence in any domestic election deserves consideration. Did Trump benefit? Likely. Did he conspire? Not that we have evidence of.
Having skimmed through comments (won’t comment on the article and your choice as this is none of my business) I find it extremely curious that people seriously designate Trump as fascist and Kamala as Marxist. Because both are neither , and vice versa, pun intended. No matter what definition of fascism you take, Trump doesn’t fit, and Kamala has but a distant relationship to Frankfurt school, something like being a girlfriend of a cousin, thrice removed, with the question whether Franfurt school is Marxist or not itself very much open as well.
What I see here is people calling someone or something they don’t like with a name they associate with something they don’t like. It’s basically the same as calling people sh*t, just less honest. Purely emotional.
You mentioned you were a scientist, which I fully endorse based on my conversations with you over the years. I consider myself to be one as well. And throwing around terms like fascism and communism just like that simply makes my blood boil.
Anyway, it is very sad that the choice you guys have to make is between Harris and Trump. On the other hand, it’s bs that it’s unprecedented and/or existential. It’s just deeply suboptimal and towards the bottom of the historical US electoral range of choices. Just been a while to be so bad.
For your integrity and transparency I applaud you. For your conclusion to support the most egregious and heinous of villains I question your interpretation of commitment to humanity. For the very reason you exposed your children to religion and community I hope you will rethink your vote.
Maybe not the MOST egregious, but just one degree away from it:
Trump has come under fire for many remarks he made in the past concerning Epstein and women. In 2002, the mogul told New York Magazine, “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.” https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/did-donald-trump-and-jeffrey-epstein-rape-13-year-old-girl/
With the two Bush presidents you knew they came along with their Party, their elites, their traditional policy makers. With Trump you don't get that Michael, even less so in the 2nd Term, you get Trump and his merry band of Tea Party "let's break it" dudes. You get a much more volatile and possibly dangerous situation. You do get an Executive power that will stop at nothing to grab power no matter what the Bill of Rights say. You get huge departures on what Reagan, Bush and Republican party implemented in their foreign policy. Given he is loathsome and absolutely ineffective his last term. why are you trusting him as our President, why do you choose blind faith? You don't normally pitch that way ...
Vote like Harley, trade like Harley, live life like Harley - kidding, but I think we'd all be better or more Mensch (more Harley lol) if we did!
I do doubt that Sagan would have voted for Harris enthusiastically although you are probably right. But I am not Carl Sagan. As should be clear, I am voting for Trump reluctantly. But throughout Carl's life he assiduosly avoided making such statements and I continue to debate the same.
FWIW, I view your claim of fascism to be incorrect. Fascism is A destination that is possible from both parties and must be considered in the context of where constraints are being placed on society. It's the same argument I make against the claim that FDR was a fascist.
I'm reading "Takeover," about how Hitler succeeded in getting support from influential people who supported him "reluctantly" as you mimic in supporting 2024's most notable fascist. Apparently you have no idea what a dangerous course you're advocating. There are no words for the disgrace you've brought on yourself.
I've recommended the book, "The Three New Deals" by Wolfgang Schivelbusch https://a.co/d/hYECFqT as helpful in understanding the similarities and differences in the FDR/Mussolini/Hitler regimes. It's currently available for less than $4 on Amazon Kindle. A tough read, but an excellent understanding.
Trump is so unpredictable that a vote for him, expecting him to remember what he says from one speech to another, is a vote against something instead of for something. It’s just a protest vote.
Does he support electric cars or not?
Does he support abortion rights or not?
Does he support TikTok or not?
The one thing of which I’m sure is that he will do everything he can to become a permanent president.
I agree he is unpredictable and was fairly straightforward in my questioning his fitness for a second term.
Your response suggests you read my post with your own agenda in mind. Certainly your right. As a paid subscriber, you have the right to post your thoughts. However, your disparaging re-stack is inappropriate.
I'm cancelling your auto-renew to avoid the risk that you are unintentionally paying for something you do not value. If you would prefer a full refund, I'm happy to provide it.
I wish you would’ve made your argument against “big food” without mentioning Kennedy or Trump.
I follow Matt Stoller and agree with your arguments against big monopolies. Trump is a purely transactional person who will advocate for the higher bidder, including “big food” if they ever made a contribution.
My re-stacking was inadvertent. I’m on the app and must’ve fat-thumbed the re-stack button. I did not say anything disparaging on the re-stack.
Good for you Mike. Being a Brit I don’t have a say but if I did watching RFK deliver that speech would have done it for me. All the best and many thanks for your excellent input on these crazy markets ( and politicians 😎)
I was genuinely quite surprised to agree with a bunch of RFKJ's takes. But it's also littered with kookey pseudofactual conspiracy stuff.
Okay, love the provocative takes and all, but why the hell trust that Trump is going to be anything but self-serving? He's already showed us that many times, he's just turning more bitter and less entertaining lately. To be sure, I'm certainly not one to say Harris is any better, I even think the societal damage she will inflict will be much worse, but it's ridiculous to sign up for more Trump when he's already showed us his colors. He's a child who, in his first term, did little more than impulsively sow chaos in the style of Batman's Joker, and makes a show of being sycophantically chummy with the current dictators of the world. For all the MAGA sloganing, he didn't kickstart any domestic industry and he didn't do anything to help get on a path to meet our long term energy needs. To him, MAGA just means pandering to nationalistic elitists and protectionist racists.
P.S. I enjoyed the Incerto as much as the next nerd, but the turkeys have almost all been deep frozen for several months by the time the fourth Thursday comes around :D
I agree with you... RFK's speech was one of the most impactful of the last year. His condemnation of the Democratic party/media (I would add intelligence community) resonates. Together over the last 8 years they've driven some enormous hoaxes. (Steele D & Impeachment, Hunter Laptop, Biden's mental acuity, absurd law suits....) And he made one comment I've been saying for years to anyone who will listen: "The US spends 2X (percent GDP) on healthcare and has dramatically worse outcomes." I wholly agree with RFK general outlook that we should focus more on basic things such as food and exercise over expensive (and questionable) therapies.
In part, we receive worse outcomes because we have the most diverse society of all the OECD countries. In part, we receive worse outcomes because preventive care is (irrationaly) rationed and we therefore over rely on emergency medicine.
And because other country's price controls and rationing are only possible because the extremely high up front R&D cost, much lower marginal COGS / Cost of Delivery nature of healthcare, essentially allowing everyone else to free ride on our healthcare market
Thank you for your thoughtful article. I listened to the RFK speech yesterday. It was like a rare echo of a an age where compelling humanistic principles were shared and reasoned argument encouraged. How far we have slipped! When I run a cost/benefit analysis on where we stand politically, I’m holding my nose and choosing, perhaps not to believe quite yet, but to grab onto anything that can arrest our decline into soulless totalitarianism.
I agree. But if you don't see a shadowy backroom chosen presidential nomination of a previously unpopular candidate who has failed every major challenge as a different flavor of soulless totalitarianism, you're one of the marks.
How is it a "shadowy backroom" when public opinion shows 70% of people wanted Biden out? Polls showed more Republicans than Democrats wanted Biden to stay in the race -- simply because he was so easy to beat. How is it a backroom deal, when nearly every Congressional meeting had leaks throughout the entire process and even within Biden's own team? It was probably the most widely telegraphed backroom deal in the short history of social media.
I think Harris is not very bright, her economic ideas are terrible, and she'd be a 1 term presidency of meandering nonsense at best. But the Democratic party has a legally binding process, the delegates voted, and that's their choice.
You claim she's unpopular, but she also won a national vote with Biden. How popular is Trump as a person? His unfavourability is 5+ pts higher than Harris, and he has among the worst reputation of any politician in the last 30 years. Who cares how you think a political party should work? Are you a delegate for the DNC? Did you contribute to the party, knock on doors for their candidates, volunteer or participate in the rules making process?
The delegitimization that crazy right-wingers go into when they claim Obama is from Kenya and not really an American or that Harris didn't rightfully get the nomination in this particular way or that particular way is just pathetic.
Haha, Eric I pretty much thought the exact same thing. What I really like about this piece is that both sides of the spectrum need to be told that these choices are awful. If you're really telling me that you feel that either of these people are going to solve our problems, I just can't take you seriously. How were we a nation on the edge of a wilderness, with a population of around 4 million in 1790, able to produce leaders like Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, etc? Now look at who makes it through the filter when we are at 335 million with nearly universal literacy. We need to demand better choices. What this election cycle has burned in my brain is that there is a filtration system that we have blindly accepted, that puts forward people who are simply not up to the job they are pursuing. I'm unfortunately convinced that is by design. Great stuff from Mike, all the best to you guys at Simplify!
"a nation on the edge of a wilderness, with a population of around 4 million in 1790" - THIS is how.
I'm afraid that we are too far removed from how things are built and discovered. That our "sacrifices" are too meager... to really value and properly participate in this grand experiment. Instead, we are distracted by our own confirmation biases and physical/digital segregation.
As the Zoomers say... we need to "touch grass" again.
Well..I most admire the candor. I can agree with you regulation/monopoly is indeed a problem. That the GOP is more likely than DEMs to address this.
However I'll take the long(er) game. Trump needs to lose, and loose badly so that the GOP can find itself again; And offer the country an option of sensible economic/regulatory policy without the societal poison of being "led" by a (insert your favorite Trump moral, intellectual, or criminal failing here).
Also, respectfully and with humor, LOL at the idea I can't be an informed voter without listening to what RFK has to say. I mean sweet Jesus, who suddenly made him some sage?!
I thought I was pretty clear that I DON'T view RFK, Jr as a sage. In fact, I largely think he's a misinformed, entitled idiot. But he may be useful. The ant doesn't need to understand photosynthesis to move the rubber tree plant.
Touché, and don't get me wrong. If you're saying an RFK speech is worth a listen, then it gets added to my queue. Always a fan, and thanks for putting your (honest) opinions out there (regardless of popularity).
I'd argue this is also true, and much more so, for this recent batch of dems. Nothing makes me feel older and more confused to have reached a point in my life where it's an accepted democratic platform to cheerlead foreign wars, corporate monopolies, and big pharma. How the heck did we get here? If this current iteration of the machine candidate goes down in flames against the backdrop of whatever the heck they did to Biden (and Bernie before him), maybe younger people left leaning people will start looking inward and some serious candidates emerge out of it. From there we could start to heal. Aside from the politcal football issues the dems are not an opposition party any more and we are worse off for it. I fear we will need a serious collapse of some kind for this to happen.
Thanks for sharing your thought process. I respect the framework and conclusion. I must say the majority of comments on here worry me given the assumption that your average reader should likely be more researched/well read. The emotional reaction and regurgitation of provably false accusations shows how much work we have ahead of as a society to pushback against the bad actors we find operating in every industry (media, food, tech, healthcare etc.). Hopefully, we can get back to rational thinking even its on a nuanced issue similar to what you've demonstrated in your post
I applaud you going out on a limb for what will certainly be a contentious opinion! It's strange, I actually agree with all of your supporting points (literally 100%), but then have concluded to vote for Harris. Biden/Harris are the ones that seem more likely to keep pushing nuclear power, expand funding for children, push back on unnecessary tax cuts, push back on healthcare monopolists and push for healthier food for kids. Remember it's Biden/Harris who have pushed Lina Khan, who has had the right attitude on trust busting but been somewhat incompetent and somewhat constrained by archaic and weak antitrust laws.
I don't think anything will come out of a Republican "deregulatory" agenda except for more oil and gas drilling that poisons rural communities and destroys priceless national parks. And then we will have more unnecessary tax cuts digging us deeper in the fiscal hole, endless nasty debates over immigration (but no progress because we lack the will of ability to deport people en masse), and more handouts to consolidation-loving VCs like Thiel, Private equity folks, etc.
So it's fascinating to me that we can be so aligned on "what matters", yet completely misaligned on "who we trust" to deliver it? Honestly I hope you're right, because then I will feel better either way
Yes but it is the Democrats who put Lina Khan in power - not Trump! Under Trump despite the rhetoric there was less reform and more consolidation across the board!!
Michael seems to have looked at the facts, and come to the opposite conclusion of those of us who truly watch what politicians DO rather than SAY. The Democratic's party's Center is considerably to the Right of its few loud self-proclaimed "progressive branch," and really sits at the political center of our nation's divide. That is where Bill Clinton at his best got stuff done! Welfare reform for example. That Center is where only Kamala might be, where Trump never will be, it just doesn't make good hourly headlines for him! And sorry, finance ex Wall St guys, ie libertarians at heart, you are dangerously naive politically, Trump IS a an existential threat to American democracy and system and the mixed economy, which you tend to forget (from the gloom of your rabbit hole) is our greatest long-term asset. Get some perspective guys, and yes, vote Kamala.
Ps By the way there is definitely hope in the Center that nuclear power is an option.
Appreciate the thoughtful reply. As I indicated, we each have to make our own choice based on how we weigh the evidence. I see more risks with the "status quo" as represented (poor word choice, but no other available) by Harris.
Great article, thank you Michael; and good back-and-forth in this comment. @ThomasMoran, re your "sits at the political center" comment, while I agree its probably true on some level, has lost all its relevance. The said democrats will probably argue in a centrist way if we were having an intellectual discussion in a bar, but their actions (and more so, their inactions), have harmed democracy as much as trump .
So really the choice is to stay with the status quo and virtually guaranteed further / slower decline into existential threat or vote trump and have a (small) chance at draining the swamp while risking immediate existential threat to democracy.
Probably, reluctantly agree with you. It's hard when all choices are poor and the goal is to find the best bad choice. Trump is unpredictable as a narcissist, he scares me. But the marxist-ish policies of Kamala's team I think scare me more at the moment. Two things I think you didn't mention that bother me: I understand powerful people have alway controlled media but we are in an area where most corporate media controls lean left. We aren't teaching people how to think through dialectic dialogue but rather what to think thru propaganda. Secondly, the democrats have drifted into feeding the international war machine as it is tied to big corporate money and outdated post war policies. Even though Trump is admittedly a loose cannon, he is a mercantilist and appears less prone to war. Either path we take is a dicey one. Appreciate your take and risk in putting it out into cyber space.
Thank you for your consideration of my arguments. Agree they are far from the only arguments.
Respectfully, how are corporate media controls leftist when they are either publicly held or owned by Rupert Murdoch?
And the example of MSNBC and CNN not showing RFK is no different than FOX muting out Republican speeches during the DNC.
At some point, we need to stop calling the media “left leaning”. It’s owned and run by billionaires.
Because Fox is one company and the entire rest of mainstream media is left leaning
The idea that the media leans left is an old Rush Limbaugh trope that needs to die because it's not true anymore. I mean, there's a whole bunch of "parody" accounts about how bad it's become.
https://twitter.com/DougJBalloon
The media doesn't tilt left or right anymore, it tilts status quo, and whomever the biggest ad purchasers prefer.
I try to follow people outside of mainstream media from all sides including international news channels. I don’t listen to Fox News, and I think that if Republicans of today had a chance, they would also control the narrative like the Democrats currently do.
The contrarian space is challenging because there’s plenty of conspiracies out there, but I still think that finding thoughtful contrarians is a better way to find a forward path than landing in a party line.
Michael Green took a plunge into a contrarian view while trying to stay centrist, this is a reason I respect him.
I doubt the Mercantilist claim Somewhat of a Smithian approach
Excellent and courageous. In my opinion the most important thing about this election is that the fight for our future won’t be over no matter who we pick. We have a lot of hard work ahead of us to heal our society and fulfill our potential and purpose. No candidate will do this for us….they are just humans after all.
Kamala would TRY AT LEAST to heal our society, "work across the aisle", and be a President for everyone, even folks of the opposite party. Trump doesnt even pay lip service to that ... Plus his election denying and theatrics make our societal & political divides wider and more bitter
What's your evidence for this? Hardly any politicians do this, and all of Kamala's track record (not teleprompter rhetoric) indicates otherwise.
Hi Bryan,
Kamala will mostly be a Biden2, continue most of his efforts. Joe Biden reached across the aisle as much as possible, Kamala had a large roll in Congress whipping votes and squeaking through some bills that got Republican votes such as infrastructure etc. The immigration bill was really a concession by Biden and Democrats on nearly every point and has everything Trump wanted but was sunk only because of Trump's pernicious influence and against America's interests. So yes I think the Demos including Kamala want to work across the aisle, have proven this again and again and are less poisoned by ideology, more able to compromise, are pragmatic. She says so, I believe her because Biden tried to be everybody's president as evidenced in word and deed by working across the aisle, and Kamala was there and anyway her pragmatism demonstrated on many other issues, such as Israel lately.
Your exposure to Harris' efforts is a meaningless trifle as evidenced by such an ignorant remark. Her bravery regarding affordable housing alone proves you have no idea what you're talking about.
In an era where few politicians work across the aisle, it’s highly unlikely any politician from a one-party state would pursue such a strategy. They literally are unpracticed, and if you had been paying any attention to California politics and the rampant corruption throughout its one party system - Google LA City Council, City of Oakland etc. - you’d realize this.
Did not Hillary deny the election results of 2016 and start the Russian collusion hoax?
You want to compare scale? Did she mobilize felons & domestic terrorist and pressure election officials to lose ballots. Obvioysoy not. Of course, there was also the concession speech. So no, she isn't an election denier.
From ChatGPT:
Yes, Hillary Clinton has made statements suggesting that she views Donald Trump's presidency as illegitimate. Specifically, in various interviews and public appearances after the 2016 election, Clinton expressed doubts about the legitimacy of Trump's win, largely due to concerns about Russian interference in the election process.
Key Points:
Interviews and Comments: In a 2019 interview with CBS News, Clinton stated, "I believe he knows he's an illegitimate president," referring to Trump. She suggested that the election results were influenced by factors outside the normal electoral process, particularly Russian interference.
Election Interference: Clinton and others have argued that Russian interference, as detailed in reports by U.S. intelligence agencies, played a significant role in the 2016 election outcome. This interference included cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and other efforts to influence American voters.
While Clinton has stopped short of formally declaring Trump an illegitimate president, her remarks strongly imply that she questions the validity of his presidency based on the circumstances surrounding his election victory.
From MWG: None of them are good choices.
She conceded. She is not an election denier.
Trump also conceded, I suppose you missed that.
Since you source the highly reliable ChatGPT, here's wikipedia:
The Muller investigation concluded in March 2019. The report concluded that the Russian Internet Research Agency's social media campaign supported Trump's presidential candidacy while attacking Clinton's, and Russian intelligence hacked and released damaging material from the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations.[14] The investigation "identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign", and determined that the Trump campaign "expected it would benefit electorally" from Russian hacking efforts. However, ultimately "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities".[15][16][17] Mueller said the conclusion on Russian interference "deserves the attention of every American".[18]
I agree that foreign influence in any domestic election deserves consideration. Did Trump benefit? Likely. Did he conspire? Not that we have evidence of.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-hosting-jan-6-awards-gala-sparks-fury-absolutely-horrid-1943435
Having skimmed through comments (won’t comment on the article and your choice as this is none of my business) I find it extremely curious that people seriously designate Trump as fascist and Kamala as Marxist. Because both are neither , and vice versa, pun intended. No matter what definition of fascism you take, Trump doesn’t fit, and Kamala has but a distant relationship to Frankfurt school, something like being a girlfriend of a cousin, thrice removed, with the question whether Franfurt school is Marxist or not itself very much open as well.
What I see here is people calling someone or something they don’t like with a name they associate with something they don’t like. It’s basically the same as calling people sh*t, just less honest. Purely emotional.
You mentioned you were a scientist, which I fully endorse based on my conversations with you over the years. I consider myself to be one as well. And throwing around terms like fascism and communism just like that simply makes my blood boil.
Anyway, it is very sad that the choice you guys have to make is between Harris and Trump. On the other hand, it’s bs that it’s unprecedented and/or existential. It’s just deeply suboptimal and towards the bottom of the historical US electoral range of choices. Just been a while to be so bad.
This too shall pass
For your integrity and transparency I applaud you. For your conclusion to support the most egregious and heinous of villains I question your interpretation of commitment to humanity. For the very reason you exposed your children to religion and community I hope you will rethink your vote.
"the most egregious and heinous of villains"? Is Trump a criminal? I believe he is. Do I think he remotely approaches this status? No, I do not.
Maybe not the MOST egregious, but just one degree away from it:
Trump has come under fire for many remarks he made in the past concerning Epstein and women. In 2002, the mogul told New York Magazine, “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.” https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/did-donald-trump-and-jeffrey-epstein-rape-13-year-old-girl/
Yep, he's a loathsome guy. As I said.
With the two Bush presidents you knew they came along with their Party, their elites, their traditional policy makers. With Trump you don't get that Michael, even less so in the 2nd Term, you get Trump and his merry band of Tea Party "let's break it" dudes. You get a much more volatile and possibly dangerous situation. You do get an Executive power that will stop at nothing to grab power no matter what the Bill of Rights say. You get huge departures on what Reagan, Bush and Republican party implemented in their foreign policy. Given he is loathsome and absolutely ineffective his last term. why are you trusting him as our President, why do you choose blind faith? You don't normally pitch that way ...
Vote like Harley, trade like Harley, live life like Harley - kidding, but I think we'd all be better or more Mensch (more Harley lol) if we did!
Harley is, indeed, a heck of a role model.
FWIW, he is heavily conflicted in his voting as well.
That's the argument to vote for fascism?
I have little doubt that Sagan would have voted for Harris.
I do doubt that Sagan would have voted for Harris enthusiastically although you are probably right. But I am not Carl Sagan. As should be clear, I am voting for Trump reluctantly. But throughout Carl's life he assiduosly avoided making such statements and I continue to debate the same.
FWIW, I view your claim of fascism to be incorrect. Fascism is A destination that is possible from both parties and must be considered in the context of where constraints are being placed on society. It's the same argument I make against the claim that FDR was a fascist.
I'm reading "Takeover," about how Hitler succeeded in getting support from influential people who supported him "reluctantly" as you mimic in supporting 2024's most notable fascist. Apparently you have no idea what a dangerous course you're advocating. There are no words for the disgrace you've brought on yourself.
People who support insurrectionists are not serious people; they’re anarchists.
Mike thanks for the post, very interesting. Have you elaborated on this fascism topic anywhere?
I've recommended the book, "The Three New Deals" by Wolfgang Schivelbusch https://a.co/d/hYECFqT as helpful in understanding the similarities and differences in the FDR/Mussolini/Hitler regimes. It's currently available for less than $4 on Amazon Kindle. A tough read, but an excellent understanding.
Trump is so unpredictable that a vote for him, expecting him to remember what he says from one speech to another, is a vote against something instead of for something. It’s just a protest vote.
Does he support electric cars or not?
Does he support abortion rights or not?
Does he support TikTok or not?
The one thing of which I’m sure is that he will do everything he can to become a permanent president.
I agree he is unpredictable and was fairly straightforward in my questioning his fitness for a second term.
Your response suggests you read my post with your own agenda in mind. Certainly your right. As a paid subscriber, you have the right to post your thoughts. However, your disparaging re-stack is inappropriate.
I'm cancelling your auto-renew to avoid the risk that you are unintentionally paying for something you do not value. If you would prefer a full refund, I'm happy to provide it.
I wish you would’ve made your argument against “big food” without mentioning Kennedy or Trump.
I follow Matt Stoller and agree with your arguments against big monopolies. Trump is a purely transactional person who will advocate for the higher bidder, including “big food” if they ever made a contribution.
My re-stacking was inadvertent. I’m on the app and must’ve fat-thumbed the re-stack button. I did not say anything disparaging on the re-stack.
No comments on politics. But your point on Monopolies in every sector of us is well taken.
Thank you
Good for you Mike. Being a Brit I don’t have a say but if I did watching RFK deliver that speech would have done it for me. All the best and many thanks for your excellent input on these crazy markets ( and politicians 😎)
I was genuinely quite surprised to agree with a bunch of RFKJ's takes. But it's also littered with kookey pseudofactual conspiracy stuff.
Okay, love the provocative takes and all, but why the hell trust that Trump is going to be anything but self-serving? He's already showed us that many times, he's just turning more bitter and less entertaining lately. To be sure, I'm certainly not one to say Harris is any better, I even think the societal damage she will inflict will be much worse, but it's ridiculous to sign up for more Trump when he's already showed us his colors. He's a child who, in his first term, did little more than impulsively sow chaos in the style of Batman's Joker, and makes a show of being sycophantically chummy with the current dictators of the world. For all the MAGA sloganing, he didn't kickstart any domestic industry and he didn't do anything to help get on a path to meet our long term energy needs. To him, MAGA just means pandering to nationalistic elitists and protectionist racists.
P.S. I enjoyed the Incerto as much as the next nerd, but the turkeys have almost all been deep frozen for several months by the time the fourth Thursday comes around :D
I agree with you... RFK's speech was one of the most impactful of the last year. His condemnation of the Democratic party/media (I would add intelligence community) resonates. Together over the last 8 years they've driven some enormous hoaxes. (Steele D & Impeachment, Hunter Laptop, Biden's mental acuity, absurd law suits....) And he made one comment I've been saying for years to anyone who will listen: "The US spends 2X (percent GDP) on healthcare and has dramatically worse outcomes." I wholly agree with RFK general outlook that we should focus more on basic things such as food and exercise over expensive (and questionable) therapies.
In part, we receive worse outcomes because we have the most diverse society of all the OECD countries. In part, we receive worse outcomes because preventive care is (irrationaly) rationed and we therefore over rely on emergency medicine.
And behind it all is the drumbeat of monopoly.
And because other country's price controls and rationing are only possible because the extremely high up front R&D cost, much lower marginal COGS / Cost of Delivery nature of healthcare, essentially allowing everyone else to free ride on our healthcare market
Thank you for your thoughtful article. I listened to the RFK speech yesterday. It was like a rare echo of a an age where compelling humanistic principles were shared and reasoned argument encouraged. How far we have slipped! When I run a cost/benefit analysis on where we stand politically, I’m holding my nose and choosing, perhaps not to believe quite yet, but to grab onto anything that can arrest our decline into soulless totalitarianism.
“Soulless totalitarianism “ is the embodiment of Trump.
I agree. But if you don't see a shadowy backroom chosen presidential nomination of a previously unpopular candidate who has failed every major challenge as a different flavor of soulless totalitarianism, you're one of the marks.
How is it a "shadowy backroom" when public opinion shows 70% of people wanted Biden out? Polls showed more Republicans than Democrats wanted Biden to stay in the race -- simply because he was so easy to beat. How is it a backroom deal, when nearly every Congressional meeting had leaks throughout the entire process and even within Biden's own team? It was probably the most widely telegraphed backroom deal in the short history of social media.
I think Harris is not very bright, her economic ideas are terrible, and she'd be a 1 term presidency of meandering nonsense at best. But the Democratic party has a legally binding process, the delegates voted, and that's their choice.
You claim she's unpopular, but she also won a national vote with Biden. How popular is Trump as a person? His unfavourability is 5+ pts higher than Harris, and he has among the worst reputation of any politician in the last 30 years. Who cares how you think a political party should work? Are you a delegate for the DNC? Did you contribute to the party, knock on doors for their candidates, volunteer or participate in the rules making process?
The delegitimization that crazy right-wingers go into when they claim Obama is from Kenya and not really an American or that Harris didn't rightfully get the nomination in this particular way or that particular way is just pathetic.
Well said - what's amazing to me is the number of people who don't see both choices as a "hold my nose" vote.
Wake up. Drink coffee. Walk dogs. Kick hornets nest.
Happy Sunday, Mike! Appreciate your thoughts and willingness to share them with the world.
Haha, Eric I pretty much thought the exact same thing. What I really like about this piece is that both sides of the spectrum need to be told that these choices are awful. If you're really telling me that you feel that either of these people are going to solve our problems, I just can't take you seriously. How were we a nation on the edge of a wilderness, with a population of around 4 million in 1790, able to produce leaders like Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, etc? Now look at who makes it through the filter when we are at 335 million with nearly universal literacy. We need to demand better choices. What this election cycle has burned in my brain is that there is a filtration system that we have blindly accepted, that puts forward people who are simply not up to the job they are pursuing. I'm unfortunately convinced that is by design. Great stuff from Mike, all the best to you guys at Simplify!
"a nation on the edge of a wilderness, with a population of around 4 million in 1790" - THIS is how.
I'm afraid that we are too far removed from how things are built and discovered. That our "sacrifices" are too meager... to really value and properly participate in this grand experiment. Instead, we are distracted by our own confirmation biases and physical/digital segregation.
As the Zoomers say... we need to "touch grass" again.
Hope all is well and hope to see you soon!
Well..I most admire the candor. I can agree with you regulation/monopoly is indeed a problem. That the GOP is more likely than DEMs to address this.
However I'll take the long(er) game. Trump needs to lose, and loose badly so that the GOP can find itself again; And offer the country an option of sensible economic/regulatory policy without the societal poison of being "led" by a (insert your favorite Trump moral, intellectual, or criminal failing here).
Also, respectfully and with humor, LOL at the idea I can't be an informed voter without listening to what RFK has to say. I mean sweet Jesus, who suddenly made him some sage?!
I thought I was pretty clear that I DON'T view RFK, Jr as a sage. In fact, I largely think he's a misinformed, entitled idiot. But he may be useful. The ant doesn't need to understand photosynthesis to move the rubber tree plant.
Touché, and don't get me wrong. If you're saying an RFK speech is worth a listen, then it gets added to my queue. Always a fan, and thanks for putting your (honest) opinions out there (regardless of popularity).
I'd read it rather than listen. Far more digestable in written form. He is a terrible public speaker.
I'd argue this is also true, and much more so, for this recent batch of dems. Nothing makes me feel older and more confused to have reached a point in my life where it's an accepted democratic platform to cheerlead foreign wars, corporate monopolies, and big pharma. How the heck did we get here? If this current iteration of the machine candidate goes down in flames against the backdrop of whatever the heck they did to Biden (and Bernie before him), maybe younger people left leaning people will start looking inward and some serious candidates emerge out of it. From there we could start to heal. Aside from the politcal football issues the dems are not an opposition party any more and we are worse off for it. I fear we will need a serious collapse of some kind for this to happen.
Thanks for sharing your thought process. I respect the framework and conclusion. I must say the majority of comments on here worry me given the assumption that your average reader should likely be more researched/well read. The emotional reaction and regurgitation of provably false accusations shows how much work we have ahead of as a society to pushback against the bad actors we find operating in every industry (media, food, tech, healthcare etc.). Hopefully, we can get back to rational thinking even its on a nuanced issue similar to what you've demonstrated in your post
I applaud you going out on a limb for what will certainly be a contentious opinion! It's strange, I actually agree with all of your supporting points (literally 100%), but then have concluded to vote for Harris. Biden/Harris are the ones that seem more likely to keep pushing nuclear power, expand funding for children, push back on unnecessary tax cuts, push back on healthcare monopolists and push for healthier food for kids. Remember it's Biden/Harris who have pushed Lina Khan, who has had the right attitude on trust busting but been somewhat incompetent and somewhat constrained by archaic and weak antitrust laws.
I don't think anything will come out of a Republican "deregulatory" agenda except for more oil and gas drilling that poisons rural communities and destroys priceless national parks. And then we will have more unnecessary tax cuts digging us deeper in the fiscal hole, endless nasty debates over immigration (but no progress because we lack the will of ability to deport people en masse), and more handouts to consolidation-loving VCs like Thiel, Private equity folks, etc.
So it's fascinating to me that we can be so aligned on "what matters", yet completely misaligned on "who we trust" to deliver it? Honestly I hope you're right, because then I will feel better either way
Yes but it is the Democrats who put Lina Khan in power - not Trump! Under Trump despite the rhetoric there was less reform and more consolidation across the board!!
Michael seems to have looked at the facts, and come to the opposite conclusion of those of us who truly watch what politicians DO rather than SAY. The Democratic's party's Center is considerably to the Right of its few loud self-proclaimed "progressive branch," and really sits at the political center of our nation's divide. That is where Bill Clinton at his best got stuff done! Welfare reform for example. That Center is where only Kamala might be, where Trump never will be, it just doesn't make good hourly headlines for him! And sorry, finance ex Wall St guys, ie libertarians at heart, you are dangerously naive politically, Trump IS a an existential threat to American democracy and system and the mixed economy, which you tend to forget (from the gloom of your rabbit hole) is our greatest long-term asset. Get some perspective guys, and yes, vote Kamala.
Ps By the way there is definitely hope in the Center that nuclear power is an option.
Appreciate the thoughtful reply. As I indicated, we each have to make our own choice based on how we weigh the evidence. I see more risks with the "status quo" as represented (poor word choice, but no other available) by Harris.
Great article, thank you Michael; and good back-and-forth in this comment. @ThomasMoran, re your "sits at the political center" comment, while I agree its probably true on some level, has lost all its relevance. The said democrats will probably argue in a centrist way if we were having an intellectual discussion in a bar, but their actions (and more so, their inactions), have harmed democracy as much as trump .
So really the choice is to stay with the status quo and virtually guaranteed further / slower decline into existential threat or vote trump and have a (small) chance at draining the swamp while risking immediate existential threat to democracy.