Biden losing Muslim voters

[KillerGoose]

(12-07-2023, 01:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Things are noticeably more expensive in people's day to day lives.  I stopped by the grocery store for a handful of extra items, mostly sides like rice, etc.  No proteins at all.  The bill was around $100.  I cannot imagine how bad things are for families who were paycheck to paycheck three years ago.  This is why all the, "the economy is great" messaging falls flat, and will continue to do so.  We're not yet at the point that the government can demand we ignore the evidence of our daily experience and own two eyes.

Yeah, it's definitely a disconnect between "economy" and "personal finances". By some of the conventional metrics, the economy is doing really well. Good GDP growth, very low unemployment, wages are rising. All sounds nice. However, the average citizens personal finances are in shambles. It's really difficult to buy houses. It's a burden to get basic groceries for many. That sucks. 

The high level view of the economy isn't indicative of how people are doing in their own personal situations, and many are struggling. I've said this before, but if you asked me a year ago "who wins" between Biden & Trump, the answer would have been Biden without hesitation. He still had OK support, given the circumstances. However, my answer is now pretty solidly Donald and it's tough to see it getting that much better for Joe before November comes along. He has some ground to make up. 

[*Nately120*]

(12-07-2023, 02:33 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Yeah, it's definitely a disconnect between "economy" and "personal finances". By some of the conventional metrics, the economy is doing really well. Good GDP growth, very low unemployment, wages are rising. All sounds nice. However, the average citizens personal finances are in shambles. It's really difficult to buy houses. It's a burden to get basic groceries for many. That sucks. 

The high level view of the economy isn't indicative of how people are doing in their own personal situations, and many are struggling. I've said this before, but if you asked me a year ago "who wins" between Biden & Trump, the answer would have been Biden without hesitation. He still had OK support, given the circumstances. However, my answer is now pretty solidly Donald and it's tough to see it getting that much better for Joe before November comes along. He has some ground to make up. 

We will see what shakes out, but I'm with you.  As I see it now Trump wins in 2024 and I don't foresee things getting much better for regular schlubs, but a republican will be in the WH so the narrative will go right back to "If you can't afford necessities, you shouldn't have been so lazy and/or wasted all your money on stuff you didn't need."

Regular folks have been hurting for a while here, but the way people look at it is the only thing that varies depending on who is perceived to be in control.

The thing is, I don't think people really believe or care that things will get better with Trump, they just want to strike back against Biden.  It's like jurors saying OJ or Casey Anthony were "not guilty" not as much that they believed they were, but that they wanted to send a message to "the system" that they weren't doing their job.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-07-2023, 02:33 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Yeah, it's definitely a disconnect between "economy" and "personal finances". By some of the conventional metrics, the economy is doing really well. Good GDP growth, very low unemployment, wages are rising. All sounds nice. However, the average citizens personal finances are in shambles. It's really difficult to buy houses. It's a burden to get basic groceries for many. That sucks. 

The high level view of the economy isn't indicative of how people are doing in their own personal situations, and many are struggling. I've said this before, but if you asked me a year ago "who wins" between Biden & Trump, the answer would have been Biden without hesitation. He still had OK support, given the circumstances. However, my answer is now pretty solidly Donald and it's tough to see it getting that much better for Joe before November comes along. He has some ground to make up. 

Indeed, and all the partisans harping on economic numbers absolutely refuse to acknowledge it.  People are hurting.  I don't live paycheck to paycheck, I'm very comfortable, and if I'm noticing this it must be crushing anyone on the edge financially.  As for Biden, I'll reiterate that I'd be very surprised if he runs again.  I think he'll have a "health scare" and decline to run again sometime in the summer, that way he can close things out and open the door to someone entirely new (i.e. not Harris who is unelectable).  Then they'll prop up the party nominee of choice, my guess is Newsome who can then say he had no intention of running but with Biden out he's been asked to step up.  To me that would be an even worse lose lose scenario than we already face as Newsome is a scumbag par excellence. 

[StoneTheCrow]

(12-07-2023, 03:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Indeed, and all the partisans harping on economic numbers absolutely refuse to acknowledge it.  People are hurting.  I don't live paycheck to paycheck, I'm very comfortable, and if I'm noticing this it must be crushing anyone on the edge financially.  As for Biden, I'll reiterate that I'd be very surprised if he runs again.  I think he'll have a "health scare" and decline to run again sometime in the summer, that way he can close things out and open the door to someone entirely new (i.e. not Harris who is unelectable).  Then they'll prop up the party nominee of choice, my guess is Newsome who can then say he had no intention of running but with Biden out he's been asked to step up.  To me that would be an even worse lose lose scenario than we already face as Newsome is a scumbag par excellence. 

Sing it with me, “how do you solve a problem like Kamala?”

How are they gonna pass over the current #2 for a white male?

[*Nately120*]

(12-07-2023, 03:33 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Sing it with me, “how do you solve a problem like Kamala?”

How are they gonna pass over the current #2 for a white male?

I was shocked democrats were smart enough to put up Biden against Trump in 2020 instead of going with Elizabeth Warren and watching Trump do a raindance and wear a headdress and mock her and her stupid vagina until he won in a landslide, so the democrats have shown they're more than willing to toss a white dude up there so they can win.

Harris stinks and has the stink of Biden on her, so you can't just pull Biden out and pretend she's going to win back voters.  As SSF pointed out, Newsom is a sleazebag, but he's 24 years younger than Biden and 20 years younger than Trump, he has a full head of hair, and he's 6'3 so democrats know he's got the resume to win and Harris doesn't.

As I've said before, I think the democrats have much better candidates in Josh Shapiro and Mark Kelley, but they're going to be expected to "wait their turn."

[StoneTheCrow]

(12-07-2023, 03:57 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I was shocked democrats were smart enough to put up Biden against Trump in 2020 instead of going with Elizabeth Warren and watching Trump do a raindance and wear a headdress and mock her and her stupid vagina until he won in a landslide, so the democrats have shown they're more than willing to toss a white dude up there so they can win.

Harris stinks and has the stink of Biden on her, so you can't just pull Biden out and pretend she's going to win back voters.  As SSF pointed out, Newsom is a sleazebag, but he's 24 years younger than Biden and 20 years younger than Trump, he has a full head of hair, and he's 6'3 so democrats know he's got the resume to win and Harris doesn't.

Yeah we’ve beaten the topic to death. I just wanted to sneak in a The Sound of Music reference, thank you very much.

[*Nately120*]

(12-07-2023, 04:01 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Yeah we’ve beaten the topic to death. I just wanted to sneak in a The Sound of Music reference, thank you very much.

I'm not very familiar with the thing, but I assume you could have worked in a reference that involved acknowledging that aspect.  Possibly using that yodeling goat song.

[StoneTheCrow]

(12-07-2023, 04:06 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Possibly using that yodeling goat song.

Damn! Would’ve been perfect actually, considering the discussion is about the potential replacement for the one currently occupying the White House.

[*Nately120*]

(12-07-2023, 04:09 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Damn! Would’ve been perfect actually, considering the discussion is about the potential replacement for the one currently occupying the White House.

It'd make more sense if the Von Trapp family returned to Austria because they found Switzerland's economy to be too weak.

[BigPapaKain]

(12-07-2023, 01:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The actual bag of plain rice (bismati) wasn't super expensive.  But I got some pre packaged rice/couscous (Near East) and well as pasta sides.  I don't have the entire list, but it wasn't a ton of things and, like I said, no proteins at all.  No spices either.  Point being, the final price was surprising.

California (Love) prices suck.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-07-2023, 03:33 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Sing it with me, “how do you solve a problem like Kamala?”

How are they gonna pass over the current #2 for a white male?

A very good question.  Probably something along the lines of her deciding she didn't want to run for "x" personal reason.

(12-07-2023, 06:29 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: California (Love) prices suck.

They do indeed.  Gotta pay those super high prices on everything to fund bloated social programs that don't work.

[BigPapaKain]

(12-07-2023, 06:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: They do indeed.  Gotta pay those super high prices on everything to fund bloated social programs that don't work.

That sounds a lot like passing the buck from the company setting a price well over market value because of location. I'm not surprised to pay too much for strawberries in NW Ohio in December, but rice is rice - that shit grows everywhere and is dirt cheap to produce. The company is paying the same tax rate whether they're selling it for $.75 a pound or $2 a pound.

(I acknowledge you said you bought more than rice - I'm just harping on that point because it's the cheapest thing you mentioned).

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-08-2023, 01:52 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: That sounds a lot like passing the buck from the company setting a price well over market value because of location. I'm not surprised to pay too much for strawberries in NW Ohio in December, but rice is rice - that shit grows everywhere and is dirt cheap to produce. The company is paying the same tax rate whether they're selling it for $.75 a pound or $2 a pound.

(I acknowledge you said you bought more than rice - I'm just harping on that point because it's the cheapest thing you mentioned).

You're ignoring the higher taxes in CA, along with sales tax.  I will admit to shopping at one of the more expensive stores as It's by far the closest to my house and I'm not in bad shape financially.  But even at a cheaper place the prices here are very high.  If they are lower elsewhere then I'm happy for them, but what I'm seeing here and elsewhere does not give me that impression.

[*Nately120*]

(12-07-2023, 06:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A very good question.  Probably something along the lines of her deciding she didn't want to run for "x" personal reason.


They do indeed.  Gotta pay those super high prices on everything to fund bloated social programs that don't work.

I'll sell you my house and property in rural PA for a million bucks.  It's a small town, too so I heard a country song that will assure your job will consist of nothing but dudes buying you beers and chicks giving you BJs.


No wait, Elon Musk is on the phone he wants to build Twitter HQ here.  Says something about it being on a dirt road being just what the founding fathers would have had.  

[BigPapaKain]

(12-08-2023, 02:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're ignoring the higher taxes in CA, along with sales tax.  I will admit to shopping at one of the more expensive stores as It's by far the closest to my house and I'm not in bad shape financially.  But even at a cheaper place the prices here are very high.  If they are lower elsewhere then I'm happy for them, but what I'm seeing here and elsewhere does not give me that impression.

I'm actually actively acknowledging the higher taxes and sales tax by pointing out the supplier and store are going to be paying the same percentage regardless of sticker price. Though now that I think of it, it's shitty if you have to pay sales tax on food. Like we pay taxes on soda and sugary drinks in Ohio, but even candy doesn't have a sales tax.

I'm simply stating that it sounds - to me, atleast - companies charge a premium in California because they can.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-08-2023, 02:48 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I'm actually actively acknowledging the higher taxes and sales tax by pointing out the supplier and store are going to be paying the same percentage regardless of sticker price. Though now that I think of it, it's shitty if you have to pay sales tax on food. Like we pay taxes on soda and sugary drinks in Ohio, but even candy doesn't have a sales tax.

I'm simply stating that it sounds - to me, atleast - companies charge a premium in California because they can.

You don't pay sales tax on most food items, so bad example on my part.  What I should have mentioned are higher taxes to actually run a business, lease a location, payroll taxes, etc.  I'll never pretend to be an economic genius, but I can't believe prices are so much higher here simply because the companies can get away with it.

[Luvnit2]

I have said it many times, the Biden policies on day 1 in office on fossil fuels drove up the price of gasoline, electricity and natural gas. All are important, but the biggest is gasoline and diesel fuel. Those impact everyone from the supplier, the employees whose company pays for their gasoline, the delivery of food and goods as well as the cost of the majority of lower and middle class who commute to work in gasoline power vehicles.

The second is Joe let the Trump policies expires on illegal immigration essentially opening our borders. It is estimated now close to 6 million illegal encounters since Biden took office and over 1 million illegal immigrants who got in bypassing border security. Who is naive enough to think there are 6 million + illegal immigrants without a green card or legally eligible for work that are not working cash jobs that pay no taxes and lowering wages in some fields of work because employers don't have to pay them minimum wage or above.

Years ago employers were held accountable for hiring illegal immigrants, but now it appears not so much. How can you entice illegals to come into the country using extremely loose asylum laws and then deport them for trying to support themselves. Some will think well all of the illegal immigrants making money should boost the economy. It would, but the majority wire money back home and that money is not spent in the US economy.

Back on the thread topic, it used to be the majority of illegal immigrants were from Mexico. Did you know now almost 50% are from around the world including a lot of Chinese and people from the middle east (Muslims). We know those protesting from the river to the sea are mostly paid protesters, but also people from Iran, Iraq, Gaza and other pro Palestinian and anti Israel among them. Do we want people in ur country who want to eliminate every Jew on earth?

I will say for the most part Biden has been pro Israel, in doing so he has ticked off the extreme Muslims who hate Jews. They put him in an unwindable situation. He is losing Muslim voters, but in this case, in my opinion not his fault.

[BigPapaKain]

(12-08-2023, 02:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You don't pay sales tax on most food items, so bad example on my part.  What I should have mentioned are higher taxes to actually run a business, lease a location, payroll taxes, etc.  I'll never pretend to be an economic genius, but I can't believe prices are so much higher here simply because the companies can get away with it.

So I decided to look into this on a whim and for funsies and I was actually surprised to see how close California and Ohio were in average grocery cost per month per person ($370.96 to $341.48, respectively). Also surprising was that they're both considered middle of the pack.

Just kind of interesting and proving your point. 

The most surprising thing was how expensive it was in Mississipi ($423.33).

[*Nately120*]

I certainly hope no one who is demanding an entire political revolution because of grocery bills is buying pointless additives, food that is devoid of nutritional value and/or meaningful calories, or name brands. Additionally, if you can't afford groceries stop drinking anything other than water. You want to live like it's 1776? Stop buying a bunch of needless crap. Candy and soda sales are through the roof in this county and it's all extraneous stuff.

For some reason people can wrap their heads around the notion that avocado toast and Starbucks are pointless expenses, but based on some of the biggest selling items in this country that's where the realization stops.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-08-2023, 06:18 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: So I decided to look into this on a whim and for funsies and I was actually surprised to see how close California and Ohio were in average grocery cost per month per person ($370.96 to $341.48, respectively). Also surprising was that they're both considered middle of the pack.

Just kind of interesting and proving your point. 

The most surprising thing was how expensive it was in Mississipi ($423.33).

I would imagine that's due largely to the more rural areas of CA.  We are a huge agricultural state, which does keep costs down for many products (I've had many visitors comment on how cheap tri-tip is here for example).  I'd be interested to see what the actual drivers of that are.  Mississippi is definitely surprising.