Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Biggest Lies by the Harris Campaign So Far
False: Project 2025 is Trump’s idea and contains all sorts of horrible things to make America more authoritarian.
True: The 2025 Project is a run-of-the-mill conservative think tank piece that Trump had nothing to do with and has, in fact, disavowed. The main thrust of the document is to drain the swamp, that is, cut back on the authority and power of unelected bureaucrats.
False: Trump will “in effect” enact a national sales tax.
True: What Trump has said, which Harris transmutes into a sales tax, is that he would enact tariffs across the board. People could avoid this “tax” by buying domestic products. Biden-Harris have proven to be quite comfortable with tariffs, keeping intact most of the tariffs Trump enacted during his first term.
False: Trump called neo-Nazis “very fine people.”
True: Trump specifically condemned neo-Nazis in the same speech.
False: Trump endangers democracy.
True: Neither during his entire first term nor on Jan. 6th did he ever do anything to endanger democracy unless by “democracy,” you mean “rule by democrats.”
False: Trump will become a dictator.
True: Worst dictator of the world who, if he wanted to be a dictator, did it all wrong in his first term when he enacted thousands of executive orders reducing the power of the federal government over the people and militated for the integrity of the election process.
False: Trump is a Russian asset.
True: Again, if he was a Russian asset he did it all wrong in his first term. Russia was slapped with sanctions and threatened with more if Putin invaded the Ukraine. He also forced NATO countries to beef up their militaries.
False: Trump wants to cut taxes for the rich.
True: Trump has announced no such plans. Trump proposes cutting corporate income taxes, which are not taxes on the rich but taxes paid for by customers of the corporations. Trump has proposed cutting income tax on Social Security income, on overtime pay, and on tips, hardly tax cuts for the rich.
False: Trump is just out for himself.
True: No points for reading the mind of your political opponent, Kamala. If Trump was just out for himself there are lots of ways to do that with less trouble. Trump has talked about how the little guy gets the shaft in America for decades. It’s not a new thing for him to stand up for the working class.
Harris said a Trump administration would lead to a “national abortion ban” and a national “monitor that would be monitoring your pregnancies, your miscarriages.”
Trump: “I’m not in favor of an abortion ban.”
False: Harris cited Trump as saying, “There will be a bloodbath” if the outcome of this election is not to his liking.
True: By “bloodbath” Trump was referring to damage to the auto industry.
Published in Election 2024
They don’t even try to address this meme. If Trump was Putin’s asset, why did he wait until Biden was in office to invade Ukraine? Wouldn’t a puppet be able to hand it over to you? Sure Trump said nice things about Putin in public? Trump’s a business man and knows you can’t attack a man in public and expect him to work deals in private. From reports out of the administration, Trump was tough behind the scenes and limited Putin’s options.
The Sheeple will not be swayed by your facts. The Dems are neo-Maoists. They are a cult where loyalty to the cult must be regularly demonstrated by repeating the cult’s lies upon penalty of expulsion, which is the worst fate for the childless cat ladies. The first Maoists killed 50 million of their population and killed 300+ million babies. Remember, “unburdened by what has been” is just a rehash of Mao’s “destroy the Four Olds” policy.
I wish he had said in the debate that the only “bloodbath” going on in the country right now is Kamala’s beloved abortion industry. 2,000,000 dead babies a year. Now that’s a bloodbath
I also wish he had said in response to her assertion that people were leaving his rallies early, something like: “Oh, I didn’t realize that you watched my rallies so closely; there may be hope of you learning something useful after all. Are some of the 20,000 people at my rallies leaving early? I can’t really tell from waaay up there on the podium, with all the cheering going on.
But one thing we’re sure of, nobody is leaving your rallies early. They can’t go anywhere until the buses you brought them all in on are ready to take them all back to wherever you hired them from.”
I don’t want to hear any nonsense about Kamala. She’s pretty and a good dancer.
True: Only one of the candidates has recommended “termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.” It is scarcely surprising, therefore, that people regard this individual as a wannabe dictator.
True: Trump’s tariffs will increase the cost of living for everyone, especially the poor whose dependence on cheaper imported goods is particularly strong. People can avoid this tax by not buying imported products in the same way they can avoid the income tax by not working or the death tax by not dying.
True: Regarding the suspicion that Trump is a Russian asset, Trump went to great lengths to keep his in-person conversations with Putin private, from confiscating his interpreter’s notes to not using American translators or notetakers at all during their meetings. Where’s there’s smoke …
True: Trump’s standing up for the working class is demonstrated by his notorious habit of stiffing small-business vendors and contractors on his construction projects after they had completed their work. Slime personified.
False. RECOGNIZING the termination of rules, regulations, and articles, BY THE OTHER SIDE, is NOT “recommending” it.
False. For one thing, it’s unlikely that people are DEPENDENT on imported goods; they might LIKE to pay less for each thing so they can get more things, but that’s not the same.
False. No different than the others who either deny the meetings took place, or have others covering for them. Such as the actual recordings of FJB’s talking with Hur.
Depends. Is it impossible that the people didn’t actually do the work as well as they had promised?
For example, take a look at the home inspectors who regularly find problems and outright shoddy work done by high-end, high-price home-builders.
I’m sure that, as you demonstrate here, Trump’s intellectual sluggishness and inability to think on his feet are a source of frustration to his followers. A post-debate comment I left on a different post is relevant:
HARRIS: […] people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom.
ALTERNATE-UNIVERSE TRUMP (smiling): It’s true that sometimes people leave early, Kamala. They tell us in surveys that being at a Trump rally was so exciting and intellectually stimulating they needed a break from the intensity of the experience. Inspired by my plans to help middle-class America and having already decided to vote for me, they leave early because they can’t wait to share their exhilaration with friends and neighbors.
THIS-UNIVERSE TRUMP (scowling): She’s a poopy-head.
True: No one who continues to cluck the “Russia Collusion” or “Russian Asset” chicken is a serious analyst whose opinion should be given serious consideration.
It is surprising how many people still think Trump colluded with Russia to get elected, despite ample evidence that the story was launched by the Democratic Party when it got duped into paying money to an ersatz secret-agent poseur who cranked out a preposterous account of improbable improprieties so salacious that they were too good for the our own intelligence and law-enforcement agencies to fact-check given their apparent incendiary quality and the promise they offered of bringing down the Bad Orange Man.
I guess when you get pretty much every major institution to run thousands of outlandish stories about it for three years, people remember.
I couldn’t understand why Trump disavowed project 2025. It was pretty much run of the mill conservative policy. But now he says he wants to cap credit card rates like Bernie, Pocahontas, and AOC so who knows what he’s thinking.
Could be just one of those things that he says because he thought about it, but once consulting with others etc, realizes it’s a bad idea.
Could also be a pothole in Lake Michigan. There are lots of possibilities.
This comment reveals a Marie Antoinette-level of insensitivity to the plight of the poor. It’s certainly true that they LIKE to pay less for things!
We will have joy in the breadlines when she implements her price controls
Yarob (View Comment):
According to Snopes:
In a Truth Social post on Dec. 3, 2022, Trump repeated his claim that the 2020 election results were fraudulent, and argued that this allows “for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.” Many interpreted this to mean he had called for a termination of the Constitution. Trump later denied this, arguing that he meant “steps must be immediately taken to RIGHT THE WRONG” of election fraud.
Lawdy, we can’t increase the income and prosperity of American workers because it would cost too much.
Absence of proof is not proof of anything. Trump’s concrete actions against Russia speak for themselves. The lack of Russian aggression during his term speaks for itself.
Trump doesn’t like to pay for work that was incomplete, poorly done, or done way late. He is notorious for that.
It might be a good idea to consider why it is that affordable, good quality products aren’t made in the US anymore, and try to do something about that, like limit cheap imports.
Again, I ask these people which president had the following:
Russian Reset
Got Rid of the Missile defense shield in Poland and Czech Republic
Told Vlad, “I will have more flexibility when the election is over”
Told Romney, “The 80s called and want their foreign policy back”
Except that was never the reason Trump or his minions gave at the time for screwing their vendors. The story of this poor fellow is instructive: Meet the architect Donald Trump stiffed for work on his golf course clubhouse – Curbed NY. There are endless numbers of stories like this.
The method seems to have been: 1. Sign contract for services for x dollars; 2. Work completed; 3. Renegotiate price, offering vendor a fraction of what was promised relying on them to be unable to afford to sue. He’s slime, and anybody who does business with him should know better.
No doubt. Has there ever been a president or presidential candidate who talks like that? Do Democrat presidential candidates propose pro life legislation and then say “woops”? Do other Republicans propose voting rights for illegals and then slap their foreheads, “What was I thinking?”
Except as far as I know, Trump hasn’t apologized for saying it. Why doesn’t he just steal Harris’ price gouging position for grocery stores while he’s at it?
Here’s a Google search I recommend you execute, after which you will be better informed about the issue: comparative advantage – Google Search.
You might explain further that the “very fine people” he was referring to were those on both sides of the Confederate statue/memorial issue . . .
Wouldn’t it be simpler to list the things Kamala Harris has said that are true?
Reading the replies here, I’m struck by what pretty much always strikes me when the question of Trump v. not Trump comes up: It isn’t a serious question.
There are reasons to oppose the election of Trump, but they aren’t serious reasons. They aren’t worthy reasons. They’re reasons that are rooted either in an emotional reaction to a sometimes challenging personality, or in a gross ignorance of how economics, foreign policy, and human nature work.
Because the reality is clear to anyone who is willing to sit down and think it through. Trump will govern as, for the most part, a traditional conservative. Harris would govern, for the most part, as a woke progressive radical.
Trump will tend to do what he did in his first term: Deregulate, project American strength, and accept Constitutional restraints on his behavior. Harris would tend to do what Obama and Biden-or-his-handlers did, which is to continue the progressive program of social and economic transformation, high regulation, and destruction of both domestic infrastructure and international authority.
That’s it. That’s reality. So all the snarky stuff about how silly Trump’s off the cuff comments can be — and they can be very silly indeed — is rhetorical fluff, a lame attempt to justify a purely emotional urge to make a terrible decision of lasting consequence.
I think most intelligent people know this, which is why those of us who acknowledge it get so frustrated with conservative anti-Trump people, and why conservative anti-Trump people focus so heavily on the silly things Trump says and never seriously compare the effects of the respective policies of Trump and Harris.
The reasons to vote against Trump are even better reasons to vote against Harris.
Correct, and by such a wide margin as to make the entire debate absurd.
Today’s “poor” often have cellphones etc. If cellphones were to become once again unavailable to the “poor,” I don’t think there would be bodies piling up in the streets.
You flag “poor” with quotation marks as if you don’t believe there are such people. Revealing.
The choice of cellphones as an example intended to prove that people owning one can’t really be poor is a, er, poor one. Cellphones are available free to low-income individuals and families under the federal Lifeline program, as are discounted service plans. Free phones are also offered by carriers as sales incentives to prospective customers. The U.S. is long past the point at which ownership of a cellphone could be considered a luxury indulgence available only to the wealthy. Low-cost goods from China and other foreign sources, however, play an outsized role in the life of the poor, and the vast majority of imported products don’t qualify for federal or state subsidies.
Trump wants to increase the cost of every imported product, so a low-income mother—cellphone-owning or not—doing back-to-school shopping for her children will pay higher prices for clothes, coats, shoes, backpacks, notepads, pens, pencils, crayons, lunchboxes, and endless other products. Trump’s universal tariff plan is economically cretinous and will make us all poorer, but low-income families will feel the pain the most.
I think it’s probably more revelatory of the nature of prosperity and poverty in America than it is of KE’s views on the matter.
Poverty in America isn’t like poverty in most of the rest of the world. It isn’t an existential crisis, a matter of life and death. It’s more a matter of comforts and convenience, of the size of television they own, of how much time they get off from work and what they are able to do with that time.
When I was a young man I was admonished to clean my plate because “children are starving in China.” Children were in fact starving in China, as they still do, sometimes, in Africa. Real poverty does exist, but barely in America in any meaningful sense.
I’m opposed to the sweeping use of tariffs, though I think they’re a useful punitive tool when dealing with bad-willed trading partners like, for example, China. Tariffs broadly increase the costs of goods to consumers, and that is going to hit lower-income Americans hardest. But the apocryphal phrase ascribed to Marie Antoinette was meant to contrast the lack of concern amongst the pampered nobility with the struggle of a peasant class facing the prospects of literal starvation.
As unpleasant as inflation is, the next ten percent price hike, whether caused by ill-considered Trumpian tariffs or Harris’s leftist-business-as-usual antimarket mischief, isn’t going to starve many Americans that Biden’s spending-driven inflation did not. And I don’t really expect broad tariffs from Trump this time, any more than we got them last time, whereas the Harris campaign is all about promising to spend money we don’t have on us, and then being more aggressive about taxing us to pay it back, with interest.
That’s because many/most “poor” people today are not “poor” by historical standards.
And if you can’t afford a new iPhone, that doesn’t mean you’re “poor.”
The “free phones” program also relies on cheap imported phones, of course. Without those, the “free phones” program might very well not exist either.
Also, up until recently, the “free phones” programs typically had limits of maybe a few hundred minutes of talk time and a few hundred text messages, per month. Which is one reason why many “poor” people would get several of them, although that was expressly illegal.
And the “free phones” programs and Lifeline programs, are per HOUSEHOLD, not per person.
Only if, and so long as, domestic production doesn’t take up the slack. It’s still odd to see people assuming that tariffs are intended to be permanent and unavoidable, rather than a bargaining tool, a method of increasing domestic production for its own reasons, etc.
Part of the bad assumptions made by many anti-tariff people is that everyone has to pay the full tariff, etc. Forever.
But the more likely scenario is something like, Domestic Products Inc charges $5 for a Widget, because they have to pay minimum wage etc. Imported Products Inc charges $4 for a Widget, because they can get cheap slave/child/prison labor in China and they can dig up the minerals without having to deal with environmental regulations; so that, even including cost of shipping Widgets ACROSS THE OCEAN, they can still make a profit at $4.
If a tariff is put on imported Widgets so that those sold by Imported Products Inc now cost $6, that doesn’t mean everyone – including The Poor – have to pay $6 for Widgets, now and forever. No, they can buy them for $5, from Domestic Products Inc.
And, even if no Domestic Products Inc previously existed, because nobody would make the investment when Imported Products Inc could undercut them; with the tariff in place, it becomes economically viable to START Domestic Products Inc. Or perhaps to bring Imported Products Inc back to the US, where it had previously been called Domestic Products Inc before being offshored to China due to cheaper labor and raw materials.
Which leads to another factor often ignored in economic matters: the impact of the factory that was never built. And the workers who were never hired, etc.