I have an old friend from my theater days who is, within his sphere, smart, knowledgeable and impressive. He is also as nice a guy as you could possibly meet. He sends me cards for no reason at all. He says expansively nice things about me on social media.
Yesterday, I saw this post by him on my Facebook feed:
“I’m so happy to see the momentum building for Kamala Harris. She’s overtaking Trump. And I hope this trend continues. She’s running a great campaign. She gives me hope for the future. And she’ll have a great team with her when she’s President. Trump’s racism, misogyny, narcissism, compulsive lying, and utter lack of character disqualify him. I suspect that in the coming months he’ll continue saying crazier and crazier things. And he won’t win new supporters that way.”
Your Ethics Quiz for the opening of the Democratic National Convention, which I’m sure would explode my head continuously if I were foolish enough to watch it which I am NOT, is….
What is the ethical response one can make, if any, to a good friend who innocently posts something so unequivocally ignorant and stupid?
There is almost no factual or defensible part of that post, other than “I’m happy” and “I hope.” Harris is doing better in the polls than Biden was, both because many of the polls are rigged against Trump (he has always outperformed such polls significantly) and also because so many of those inclined to vote Democratic are thrilled to have someone running who isn’t 80 and demonstrably three drool cups from a rest home. “She’s running a great campaign” only if one’s definition of “great” is “a campaign in which the public is deliberately being kept in the dark about who they are being asked to vote for and what she will do as President.” That isn’t “great,” that’s “unethical.” I am absolutely convinced my friend hasn’t even considered the fact that Harris’s campaign is the most deliberately deceptive and dishonest by a major party in at least a hundred years. It’s “great” because his entirely progressive-biased friends in the theater world say it’s great. I’ll bet my house that he seldom reads much more than the headlines in the Times, and goes to the Arts and Lifestyle section first in the morning if he reads newspapers at all.
As even the Axis media has pointed out, Harris has no policy page on her website. Why would the prospect of Harris being President give anyone “hope for the future”? The administration she was part of has been a disaster for the nation socially, politically, legally, economically and internationally. It has engaged in the most anti-democratic conduct of any party since Watergate. Even if you view that assessment as overly negative, what about the performance of the Biden administration would give anyone “hope”? Hope for a recession? Hope for even more illegal immigrants? Hope for an even more dangerous national debt? Hope for more abandoned allies, American soldiers and equipment? Hope for more prosecutions of political opponents, hope for more attacks on the Bill of Rights?
Harris won’t have a “great team,” unless she’s keeping them all in a secret locations somewhere under assumed names. If it’s the Biden team, that is a DEI bunch of incompetents like Karine Jean-Pierre and, well, Harris. Harris’s own advisors are largely far left California radicals. She herself has no governing experience whatsoever.
My friend’s post ultimately reveals itself as Trump Derangement, and, as in most cases, does a poor job of even explaining that convincingly. As I’m sick of documenting, Trump’s alleged racism consists of the Axis of Unethical Conduct repeating that he is a racist. When you ask someone like my friend to give examples of Trump’s racism, he or she almost always resorts to the fact that Trump was a “birther,” which was unquestionably unfair and stupid, but there was nothing “racist” about it. Or they may say that Trump said that white supremacists were “fine people,” which is a lie Joe Biden is especially fond of repeating.
I’ll give him misogynist, but progressives have no problem with misogynists who have a D next to their names. At least two serial sexual harassers (or worse) are giving keynote addresses at the convention, along with a female enabler whose own Presidential run was greatly aided by a known serial rapist.
The mention of narcissism as disqualifying for a President is a marker of historical and behavioral ignorance: narcissism runs rampant through American history and the Presidency, and that’s because the best leaders are almost always narcissists. Compared with other Presidents, including those on Mount Rushmore, Trump probably wouldn’t make the top third. In The Narcissism Game, Winston Churchill, de Gaulle, Douglas MacArthur, Martin Luther King and Sir Thomas More would leave Trump in the dust.
Then we get the obligatory “compulsive lying,” which is another packaged talking point. Biden, Harris and the Democrats as a party lie as at least often as Trump does and about more substantive matters, like, say, whether the occupant of the White House can find his way to the bathroom without help. Harris supporters are ethically estopped from making this accusation against Trump. I can, but they can’t.
And Trump doesn’t have an utter lack of character. He has demonstrated many admirable character traits, notably fortitude, diligence, perseverance, sacrifice, and many of the virtues extolled in Rudyard Kipling’s “If.” No, I don’t like the fact that our recent Presidents have been so relatively devoid of the kinds of character traits modeled by Washington, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Ike and others, but I have seen no evidence of those Presidential character traits in Harris either. (Ambition and ruthlessness are not admirable character traits.)
My conclusion regarding my friend’s depressing outburst of programmed Trump Derangement is that the ethical approach is to ignore it.
Do you have a better idea?
Ethics Alarms 
Nope.
The guy I sat behind in all four years of high school (we sat alphabetically) whom I considered a lifetime friend, slimed and laughed at me with a high school classmate who was also a grade school classmate for saying I thought Trump would win the 2020 election and for not being sufficiently horrified by Trump’s very existence. He’s a former Navy aviator. At one point, he harumphed, “I took an oath to defend the Constitution!” which was, at that time, a circulating DNC talking point. He’s lost his fucking mind, as has the other former friend. And they’re not alone among my Baby Boom contemporaries. Mrs. OB says one of my college classmates, a retired M.D., posts idiotic DNC pablum on Facebook all the time. I’d say the Trump deranged are the vast majority of people my age. It’s creepy. What happened?
Trump took an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”.
I’d say he fulfilled that oath better than his successor.
First, let’s start with the premise that any Republican who believes Harris is dumb is far more ignorant than she.
Yes, Harris has been clearly chosen for this role by elite Democrat king makers. She’s been groomed for it for many years. No, she isn’t the best Dems have to offer, but those same elites drove the good choices from the party and blocked others who may have risen to challenge her.
And remember, there were no Democratic primaries for 2024.
In 2020, voters roundly rejected Harris for President, giving her zero delegates before she was embarrassingly roasted by Tulsi Gabbard. She dropped out despite being the darling of the media and the donor class. Even then it was clear she was the establishment’s pick.
I’ll not go into her history with Joe and establishment maneuverings behind the scenes to get her in place for this election – it was not hidden, we’ve all witnessed it.
As VP she said little, did less, accomplished nothing, and then is installed into a presidential campaign!
Voters were never allowed to discuss her culpability, along with the cabinet, as to how Biden could have been running the country for the past three years without them invoking the 25th amendment out of pity for a man clearly suffering dementia.
No, I’ll take the obviously flawed Trump over the deception, undemocratic, and clearly unethical behavior of Harris et al.
If she isn’t dumb, how can her various dumb statements be explained? A recent explanation is that she’s habitually drunk. I’d believe it. How does a smart person talk about “price gouging” and then say “price gauging”? How does a smart person flunk a bar exam, for that matter? (I know one way: my Dad was working two jobs and took the exam the first time without studying, just walked in and hoped he could pass it cold. He missed by four points, then studied and passed.) She had smart parents, she should be smart. But I have seen literally no evidence to support than contention. At best, she seems like the new Warren G. Harding.
My wife and I have made the “Harris is drunk” comment on several occasions. Her being “chemically altered” is a legit conclusion from some of the stuff she does.
Harris has the same issues as mentally challenged Joe Biden and that explains why her handlers use the same tactics to keep her from news conferences and debates.
She is also and indoctrinated Marxist ideologue who has little time for details (explains how she failed her bar exam). As VP she also has little time for details.
I worked at the Capitol in Sacramento while she was AG. Her staff hated her (we’ve heard this story from her VP staff), but the state Dem pols loved her even then.
Who is she? She’s not even sure who she is. Is she Asian or is she Black? She can be whatever is needed at the moment which also explains why her policies are in constant flux and change with the direction of the wind. You will never pin her down.
Her little stutters and “misspeaks” endear her to her supporters. She played her role as she was told and road it all the way to the White House. That’s not by chance. It is by design — stupid or smart? Maybe yet to be determined.
Intelligent people misspeak all the time, and anyone can flunk any sort of exam for a variety of reasons. Your reasoning seems particularly off-base when you’ve invented a whole explanation, “The Julie Principle,” to counter the unending verbal flubs of Harris’s competitor.
I realize that it’s unlikely you’re actually looking for suggestions about a reply to this person, but you might ask them which policy of Harris’s they find most exciting. It is true that she has articulated very little in terms of specifics, although it’s safe to assume that she’s been supportive of Biden’s policies, and you might engage in a dialog about such specifics.
As for the various characterizations of Trump, those are pretty standard issue for anyone supporting his opponent. Some of them, obviously, are exaggerated. But you often seem to make the common mistake of believing that an exaggeration, however loopy or desperate, means that its opposite must be true. Racism, misogyny and narcissism are a matter of interpretation. Trump has most certainly said things which can reasonably be interpreted that way. As for his lies, just because the New York Times overcounts them doesn’t mean they’re not there.
Intelligent people misspeak all the time
A perfect example of a statement that, if Trump said it, would be called a “lie.” I know what you mean, and what you mean is true: being smart doesn’t insulate one from making misstatements now and then. But if you misspeak “all the time”—Biden came close even during his pre-senility days—you have a real problem, and not being very bright is likely part of it.
Me! Me! Me! I think she’s an absolute NITWIT. I’ve thought so since she first came on the scene for 2020. I’m a Republican. I must be even more a nitwit than she is! Who knew? And you what’s even worse? She’s a horrible model for girls and young women. She’s literally slept her way to where she is. She’s set feminism back to before the Suffragettes trod the earth in the early twentieth century.
I entered a response to the post about her being stupid because she speaks gibberish. No factual basis for that conclusion, and I am convinced that those who do not want her elected but persist in believing she is stupid underestimate her at their own risk.
Choose your battles. Leave this one be. Your friend is not going to change his mind and you won’t change it by calling him out on it. Sometimes you just have to hold your peace.
Steve Hassan, a person who escaped Moonie (Unification Church) brainwashing has several great tips. They look much like Extradimensional Cephalopod’s advice on engaging with people of differing minds.
Direct confrontation does not work.
Expressions of sorrow, concern, curiosity, and probing inquiries to raise old truths he’s observed that hopefully trigger the need for him to resolve the dissonance created by what he should recognize as unreliable sources.
Other viewpoints that he may trust could also help, for example, a clip of Michael Moore praising Trump over the way he threatened automakers with tariffs in order to preserve local auto manufacturing jobs.
Jack: “My conclusion regarding my friend’s depressing outburst of programmed Trump Derangement is that the ethical approach is to ignore it.”
That was my initial thought. Then, you said this, “As even the Axis media has pointed out, Harris has no policy page on her website.”
I have heard that is the case, but have never bothered to verify this.
Assuming this is true, it could lead to several valid inquiries. What about her policies attract you? How do you know what those are if she has not laid them out? If she is just going to continue the Biden agenda, should she just say so? If she is rejecting Biden’s agenda, shouldn’t she say THAT? Is she not saying either of those because she is afraid to? If she endorses Biden’s agenda, she has to defend the last three years. If she abandons it, she will have to tarnish Biden’s legacy. And, she will have to defend her own positions.
The lack of a clear agenda is something that could and should be a legitimate basis of inquiry for any Harris supporter.
I suspect that, faced with such an inquiry, most Harris supporters will eventually default to, “whatever her positions, they are sure to be better than Trump’s.”
At that point, you can give up, because you know it really is not about Harris at all.
-Jut
I feel like this is about the best one can hope for. Well said, Jut!
Clearly, her campaign is being run by the people who ran Obama’s campaign. Do you remember Obama campaigning on health care? Neither to do I. He ran on a blank slate that people filled in as they saw fit. Brilliant. “It worked, didn’t it?” The Harris campaign is just “Hope and Change, The Sequel.” Dem voters are like Pavlov’s dogs.
If I were to reply to your friend, it would be something like this…
On a related note; at some point in time “We the People of the United States of America” need to stand up and very forcibly tell politicians what we expect of them, even if it seems like it’s unrealistic and/or not achievable. I believe it’s our civic responsibility to do voice our opinions to politicians.
All that said, that’s me and my approach but likely not the kind of approach you would take.
Maybe the ethical approach for you would be to post something simple like…
“Because I think Facebook isn’t a good place for a discussion like this, I’d like to talk about it sometime with you. Want meet up sometime soon and make an afternoon or evening out of it?”
I favor gully’s approach: Ask your friend to elaborate on the specifics of what he expects Harris will accomplish and how.
1. Understand one’s own values.
You don’t trust the Democratic Party because of their manipulation of people and processes, and because of their unsustainable policies and intolerance of criticism. You anticipate they will impose drawbacks on the country that you are not willing to accept.
You’re more willing to accept the potential drawbacks of the Republican Party because you trust them to take a firmer stance on matters related to personal and fiscal responsibility, rule of law, and freedom of expression.
Does that sound about right?
2. Understand others’ values.
What does your friend hope for? What does he fear?
Since I’m guessing, I’d say that he fears that the Republican Party serves entrenched power structures in the form of economic and cultural dominance, which keep poor people and people outside the dominant cultural groups from being able to build up their skills and create prosperity and autonomy for themselves and their communities.
The Republican Party doesn’t do much to address these fears, because they are addressing (and feeding) the fears of the economically and/or culturally dominant groups. That’s their main voter base, and doing outreach to reassure people outside that voter base could alienate the core blocs. Why go through the effort of getting people to be open-minded when you can lock in votes by encouraging closed-mindedness? (The Democratic Party obviously does this as well.)
The Democratic Party addresses the fears of its core voting blocs by pointing out that historical injustices have contributed to people’s current statuses, and promising to change the situation. For people who are indignant, frustrated, or desperate, it’s easy to focus on the promised benefits and to overlook foreseeable drawbacks or write them off as unlikely, manageable, or caused solely by the opposition.
Your friend is doing the same thing you’re doing; he’s failing to appreciate how other people see the situation differently. Your friend is not confident that Trump cares about the same people or problems your friend cares about. Your friend is confident that Harris cares about those people and problems.
Is this confidence misplaced? I’d say so, but if we don’t have an idea of what your friend’s legitimate concerns look like or how we would expect them to be addressed, we will have a very difficult time inspiring your friend to reassess the situation and what to do about it.
You have to understand what being wrong looks like from the inside in order to do something useful about it.
3. Frame the situation constructively.
The key is to ask people to reflect not on how they are wrong, but on how addressing the problems that you’re concerned about will make them more effective at accomplishing their goals. It’s a basic sales skill–it just takes some applied existentialism to break down the situation and people’s motivations into foundational building blocks in order to find a way everything fits together more harmoniously.
My answers usually involve educating people in some way, which is another thing foundational building blocks help with. It’s amazing how many problems you can solve when you help people get good at solving problems together.
Want to end poverty? Help people learn how to solve problems and deliver value. Make sure they know how to decide and define concrete goals and standards.
Want to end racism? Make sure people know how to communicate with each other and demonstrate the values they share, while respectfully accommodating differences in cultural convention.
Want to address pollution? It’s easier when people are financially secure; they’ll be more comfortable paying a little extra for goods and services that use non-toxic materials in manufacture, that are actually recyclable, and that consume less energy.
When we know what people really want, we can think of the best possible outcomes and easily find ones to agree on. When we don’t assume those outcomes will involve winners and losers, we can work together to make them reality.
I would challenge him to specify Trumps faults, not just provide a litany of them.. When and to whom did he demonstrate “racism, misogyny, narcissism, compulsive lying, “When and where did he threaten democracy? what character trait is he lacking and does the opponnet possess that traitm using objective examples.
None of this will be receptive to him , of course, because of the presnce of the blinders formed by his side.
“the ave eyes but do not see, they have ears but do not hear!”
I really don’t think people like this have a “side.” Everything indicates that he is apolitical. His side is his social and professional circle, and in the New York creative and theatrical community (and the DC, Chicago and LA equivalents), that means “lose the wokes, no one laughs at your jokes.”
Is Kamala Harris smart? Many people are shrewd but not really smart.
The Scott Adams response:
“I’m sorry they’ve done this to you.”
And leave it there. Argument is impossible; well, constructive argument.
Mind you; I did shut someone down the other day by asking: “Do you still believe the fine people hoax?”
Adams’ response is very close to what Rick Grimes, the hero sheriff in “The Walking Dead,” says to the rotting half corpse crawling in the ground dragging the shreds of her lower torso behind her in the second episode of the series. “I’m sorry this happened to you,” he says. Then he shoots the zombie in the head.
I get questions like this all the time from left leaning people in Canada: “Your leader is so X, how can you possibly support him?” X was “weird” for a while, but it changes every other week or so.
And the answer is obvious: Even if I were to grant the premise (which I don’t), I’m not going to turn my back on a lifetime of values because you think my party’s leader is X. The party still has policies that align to my values, and I think they’re a better alternative than Y and Z.
Democrats get to say that too: If they believe in a larger government, if they value safety over freedom, if they believe in identity politics, if they’re socialists, it really doesn’t matter who the head of your government is, they aren’t going to vote for Trump.
And that’s not facially absurd. People are allowed to have values like that.
And we need to be less obtuse about it.
The Republicans made a mistake with running Trump again. Regardless of how much you like him, regardless of how much the base likes him, independents hate him… You see it in the polls: He has a really low ceiling for support, the only thing that was giving him a boost against Joe was that Joe has a 40 year track record of fucking shit up and he was actively losing his faculties on live TV which made Joe’s ceiling even lower. Now, Joe is gone, Kamala has shed most of his baggage, donors tepid on Biden unleashed their pocketbooks on Kamala, and it’s her election to lose: Every time Kamala appears is an opportunity for her to do something stupid. Nothing she says can help her.
From the perspective of someone interested in the furtherance of Democrat Party goals – Which we all know what they are, even if the party isn’t bold enough to admit it, Kamala is doing what she needs to do to get elected: Hide in a bunker like Joe did in 2016.
I’d argue that she’s running a great campaign, because she’s doing what she needs to win.
I’d say “you’ve drunk the Kool-Aid,” but that was the Farewell message of a famous ex-EA commenter. You can’t win the Presidency by hiding in the basement unless every won is, like in 2020. Harris may be running the only campaign she can run, since she’s self-evidently a an idiot if she opens her mouth, but that doesn’t make it “good.” Trump is indeed unpopular, but the fact remains that the US is still a conservative country by Democratic Party standards, and the right to kill your unborn child—which voting against Trump isn’t going to achieve anyway, letting Hamas destroy Isreal and discriminating against white males is still not a winning platform, no matter what else Harris lies about.
I’d say it is much more likely that Trump wins in a landslide than Harris squeaks out a victory, and the current DNC is showing why. Trump-Hate would be enough if people didn’t think the economy sucks, but they do. Democrats and their media are whistling in the dark, and some have even been honest enough to admit it.
“You can’t win the Presidency by hiding in the basement unless everyone is, like in 2020”
I mean… You nailed it in one there Jack: Biden won by saying “I’m not crazy, like that guy, and hid in a basement for a year while Trump alienated himself from crucial voter bases. Trump was barely able to eke out bare pluralities in recent polls against the corpse of Joe Biden. The Republican base is fired up for Trump, but unless Kamala says or does something disqualifying in the eyes of the people who currently support her, she’s going to coast to victory.
I’m not saying that’s good. I’m not saying I support her policies. I’m not saying it’s ethical.
I’m saying it’s effective.
And from an unethical party like the DNC, who’s priority is winning elections at all costs, that’s a great campaign.
“The US is still a conservative country by Democratic Party standards, and the right to kill your unborn child—which voting against Trump isn’t going to achieve anyway, letting Hamas destroy Isreal and discriminating against white males is still not a winning platform”
I think you’re wishcasting here a little. I’m not convinced that the average American cares about any of those issues. Think of all the Trump support that flipped to Kamala when they exchanged the mentally infirm grandpa with a woman who slept her way to the top and didn’t even last long enough in her own primary to lose in her home state: You think they care about abortion, Israel, or misandry?
American voters are particularly dumb, I blame your media, and it doesn’t hurt that they’re given exceptionally stupid options. I’ve said for years, almost a decade at this point: The first party to embrace sanity wins until the other follows suit, and while I’m sure you’ll give a robust defense of the RNC, they don’t represent sanity right now.
“I’d say it is much more likely that Trump wins in a landslide than Harris squeaks out a victory”
I don’t. And the best part about this is that we’ll get to see later this year. I reserve the right to change my projection, because this is Harris’ election to lose, and her ability to say and do weird, alienating shit is legendary, so I don’t put it past her. But barring something catastrophic, I don’t even think her margin of victory will be narrow.
I’m surprised you see it this way. Trump repulses everyone, but Harris is not like Biden, with a secure “good guy” rep, however phony. The illusion that the election is even close comes from wild majorities in nutsy-cuckoo places like California and Oregon. I’d say Trump’s win in the Electoral College is almost a lock: he is polling better than in either 2016 and 2020, and as stupid as voters are, the “I had nothing to do with the Biden economy while I was cheering on “Bidenomics” trope isn’t going to wash as the economy fails to improve.
I think a pure Electoral victory for Trump will be a disaster (riots, violence, to “save democracy”) but the idea that an empty suit like Harris has the election locked up is a strategic myth to discourage Republicans.
I think part of the reason Kamala wins is because she’s relatively unknown – Aside from people like us in the political commentariat, how many people do you think could properly articulate any position she’s ever held? The point is that from their perspective, she’s an unknown running against a lunatic.
“I think a pure Electoral victory for Trump will be a disaster (riots, violence, to “save democracy”) but the idea that an empty suit like Harris has the election locked up is a strategic myth to discourage Republicans.”
Again… We get to see in a couple of months. I think that because of the political disproportionality of New York and California, the best Trump can hope for is an unpopular, very marginal EC victory. But I think there’ll be riots one way or the other, even if Harris wins by uncontroversial margins. We’ve reached the point on the slippery slope where no one is prepared to resign to loss easily.
From Stephen Greene today:
“When Kamala Harris became the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, it undoubtedly caused a jolt of enthusiasm for her party, which had been looking at a landslide defeat with Joe Biden on top of the ticket. She took the lead in the polls as well as in the political markets.
Harris had as much as a seven-point lead in Polymarket in the days leading up to the Democratic National Convention. Between the wall-to-wall glowing coverage from the media and the convention coverage, Harris would maintain that lead, if not expand on it.
However, the lead she had before the convention is gone. It’s not only been wiped up, but as of the morning of the third day of the convention, Donald Trump has also regained the lead. By the second day of the convention, Trump had a one-point lead. As of this writing, he has taken a five-point Polymarket lead over Harris.
Rich Baris, the director of Big Data Poll, found this to be an extraordinary shift, considering the timing.
Why are Donald Trump’s odds of winning the presidential election getting better during the DNC?”
That’s an easy one, isn’t it? Harris surge lasts as long a she is a generic candidate. Everyone knows what Trump is like, so a general Not-Trump candidate will beat Trump, as long as Not-Trump doesn’t mean anything but Not-Trump. But the Democrats really are strange and revolting, and it is dawning on people that Harris is also Not Capitalism, Not Liberty, and Not Smart.
New wrench in the gears: Rumors that RFKjr is going to drop his candidacy and endorsement Trump.
I don’t think there’s enough time.
Look, here’s another way to look at it: What would Donald Trump have to do to convince you to vote Democrat?
Let’s say the worst things possible: Let’s say that he was caught live on camera actively cannibalizing a baby while balls deep in a dolphin, directly before retiring to his war room, where he said he planned to nuke several European Nations because their leaders made fun of his hair.
Would you actually hold your nose and vote for Kamala? That same Kamala you just said was baby killing, terrorist supporting, and man hating? I have the feeling that instead, you might just stay home.
I’m similar, I’ve stayed home from elections before, I can’t articulate what it would take for me to vote Liberal. I wear my politics on my sleeve, and I’m not going to turn my back on a lifetime of legitimately held principles because a party leader was bad.
The people who went home to Kamala after Biden dropped out are similar: They want to vote Democrat. They’re looking for something recognizable to support, something that isn’t offensive. Right now, Kamala fits that bill only because they don’t know her. And with what… 40ish days to the election? I just don’t think there’s enough time to pull the curtain back.
Jack, it is really quite simple. You approach the choice between Harris and Trump from a logical perspective. You use critical thinking, reason, and analytical analysis to guide your decisions. Progressives conversely approach decisions on how it makes them feel. The Democrats exploit this mindset to the eighth degree. They champion free this and free that. They then say they will make the rich and corporations pay their fair share. The progressive voter doesn’t believe it will cost them anything. VOTE DEMOCRAT!!!! The reality is it costs the average voter plenty. The rich aren’t the only ones in the US paying taxes we all do in one form or another.
Corporations don’t pay taxes they collect them from their customers. Increased corporate taxes will be passed on to consumers through increased prices for goods and services. When the government can’t pay for all the free stuff through increased taxes, they must borrow the money. This action fuels inflation and the consumer again is paying for the free stuff, they just don’t realize it. The media doesn’t point this out. Neither do the Republicans.
The progressive voter is not stupid they are ignorant and they will always vote for the politician that makes them feel good and fuels their desire to be compassionate for others. It is the noble thing to do. Regarding your friend, there is little you can do. Changing their mind would require them to confront the realization that they have been deceived. Good luck with that. No one wants to admit they were fooled by the propaganda machines.