Is Donald Trump the Best Choice?
Famed economist Arthur Laffer debates Libertarian Party presidential candidate Chase Oliver.
Economist and author Arthur B. Laffer and Libertarian Party presidential candidate Chase Oliver debate the resolution, "Among the candidates actively running for President in November, Donald Trump is the best choice."
Defending the resolution is Laffer, who is widely recognized as "The Father of Supply-Side Economics," as his Laffer Curve is one of the main theoretical constructs of supply-side economics. Laffer was a member of President Ronald Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board for both of Reagan's terms and a founding member of the Reagan Executive Advisory Committee for the 1980 presidential race. He also advised U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on fiscal policy during the 1980s. In 2019, Laffer was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Donald Trump. He's authored numerous books, including his most recent, Taxes Have Consequences: An Income Tax History of the United States.
Arguing against the resolution is Oliver, the Libertarian Party's candidate for president. He rose to prominence in the party as the 2022 Libertarian Senate candidate in a highly competitive race in Georgia, where he pulled 2 percent of the vote, forcing it into a runoff, which ultimately resulted in the Democratic candidate winning, tipping the balance of the Senate in their favor.
The debate was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.
- Editor: John Osterhoudt
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
We will never again be permitted to elect a competent president.
Is Donald Trump the Best Choice?
Realistically? This time? Yes.
No doubt about it!
Donald Trump is a self-obsessed asshole whose New York style braggadocio comes from one of the most annoying cultures on earth, but with the exception of RFK Jr, he's the only one who isn't misanthropic.
Trump isn't misanthropic?
lol
No. Trump isn’t misanthropic.
I have a list a mile long as to why Harris and the Democrats are though.
Tell you what, why don’t you tell me how Trump is misanthropic, Shrike, and I’ll tell you why Team (D) is, and we’ll see what everyone thinks.
more goalpost moving
Original claim: Trump isn't misanthropic
New, goalpost-moved claim: Trump isn't as misanthropic as Kamamalama
and we’ll see what everyone thinks.
appeal to the mob - another logical fallacy (one of your favorites)
easy to see T as a total misanthrope provided one does not understand what misanthropic means.
Jeffy probably thinks misanthrope=werewolf.
Trump isn’t as misanthropic as Kamamalama
No one actually said that except you.
ML's ploy was to compare two lists of "misanthropic properties" and then have the very biased mob vote based on the lists. So yes that is what he was planning to do, "show" that Trump is not as bad as KamKam.
Hey guys, it is a day ending in Y, so obviously that means Chemjeff is going to tell you what is in people's minds.
So it doesn't matter what I actually said, what matters is what you want to claim I said.
What a fucking clown.
Is the Pedo Jeffy way.
I wonder how often he gets the shot near out of him for running his mouth?
“New, goalpost-moved claim: Trump isn’t as misanthropic as Kamamalama”
I am not seeing that in ML’s post. "Tell you what, why don’t you tell me how Trump is misanthropic"
More flat out fucking lying by Lying Jeffy.
Me: No. Trump isn’t misanthropic…why don’t you tell me how Trump is misanthropic, Shrike…
Lying Jeffy: “more goalpost moving
Original claim: Trump isn’t misanthropic
New, goalpost-moved claim: Trump isn’t as misanthropic as Kamamalama”
Point out where I said what you claimed I said you lying fuck.
My post doesn’t just disappear because you want to gaslight and bend reality, retard.
appeal to the mob – another logical fallacy
Asking people what they think isn't what "appeal to the mob" means, you moronic piece of shit.
Oh cut the crap. You pull this sort of stunt all the time. “Asking people what they think” is HOW you appeal to the mob. Otherwise what’s the point in asking? It’s just another way for you to try to weasel and lawyer your way out of your usual bullshittery games. God you really are despicable.
Trump isn’t as misanthropic as Kamamalama
This is what you were teeing up to try to do, with your “hey, let’s construct lists and ask the totally-not-Trump-sucking mob to weigh in with their opinions."
By the way, did Trump lie during the debate? Still no lies that you will confess to, even when the rest of the world admits it?
Look guys, Chemjeff always bitches and moans about people not arguing in good faith. But when he accuses you of a position you did not take, then doubles down by insisting he can read your mind, that is totes good faith arguing. Yup, it's everybody else's fault that the comments section sucks. He has nothing to do with it. If only people would argue in good faith.
On some sites, one can mute people.
Lol, you’re such human garbage, Lying Jeffy.
You wanted to smear, but you were too lazy to properly read what I wrote and your lie ended up accidentally being too obvious, and now you look like a clown.
You’re lucky you don’t have a sense of shame and embarrassment, because you’d have killed yourself years ago.
He really can’t help himself, can he?
I disagree. He’s garbage, but not human. Democrats have no souls
What ML actually did was ask for the evidence so we could all point and laugh when the "evidence" that Trump was misanthropic wasn't evidence of misanthropy at all.
"Misanthropic" means more than being a jerk.
“misanthropic suggests a rooted distrust and dislike of human beings and their society.”
Yeah, that totes sounds like Trump.
Hahahahahahahahaha
How, exactly, is Chase Oliver misanthropic?
Nonsense.
In the context of a divided government, with Republicans in charge of at least one house and SCOTUS, then Harris is a perfectly adequate choice.
She's wrong in all the usual ways.
Trump is wrong in all the worst ways.
She’s far worse. It isn’t even close.
She's objectively the most progressive presidential candidate in history, with objectively the most progressive running mate.
It's bonkers to think that she would be preferable.
If you strip away the personality, Trump's policies are basically down the middle center-right boilerplate.
"...Trump is wrong in all the worst ways..."
Stuff your TDS up your ass, shit-bag.
CocaineTDS is a helluva drug!I don't throw around the TDS accusation often, but if you're a purportedly libertarian-leaning individual and think Kamala is preferable to Trump, you seem to have it. It would be one thing if you were arguing RFK Jr or Chase is preferable, but KAMALA!?
If, and only if, libertarian = socialist.
Yeah. Because we have seen zero issues the last 4 years in your preferred configuration of government lol.
Can you provide some examples of some of these worst ways in which Trump is wrong? What bad thing do you imagine is going to happen if Trump is elected again (other than the people who hate him freaking out and doing stupid shit)?
"What bad thing do you imagine is going to happen if Trump is elected again"
Based on recent history;
Inflation will go down
Real wages will go up
Federal regulations will decrease
Tax rates will go down
Energy will become less expensive.
(assuming control of the house & senate)
Sounds like Nazi Germany, right?
"Can you provide some examples of some of these worst ways in which Trump is wrong? "
The people he hires, whether lawyers or cabinet members, are incompetent, disloyal, toadies, or actively trying to undermine his agenda, to the extent he has one. A poor judge of character in other words. Trump is a senile figurehead who spends his time fussing over crowd sizes or trying to buy Greenland. It's the people he hires we have to watch.
Like the guy in a dress stealing luggage?
Sounds like "wrong within normal parameters" to me. Though I do agree that Trump hasn't shown the best judgement in who he appoints to a lot of positions or hires as lawyers.
He had 4 months last time. He has had 7 years this time.
I like to think he'd do better the second time around. Maybe we'll get to find out.
No need to wait. Just look at the geniuses running his campaign. Or his speech writer. Sharks? Electrocutions? Are you kidding me?
He was demonized last time and anyone who tried to help him had the full force of the MSM, FBI, and DOJ go after them. Even lifelong democrats like General Flynn. This time around, people understand what's going on and aren't afraid to work with him.
Isn't the FBI and DOJ under the executive branch which Trump swamp cleaned? How about Fauci, Bolton, Esper, Tillerson, Mattis, Scaramucci, and hundreds of others?
"aren’t afraid to work with him."
Their ambition trumps their fear.
It is like The Resistance wasn't open and writing opeds to idiots like you.
Don't take it personally. It's Trump I'm criticizing. As far as I'm concerned you're a sweetheart.
Remind me again how much political power Trump had over the FBI and DOJ when any threat of firing or cleaning house resulted in screams of dictatorship?
It’s hilarious how we bemoan the power of the president, but the president has zero political power over his own branch. He would be impeached in a heartbeat if he exercised his constitutional authority.
FOAD, asswipe.
They can’t be disloyal AND toadies.
In Trump's universe of bad choices there's room for all types. He hired the 'prosecutor' of Epstein, didn't he? You think pandering to the pedophilia lobby is a good choice?
Now, how about those crowd sizes?
No one panders to pedophiles like you democrats. Your kind fight very hard to maintain groomer friendly policies and are now trying to sanitize pedos as ‘minor attracted persons’. Thats all you pal. Plus don’t forget all you pedo democrats who comment here. Like Mod, Shrike, and Jeffy.
You democrats are the party of pedophiles.
"No one panders to pedophiles like you democrats. "
It wasn't Harris who was buddies with Epstein or hired pedophile friendlies to join his cabinet. You shouldn't be so supportive of the pedophile lobby even though they share your love and admiration for Trump.
Buying Greenland sounds like a good investment ro me.
Now that would be a deeply weird choice for the 51st State...
Or hiring an incompetent mayor of a midwestern town with zero experience managing transportation to be Transportation Secretary. Who then is unsurprisingly shown to be utterly incompetent.
But sure, Trump picks bad people.
"But sure, Trump picks bad people."
That's my point. Hiring bad people is not a good thing. While Trump is plotting to buy Greenland or fussing over crowd sizes, the bad people Trump hires will be busy with more important things.
worst ways in which Trump is wrong
Here is a big one, Zeb: the way he demonizes and scapegoats foreigners and immigrants as responsible for the problems of America. How could you listen to his convention speech (the rambling second half) and not come away with the clear belief that he truly does think that immigrants - and no, not just illegal immigrants - really are some type of fifth column undermining America? FFS he compared them to CANNIBALS. What kind of moronic nuttery is that? EVERY SINGLE TIME he brought them up, it was ALWAYS in a negative light, that they were causing crime, importing drugs, stealing jobs, EATING PEOPLE, destroying America. Every time. That is a huge way how Trump is wrong and not just 'within normal parameters'. It is vile and disgusting what he does.
If I had to choose that, or demonizing and scapegoating white men and white culture for all the problems of America, I will happily vote for Trump.
We get it. You love illegals. Especially the child molesters.
You’re a real piece of shit. No wonder you’re so careful to never reveal any details about your life. You’ve got a lot to hide.
Goddamn man. Just wow.
No, we're in this mess because the usual ways of being wrong have proven themselves to be the worst ways. And the usual ways of being wrong have become so prolific and and systematic that, even if they weren't the worst ways in and of themselves (they are), that their ubiquitousness would make the usual ways of being wrong the worst ways of being wrong.
Realistically, no. He could be the only candidate and still wouldn't be the 'best'. That implies at least a relative good of which Trump offers none.
This election offers no good choices. It simply boils down to a referenendum on just which type of mockery of our society we wish to present to the world.
"Realistically, no. He could be the only candidate and still wouldn’t be the ‘best’. That implies at least a relative good of which Trump offers none..."
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
Stuff your TDS up your ass, and then make your family proud, shitstain: FOAD.
The diminishing returns on taxes is the Calvin Coolidge Curve, viz: "Four times we have made a drastic revision of our internal revenue system, abolishing many taxes and substantially reducing almost all others. Each time the resulting stimulation to business has so increased taxable incomes and profits that a surplus has been produced. (...) Under this sound and healthful encouragement the national income has increased nearly 50% until it is estimated to stand well over $90,000,000,000. It has been a method which has performed the seeming miracle of leaving a much greater percentage of earnings in the hands of the taxpayers with scarcely any diminution in the Government revenue." Message to Congress 04DEC1928. Laffer copied this 52 years later.
Do you ever have something to say that isn't far more relevant to the 1950's?
Did you mean to say 1850’s?
>>Among the candidates actively running for President in November
hey at least CO is a legitimate candidate idkwtf KH is
Before we hear that "Oliver will cost Trump the election," in the important swing state of Penna., if you add 100% of the Oliver vote (polling at 1%) to Trump, Trump still loses the race to Harris. Let's face it, there is a very minimal campaign for Oliver, he isn't resonating with the voters, and the only votes he will get are those who are yellow dog Libertarians and those who want to cast a protest vote against Trump and Harris and don't care which Third Party candidate gets their vote.
“Before we hear that “Oliver will cost Trump the election,””
Agree. I don’t think anyone is worried that a double-masking, child-castration advocate is going to take votes away from Trump.
Chase will pull more never trump acolytes than anyone else. He is another virtue signaling, favored groups peddling, empty suit.
He is totally irrelevant; may as well interview the janitor. They both have equal ability to influence the election, regardless of TDS addled assholes like Brandyshit.
In terms of practicality of policy (ie doing something) Trump wins every single time.
PJ O'Rourke said that the libertarian party is an anti-politics party, and Chase exemplifies that
Not only is it almost impossible for a third-party candidate to win election to the White House without a large plurality already in office nationwide, in the unlikely event that it happened nothing of consequence could happen in the Executive Branch as a result because the rest of the government would overrule it. The only thing libertarians can do to change that would be to replace the two-party district-based election system with a proportional representation election system in all states and in Congress. Until then it will continue to be "the lesser of two evils" or don't bother voting at all.
The only thing libertarians can do to change that would be to replace the two-party district-based election system with a proportional representation election system in all states and in Congress.
Is that spelled out in the Constitution, or is it how it's done just because that's how it's done?
I think it's probably inherent in this kind of electoral system. If you need >50% to win, then you are almost certain to get 2 parties that tailor their platforms to roughly evenly divide the vote. Third parties can succeed, as they have at several times in US history. But only by becoming one of the big two parties. Maybe there's another way, but history seems to bear this out.
The parties are already a set of coalitions. See the UK and French elections. The different "coalitions" worked together to win control of the various houses. Labor is leading with 35% of votes. How is this any different than a 2 party system in reality?
The UK uses "first past the post" not PR. It only requires a plurality to win a seat in Parliament.
In the last election Labour won 411 seats out of 650 or about 63% of the seats. As you noted, they did this with only about 35% of the popular vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MPs_elected_in_the_2024_United_Kingdom_general_election
Tony Blair's 1997 "landslide" (5 more seats than 2024) was won with 37% of the popular vote.
The UK and French systems utilize a plurality, but the disparate groups still work together to gain power.
It is no different except in narrative.
Even in the 2 party system here there are sub groups within both major parties from The Squad to the Freedom Caucus.
There is no functional difference.
If France and Britain went to a two party type system, the same coalitions would choose the same allies. Same in the US in reverse. See the farce of the 3 "independents" in Congress who vote just as in lockstep with the DNC as any other member.
Those governments do not have a Constitution that balances the powers of the different branches like we do. Our Congress and state legislatures would not look anything like any of the European legislatures if we had proportional representation. The Prime Ministers in those countries are essentially the executive heads as well as the heads of the legislatures. That could not happen here.
Maybe there’s another way, but history seems to bear this out.
I think, in line with your (correct) game theory assertion below, it should be noted that despite the "MUH TPD IZ VIOLENTLEE UHPPRESSIVE!" narrative, our own and international history similarly demonstrates that the idea that multi-party systems are buffer against radical ideology and/or violence is between illusory and religious. Not to say that a government or ruling elite should dictate that there only be two parties, but that the issue is with the dictation, not the number of parties chosen.
Duverger's Law. Even in proportional electoral systems, there are always two overwhelmingly dominant nodes. The Two Hump Camel Curve.
It's because each "side" jockeys and maneuvers to keep the issues evenly split between them, with single-issue and ideological based parties there to shore up a coalition.
Hey, you said something not completely retarded. Congrats buddy.
But those nodes would shift from left to right and back again as the libertarian ten percent shifts support based on the actual issue.
As I understand it, that’s just how it works out mathematically with the system the constitution set in place (meaning you eventually end up with two major parties).
I don't know about mathematically. More like a game theory kind of thing, I'd say.
"nothing of consequence could happen in the Executive Branch as a result because the rest of the government would overrule it. "
I disagree, a lot of good could come of it. Not because POTUS would be able to sign new legislation into effect or enact executive orders. The exact opposite actually, they could veto the shit out of whatever Congress sends up for signature. Some vetos would be overridden, but it's pretty rare for both the house and senate to get a 2/3 consensus on anything.
Like you mentioned though, it's all an exercise in what might be in fantasy land.
It's hard for them to get 2/3 because they contend over a fairly small range of policy options. If the president were a radical, it'd be easy to get 2/3, because 2/3 of Congress could easily be found to agree on a compromise that'd be severely at odds with the president.
Probably true, but those compromises are going to have to skew much further towards the radical inclinations of the President.
Take spending, for example. If it's known that any increases to budget bills will result in an automatic veto, then both houses of Congress are going to have to cater much more to the fiscal hawks (if there is such a thing anymore) in order to get that 2/3 majority.
A POTUS not beholden to a political party or worries of reelection could be a very powerful force in the government.
Also, SCOTUS noms.
No, that's not how they'll skew. It'll be as if there were no president at all. A wheel that's driven at a much different speed from the wheels it's in contact with simply loses traction.
3rd parties would have a much better chance at change if they started at the local level. Get people used to seeing them on school boards, county commissioners, city boards. Then State offices. Then they'll have a chance at federal or influencing the parties enough to get their way.
Yes, but to do that they'd have to become very political, rather than anti-political. They'd have to be the type of people who really groove to the nitty-gritty details of school budgets, etc., and they have to be "people person" personality types who get involved with service clubs, etc. outside of government as well as government bodies.
The next best thing would be to form a straddle-party organization that endorses major candidates. However, these days the Democrats have become so useless in so many places that a straddle-party would be a wasted exercise, and it'd be much better just to become influential Republicans, where the hope lies. And they'd have to accept being used by the more powerful, in the hope of rising in prominence and becoming the users of influence more than the used. Fortunately the Republicans have become fairly good over the years, such that it's worthwhile to become their tools, inasmuch as they'll be accomplishing something with you that you'd want anyway — even if it's only moderating the Democrats temporarily.
Can't bring myself to listen to this. I can only hope Laffer doesn't leave poor little Chase in tears.
Trivial grammar alert!
WTF is it with the fetish for the present tense?
'Economist and author Arthur B. Laffer and Libertarian Party presidential candidate Chase Oliver debate the resolution, "Among the candidates actively running for President in November, Donald Trump is the best choice."'
Why is this better than "debated the resolution"? This event already occurred, so the past tense is at least more correct, right?
Are we bombarded by the present tense because every self-important writer wants us to pretend It's Happening Right Now!, and You are Experiencing it Through Me! Or do our modern cohort of journalists struggle with the past and future tenses?
OK, rant over.
Because it's a description of the video they're trying to get you to watch.
Your way makes it sound like old news.
Meh, trivial and probably incorrect. It's a synopsis of the video.
You play the video or the audio, and even though it's not live, you're hearing it as if it were. You press the button and make them talk, and the sounds come out in present tense. Whenever you listen, that's when it is.
The Mises Caucus Faithful, those True(tm) the Libertarian Cause, know in their heart of hearts that Trump epitomizes the second coming of Murray Rothbard.
He won't get us back on the Gold Standard, but he will issue some gold plated zinc coins with his face on them. Great White Libertarian Hope!
Brandyshit making an ass of himself but once again.
You really say a lot of stupid things.
I was disappointed in Chase's rebuttal where he said "By the way, I'm gay, and if you don't vote for me you're a bigot."
It means he’s the bigot.
"Well I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t gay."
Donald Trump is a narcissistic jerk, but he is not misanthropic. If anything he is overly optimistic although with a huge ego. I'm tired of having to defend Trump from unwarranted claims and it's worse because I don't like Trump. I say this a a person who has not voted for Trump and will be voting for him this time either.
Out of the two candidates that have a reasonable chance of winning, Trump is the best option abet a terrible option, but a far less dangerous choice than Harris.
Chase Oliver has next to zero chance of being elected. He has some terrible aspects to his candidacy and while I don't know who I will vote for, I'm leaning towards JFK Jr. and I never though that I would vote for a Kennedy.
Stuff your TDS up your ass, shitstain.
Didn't your mom ever tell you that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar?
Myth!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4562214/
And in comic form!
https://xkcd.com/357/
A myth only if you're trying to catch fruit flies, the least annoying fly type. If you're trying to catch anything larger vinegar is useless.
My gramma certainly did, which I find really ironic since I have a bottle of water, apple cider vinegar, and dead fruit flies (Worst. Soda. Flavor. Evar.) sitting on my desk right now...
That wasn't TDS, Sevo.
I’m leaning towards JFK Jr. and I never though that I would vote for a Kennedy.
RFK Jr is by far the best of the lot, and he seems to have genuinely changed on a lot of the more worrying stances he once held. The Covid insanity really opened a lot of people's eyes.
If I thought he could beat the Democrats I'd definitely support him.
The case against Oliver for me is pretty straightforward. The simple fact is that he's not going to win the election. At best, he's a spoiler. So, voting for him is not a question of whether one prefers him to the other candidates. Because, even if you vote for him, you're not going to get him. Voting for him, then, only makes sense if your desire to send a message exceeds your degree of preference for Trump or Harris over the other.
I have a high degree of preference for a Trump win over a Harris win, as I think libertarians should. Harris is the candidate of the managerial-technocratic establishment. That establishment is particularly hostile to libertarianism and liberty, more generally. While Trump is definitely not a libertarian, he's definitely less hostile to libertarianism than the managerial-technocratic establishment. And, even if he weren't, any hostility toward libertarianism from Trump is of a different form and at odds with the hostility of the managerial-technocratic establishment. And one individual presidency, buffeted by attacks from the entirety of the managerial-technocratic establishment is less of a threat to our liberties than an additional presidency aligned with that establishment.
So, there's a high bar for sending a message to meet. And sending a message in support of Chase Oliver simply doesn't meet that bar. If it were a Ron Paul, a "perfect" libertarian whose views and values nearly matched my own, that might be a different matter. But, Oliver, while in some respects preferrable to either Trump or Harris is far from perfect. His eagerness to support the narratives, if not the preferred policy prescriptions, of the very managerial-technocratic establishment that I consider the greater threat to liberty makes any message I'd send by voting for him hopelessly compromised.
His eagerness to support the narratives
This is just so frustrating. Do you not understand that Chase Oliver's policies would mean that most of the managerial-technocratic establishment would be fired, REGARDLESS of his personal views on masking or gender therapy?
You are just echoing what Dave Smith said. Dave Smith even admitted that he agrees with Chase Oliver on most policy issues, but he still won't support Chase because in Dave's view he identifies too much with the left. So evidently, Dave and apparently you too, want to tear down the welfare state and end the fed, but not if the guy doing it is wearing a mask and flying a Pride flag. Is that it?
You are literally choosing style over substance. You're choosing Trump's performative bluster over Chase's policies.
Oh, and let's not forget Vance. He is a guy who absolutely does NOT want to tear down the 'managerial-technocratic establishment'. He instead wants to redirect it towards conservative aims. And that is who Trump picked.
Do you really, seriously think that Trump is going to be firing bureaucrats left and right? Not even his Schedule F was going to do that. It was going to instead *replace* *some* bureaucrats with loyalists of his choosing.
Chase is right, a vote for either party is a vote for the rotten status quo that we have, where both parties share substantial blame for the total clusterfuck of a mess we are in. If you like where we are at, then vote for either one of those two morons, because if you do, you will get more of the same.
Chase is right, a vote for either party is a vote for the rotten status quo that we have, where both parties share substantial blame for the total clusterfuck of a mess we are in.
I can be quite cynical, but it isn't the two parties that have created the "mess we are in." It is the voters. We are the ones choosing these people to run our governments. Even in the cases where one party or the other has managed to gain more power by manipulating election laws and rules, they were still put in place to do that because they were voted in by people that weren't going to penalize them for it.
The extent that republican government has broken down in the U.S. is entirely due to voters that make excuses for their own side and demonize the opposing side. It has gotten to the point for many voters that anyone on their team is better than anyone on the other team.
For argument’s sake I’ll pretend this is in good faith.
Your argument might make sense if Oliver might win. Of course, he won’t. So the only potential value in voting for him is sending a message. And, in that regard, there is no substance to be had. If you’re sending a message, words, style, is all you’ve got. You argue that Trump won’t be true to his word to libertarians. Fair enough. But why should I think Oliver would be in some fantasyland that he won? All I have to go on is his style. And that style is supportive of the COVID regime, cheering social media bans, open borders, and insisting on a “right” to castrate little kids. He might agree with me on the things I value. But, he quite plainly prioritizes them lower than things I absolutely disagree with him on. And, again, this wouldn’t be to put him in office. It would only be to send a message. Is that a message I particularly care to send? Is it a message I’d be willing to put Kamala Harris, rather than Donald Trump, in the White House to send? The simple answer is no.
Sums it up well.
Well, according to Trump's War Room Twitter account, this is the choice we have to make in November.
Nope. No dog whistles there.
What dog whistle? That's an actual photo of illegals, Lying Jeffy.
Are you trying to race hustle again?
If you hear a dog whistle, you’re the dog.
Harris wants to impose price controls on food, give a $25K credit for buying a house, and restrict energy production. The predicable outcome of this is famine, higher housing costs, higher energy costs, and higher inflation again. See the 25% inflation over the past 4 years as a sample.
Trump is for building new cities, producing more energy, and reducing lower regulation. The predictable outcome would be lower housing costs, lower energy costs, and lower inflation.
Over the past 4 years prices went up 25%. I'd prefer we keep inflation down and decrease costs.
Over the past 4 years prices went up 25%
But no mean tweets.
I will say this, Chase Oliver is not the worst choice.
Still behind both Trump and RFK
One of the Presidential candidates is going to take "against" on the proposition that one of the OTHER Presidential candidates is the best?
Next, I debate whether you should hire me or someone else.
Just like 2016, this isn't about electing Trump, it's about keeping the insane progressives out of office. Did you enjoy four years of Dementia Joe? No? Then imagine how eight years of Shrillary Poison Toad Clinton would have been.
If that bitch cheats her way in, it will result in civil war/revolution.
With our post-COVID election practices, it is not possible to distinguish an honest election from a fixed one.