Trump Admits He Wont Lower Grocery Prices
The bait and switch of the chumps and suckers is underway.
related
Trump says his presidency won't be a failure if he can't lower grocery prices
President-elect Donald Trump didn't commit to being able to lower grocery prices in his Person of the Year interview with Time Magazine , after flagging the issue as an important part of his win.
Time asked Trump if failing to lower grocery prices, as he said he would do on the campaign trail, would make his presidency a failure.
" I don't think so. Look, they got them up. I'd like to bring them down. It's hard to bring things down once they're up," he said. "You know, it's very hard. But I think that they will."
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
262 visitors
At one his rallies Trump rattled off grocery staples with prices that are too high
"The price of bacon is up, the price of lettuce is up, the price of tomatoes is up".
Rather than saying he could lower prices, he must have been thinking of his lunch order sandwich.
The President doesn't set grocery prices. Personally, I'd be happy if grocery prices just stay the same but if he imposes tariffs on, say, Mexican avocados which cannot be imported during the California avocado harvest season anyway, the price of American avocados will also increase.
What's the alternative? Should Trump continue Biden's measures to lower inflation? Did Biden even have any measures to lower inflation?
Joe Biden spent four years throwing money at every issue. Are there any recognized economic experts who recommend throwing more money at an overheated economy experiencing high inflation? Has that been Fed Chairman Powell's policy approach?
Trump bringing back some modicum of fiscal restraint would do more to lower grocery prices than anything his predecessor did. At this point, Trump is offering some hope that he won't make things worse.
He can’t lower the price of Big Mac’s…..Oh, Lord.
It sure is, the headline reads: Trump Admits He Wont Lower Grocery Prices
And yet the quoted piece says this,
Now unless you are a TDS suffering moron you realize the first sentence is answering the question: "if failing to lower grocery prices, as he said he would do on the campaign trail, would make his presidency a failure?" which he answered: " I don't think so. So trump is saying if he doesn't lower prices his presidency isn't automatically a failure. But on lowering prices he says.
Now in what moronic TDS universe is that an admission he won't bring them down, he is literally saying he thinks they will.
LOL.
He couldnt care less if grocery prices come down. He will never have to stand in front of voters again.
Lets put it like this, when he says "its hard" he's trying to soften the blow for those who believe all his bullshit. His plan now is "energy" and new supply lines. That is his "effort" to lower grocery prices.
Now that is some amazing spin.
Trump campaigned on the fact that he would bring down prices.
Now (after being elected) he admits (surprisingly ... he usually does not admit anything) that he has no plan and just hopes they will come down. Basically, to rational human beings who understand even the basics of a market economy, Trump (and this is true of any PotUS) is not able to bring down prices ... to wit, he won't be able to do so.
But, of course, Trump supporters somehow twist this around to maintain the alternate reality that Trump will bring down grocery prices.
Now, George, is it your belief that Trump WILL cut energy prices in half and that he WILL bring down the price of everything else ... in particular groceries?
Or do you understand that Trump is full of shit, has no viable plan, and will not (is not able to) lower the CPI?
If Trump admits something will be "hard to do", he has no intention of trying.
Of course he is not going to try. He has no idea what to do.
His simplistic view is that if we drill to get more domestic crude that this will magically reduce energy prices by 50%. This is a true 'insert magic here' way of thinking. I am confident Trump knows this is utter nonsense but it sounded great on the campaign and he knew that he could lie his ass off and people would still believe him.
Too bad the electorate did not spend just a little time fact-checking the viability of what this con-man claimed:
If he actually DOES apply the tariffs he's been threatening, just wait to see what that's going to cost those who believed him enough to vote for him. I'm going to post an article about what the Premier of Ontario will counter with, and that will be a harbinger of what the other Provincial Premiers are going to do that will really hurt the American people, and I'm not sure about what Mexico will do but I think America should be concerned about what China will do, perhaps making the necessity of bailing out the farmers that had to be done the last time around a drop in the bucket.
Our trade partners know that they cannot simply fold based on public, inciteful, arrogant rhetoric from a rogue PotUS. They have no choice but to counter Trump. And part of the counter will be, no doubt ... and to the detriment of the USA people, establishing relationships with alternate trade partners.
To wit, even if negotiations ensue and some agreement is reached, Trump's actions even while president-elect will be factored into their strategies. It is hard to imagine that they will not be more inclined to find ways to reduce dependence upon USA trade.
Trump was smart enough to fool the gullible American voters with his rhetoric of how tough he will be for their benefit, so let's see if he's smart enough now that he's elected, to back down on his promises that would be bound to make life more difficult for ALL Americans. Well, maybe not ALL Americans, not more difficult for the American billionaires and multi-millionaires, but sure as hell for everyone else.
No sane individual with modicum of intelligence expected that there was some magic formula to lower grocery prices, it was political rhetoric. He told the middle class voters what they wanted to hear about an issue that was important to them, that it was also important to him and that the Democrats hadn't done enough.
Just as Harris saying that Bidenomics had inflation under control was also a lie and more political rhetoric, and she focused on identity politics and bad mouthing Trump rather than focusing on the issue most important to the voter.
Both employed political strategy rather than the truth and only one picked the right political strategy.
People believed Trump. That is why he won. Why people believed a pathological liar will be an eternal question.
John
It is not an eternal question, it is a political reality.
Politicians of all parties and persuasions have been lying to the public and the public has been believing them and voting for them since the country was founded.
I totally respect that you think Trump is the worst thing that could happen to the country and in many ways I agree with you, but you cannot escape the reality that the people who voted for Trump because Harris gave them no reason not to vote for Trump.
Nah, it'll last about 4 years, maybe... Then we'll move on to our next pathological liar.
So why did so many people believe what Biden and Harris said? It was all lies and propaganda,
Why do you think that?
He won because Harris was a shit candidate.
Probably so. Why do they believe Bernie Sanders? Why did they believe LBJ? Or Nixon? Why did they buy snake oil in the 1850s? Why do they buy essential oils now? People believe stuff even when it makes no sense.
How about 'the people' educate themselves on which of the 'liars' is 'better' than the other 'liar'. Because when we are left because one of the best 'liars' this country has ever seen has peep whole(s) B leaving the best pathway back for US is to lay back down, fall asleep, and get back to our American Dream, is to lay with the biggest LIAR, ignorance truly does seem to have begun to rule...
You compare Harris to Trump and deem her the 'shit candidate'. Harris was a normal D candidate. And importantly, she was presidential, experienced, intelligent, grounded, and properly viewed the presidency as a responsibility to the people rather than power for her own personal benefit. And then compare this to Trump with all his negatives and wrongdoings.
What are the qualities of Trump, in your mind, that make him a good candidate ... a non 'shit' candidate ... someone that the electorate properly should vote to be the president of our nation?
The reality is that Harris lost. She offered the people a rational, experienced, presidential individual who would take the office seriously and work for the people. She focused on helping people get ahead economically. She presented a positive future.
You can certainly argue that not enough people believed her and the evidence will help you. But then we would need to realize that more people believed Trump.
We are in a very bizarre phase in our nation. Where a known pathological liar, narcissist, etc. etc. can incessantly lie and promise the moon and wind up being elected to the presidency over a rational, responsible opponent whose lies were minor and minimal compared to those of Trump's.
I think the election results established that.
We're talking about the party of Obama, Clinton, Kennedy and FDR.
Not at all.
Not really.
Not visibly.
No chance.
That's an exceedingly naive statement that has very little evidence to support it.
As terrible a person as he is, and as big a lead as she had when she was nominated, any decent candidate would have walked away with a large victory.
At what point did I make any indication whatsoever that he was a good candidate? He's a terrible candidate. Which just drives home the point. How shit do you have to be to blow an 8 point lead to him in 70 days?
The election results show people preferred Trump. The results alone do not explain why. Your denial that Harris is intelligent, grounded, etc. pretty much explains your post. It is a post that one would expect from a Trump apologist since Trump is terrible in all those qualities.
A typical comment from you floating a flawed pretense of the wise adult. You ignore the fact that compared to Trump, every president in our lifetime has taken the office seriously and predominantly saw it as a duty to the people (even Nixon, even LBJ). Not Trump; to Trump the presidency is personal power to satisfy his whims. To not see this is acute naivety.
So then you are arguing that they were both 'shit candidates' but that the voters thought she was the worse of the two. That does nothing then to explain why she lost other than she was seen as 'shittier'. Not exactly insightful analysis.
I do agree that it is a profound failure to lose to Trump, so Harris was clearly not a strong candidate. She was, however, as I stated, a normal D candidate with good credentials, presidential, and as with all other PotUS' other than Trump, would have predominantly taken the office seriously and worked for the good of the nation. She lacks the major flaws that would persuasively explain a loss to Trump (unless we assume our electorate is more chauvinistic and racist than we might have thought). But the other key factor is that Trump is a successful demagogue; I do not see why, but it is undeniable.
Trump won in spite of being the worst major party nominee in our lifetimes and likely in our nation's history. How such an abysmal character could win will be studied for decades; and I suspect his successful demagoguery will be a key factor in this analysis. And the conclusions, I predict, will be substantially more informed than your trite 'shit candidate' explanation.
I totally agree that people need to educate themselves on the people, the issues and that better choices are needed for the people to choose from rather than two as bad as we had in 2024
Absolutely true
The problem is they refuse to accept why she lost, the most ridiculous thing that isn't worth addressing is the idea that Harris is a "normal D candidate" while an argument could be made for this based on the fact that 2 out of the 3 last "D" candidate were unlikeable condescending bitches who talked down to the American public and were phonier than a 3 dollar bill. the idea that the democrats have descended so deep into identity politics that this will continue to be there "normal D candidate" is ludicrous, democrats love power as much as anyone else and they will quickly figure this out and find a likeable candidate if they want to hold the whitehouse again.
Intersting, what I was just reading about Trump mulling over eliminating the FDIC, cause we all remember how Glass/Steagle worked out, cause the Republicans sure seem to like to remove safeguards that fck US All, except for the top echelon of course.
Trump is an outrageously bad nominee whereas Harris was a normal D candidate.
Tell us why the electorate was willing to turn over the power of the presidency to a narcissistic pathological liar, vindictive, irresponsible loose cannon who has already demonstrated that he cares more about his desires than the nation and the CotUS.
‘Tell us why the electorate was willing to turn over the power of the presidency to a narcissistic pathological liar, vindictive, irresponsible loose cannon who has already demonstrated that he cares more about his desires than the nation and the CotUS.’
Probably because the electorate didn’t want an idiotic babbling, cackling idiot that could not put two sentences together without forming a word salad.
They also did not want more of the same as what we got with Joe and knew that is what we would get, or worse, with the DEI hire.
If that is true then the dems are screwed for years to come.
Because he was likeable, hell even NFL players are doing the trump dance and Kamala is a fucking bitch. i can't make it any simpler to understand.
Come on man, she is as normal as Hillary.
Probably because the electorate didn’t want an idiotic babbling, cackling idiot that could not put two sentences together without forming a word salad.
Of course, you deliver a nonsensical retort based on purely partisan bullshit.
Which supports the hypothesis that the electorate contains far too much stupidity.
Of course a trite retort. Other than her sex and race, what was abnormal about Harris as a presidential candidate?
Thanks for your opinion.
Do you believe Trump will lower grocery prices?
Do you believe Trump will impose tariffs and NOT raise consumer prices?
Do you believe Trump will end the Ukraine war without forcing Ukraine to capitulate?
Do you believe Trump will strike good trade deals that benefit the USA?
Do you believe Trump will be fiscally responsible?
Do you believe Trump will improve the image of the USA worldwide?
With all the warmth and charm if Hillary
According to CNN 75,000,783 votes prove this statement true.
A candidate has one job.
If she actually was those things you claim, she would have won.
That is just naive as fuck.
I realize this may be difficult, but you might want to consider the idea that people with selfish motives rarely announce them. Trump is the aberration, not the rule.
We hold these truths to be self-evident.
Which is why they kept calling her 'historic'? Calling Harris a normal Democratic candidate insults the party pretty severely . Biden was a normal Democratic candidate. Harris was a catastrophe.
Riiiiiiiiiiight. It must be either chauvinism or racism, or probably both.
Under no circumstances, does it have anything at all to do with the fact that she could not convey a compelling message despite every opportunity given by an incredibly sympathetic media.
The Democratic party is struggling with its new identity as the party of affluent white women and liberal academics. The problem with liberal academics is they overthink basic, obvious things.
Leading up to the election, the American people were screaming loudly that they were unhappy with the current state of our country. One candidate said he was going to change things, the other candidate said she couldn't think of a single thing to change.
So now we're in the pouting phase, where her petulant supporters complain incessantly about absolutely anything Trump does while calling everybody names. Sadly, we've been here before.
It is no surprise to me that you believe it was smart to vote for Trump and stupid to vote for Harris. I would imagine most people on this site understand that you are a Trump supporters.
So no need, really, for you to confirm it as you just did.
Apparently you dismiss the idea that the electorate could make a fundamental mistake and be fooled by a demagogue.
Your view is cynical as fuck. You ignore the actual behavior of the presidents and declare that they all view the presidency as personal power more than they respect the office as a duty.
Such partisan crap. Harris is intelligent, experienced, rational, presidential, and serious about duty. You ignore all this and merely declare her a catastrophe. Why, because she lost in the most narrow election since Bush v Gore?
As usual, you totally misrepresent what I stated.
One candidate said he was going to change things, the other candidate said she couldn't think of a single thing to change.
One candidate made outrageous lying claims and the stupid electorate bought it. The other candidate offered her vision and stated repeatedly that her administration would be based on her views and would not be an extension of the Biden administration. The partisans of course take the one time she fucked up and keep repeated it as if that was her entire message. Dishonest partisan crap.
We are at the stage where Trump supporters now defend every idiotic move that Trump makes. You, in particular, have spent plenty of time trying to defend Trump's brain-dead stupid move to extemporaneously threaten our key trade partners with an outrageous across-the-board 25%/10% tariff rather than do what most other PotUS' would do and sit down privately with an understanding of the problem, understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, and desires of the opposing party and negotiate a compromise that is a win-win.
You, in particular, routinely tell people to ignore the obvious with a false claim that any criticism of Trump is hysteria. Well the trade partners do not seem to be reacting as you suggest. Trump's irresponsible rhetoric has accomplished one thing — to clarify to trade partners worldwide that they are indeed dealing with an irrational loose-cannon who fancies himself invincible and to take actions accordingly. Instead of working to shore up positive trade agreements, Trump's rhetoric has gratuitously soured worldwide relationships. Well done. Keep supporting this buffoon.
Is that somehow different than the bullshit claims of being an independent? the difference between me and you is i post comments that call both candidates out and you are a Kamala apologist. 100% democrat.
You continue to prove that you have no concept of what it means to be politically independent. It does not mean that one never makes a choice. It means that one does not make a choice based on party affiliation.
I supported (sorry to say) Chris Sununu early in the race. When he dropped out, I supported (sorry to say) Nikki Haley. To the point of contributing financially to her campaign. When she lost, I intended to vote for Biden as the most powerful way to use my vote against Trump. When Biden dropped out, that calculus remained true, but I also preferred Harris (greatly) over Trump and thus supported her.
Had the GOP selected a rational nominee, I would have voted for that individual over Biden.
My comment history has been crystal clear. You, clearly, do not pay attention.
The irony
Yes, there should be tests and qualifying for being part of the electorate
I do not agree with such tests. But I would agree with better educating the electorate on the fundamentals of voting and democracy and get them to understand better understand what a PotUS could possibly do and what they simply do not have the power to effect.
This notion that the PotUS can magically reduce prices across the board is dangerous. Ignorance (and worse, stupidity) of the electorate is what enables a demagogue to secure and retain power.
That just shows people are idiots. Nothing new there either.
Apparently you dismiss the idea that the electorate may actually be able to form opinions on their own.
Of course. That's the most accurate way to go with politics.
You ignore (again) what was actually said an instead create your own alternative reality.
*sigh* It is not partisan to say that Democrats are normally better than this one. There are easily a dozen Democrats who would have made much better candidates and had a much better chance at winning. You could start that list with Michelle Obama, end it with Mark Kelly, and find a bunch more to fill it out.
Too bad she didn't communicate that.
Or, because she blew a sizeable lead despite spending more money and having an openly favorable media environment.
*eyeroll*
He's not actually the president yet. There isn't anything to defend. There also isn't anything to condemn, but I don't suspect that will stop you.
No, we're in the stage where the worst of the losing supporters are still pouting about the election, calling people who didn't vote like they did "stupid" or "fooled" or "unpatriotic" or some other similar bullshit name while simultaneously declaring everything the winning candidate does as some sort of direct threat to the nation and then tattling at every news bite like disgruntled children. Any failure to validate their feelings, including the introduction of facts or reason, is lambasted as "defending".
The Trump defenders will appear before the midterm elections.
Thank you
Yet another ridiculous / simplistic exaggeration.
It is as stupid as the other extreme — believing everything a politician says. The most accurate approach is to NOT simply sit on one of the extremes but rather to take an accumulated understanding of politics and politicians and factor in current information. If your collective understanding leads you to believe that sitting on the extreme end is closest to truth (cynicism) then your resulting presumption of the worst at every turn is as bad as presuming the best at every turn. You will get most things wrong.
True. It is partisan crap to dismiss Harris as a shit candidate when compared to Trump. She was a perfectly normal D candidate on an abbreviated time schedule who lost in a very close election. Winning is everything, but calling her a 'shit candidate' might be more justified if she was blown out of the water.
It takes a lot of bias to not see that she is intelligent, experienced, rational, and presidential. She is far from my ideal candidate, but to ignore these obvious qualities indicates major blinding bias.
When Trump engages in brain-dead stupid rhetoric you claim that there is nothing to see here ... no harm, no foul, etc. But that rhetoric from a president-elect does matter. It does trigger action and in the case of the tariff threats, it almost certainly caused all trade partners to adjust their plans and tactics to factor in just how much of an asshole Trump is likely to be in this term. This is an unforced blunder by Trump. And, yes, he is not yet PotUS and already has pointlessly soured trade relationships.
... where you continue to pretend that any criticism of Trump is hysteria and any defense of Harris against partisan attacks is pouting.
Trump is already a disaster. I expect that this is going to be a very difficult four years. Given you are already defending this buffoon, it will be interesting to see just how far you are willing to go with your ridiculous 'there is nothing to see here' nonsense.
It's a simple situation.
The level of unbridled, misplaced arrogance one must possess to suggest that half the voters in this country were "fooled" or are "stupid" or are "unpatriotic" simply because they don't agree with you is utterly psychotic.
It's as "stupid" as assuming all cats are carnivores.
She had one job against a poor opponent. I'm puzzled why you can't bring yourself to admit she fucked this up. Are you related or something?
That ignores the fact that the longer she campaigned the worse she got. It also ignores her previous bid for the WH, which was laughably terrible.
More "experienced" than the guy who had actually been president? I'm not sure that works. If she were intelligent and rational, she would have recognized that people were unhappy and that she needed a real plan instead of the ones she tried to sell.
Brain dead stupid rhetoric is what politicians do. How do you not see that?
I'm sure you think so. What, exactly, is your experience with international trade negotiations?
Not any. Mostly yours.
The pouting is when you call people you don't know "stupid" or "deluded" or "fooled" or "unpatriotic" simply because you didn't get your way and you're angry about it.
For the people for whom Trump is already living in their heads, rent free, absolutely. Every day that goes by they have another negative reaction to something he's done and blow it completely out of proportion. It looks painful and exhausting.
More pouting.
When he actually makes decisions as President that adversely impact the country, we'll take a look then.
That is not my claim. Half of those who actually voted are the ones in question. Of those, there are die hard partisans who will vote for whoever is the GOP candidate. Then there are those who do not pay much attention and vote based on sound-bites, whims, etc. This is your typical apathetic / low-information voter. Then there are those who voted for Trump because they believed the demagogue.
As is usual with your comments, you take a simplistic variant of what is stated and then exaggerate it to a ridiculous level. Dishonest and pathetic.
We are talking about PotUS' in our lifetime. I stated that these individuals all took their office seriously (even Nixon and LBJ) and predominantly operated as responsible, serious individuals. Nobody agrees with everything they did and nobody suggests these men were all angels. But their public actions show that they operated to serve the people of the nation rather than use the office to satisfy personal desires.
Yes these men mostly had strong egos and yes some of them had serious character flaws. But none of them come anywhere close to the level of abysmal character as Trump.
Strawman.
Telling that you disagree.
And here you go again with this 'nothing to see' nonsense. But I have not taken you seriously for weeks now.
Now that is "naive as fuck"; you disregard his decision to threaten trade partners as adversely impacting our nation because he is not yet PotUS.
Let's see.....
Seems like that was pretty much your claim.
That's not what you said, but if you want to change to that, OK.
You have no idea what these people did privately. I'm not sure it would matter to you anyway.
Is that your code word for "inconvenient fact"?
Clearly, you don't understand the phrase.
Disregarding the "adverse impacts" that only exist in your mind.
Only if you do not understand that speaking of the electorate as a group and assigning properties to the group does not mean that those properties are automatically applied to each member of the group.
Or if you do understand that and are just playing a dishonest game.
A mere paraphrase confuses you?:
Looks real close to me.
No it is the word for you inventing an argument for me.
I am not surprised that you ignore the obvious reality that our trade partners are not going to simply cave to Trump's outrageous demands and public threats and are, rather, treating him and the USA less as trade partners and more as trade adversaries. They very likely have adjusted their strategies presuming an adversarial, unreasonable PotUS and I would not be surprised if they were doing preliminary work on contingency plans such as warming up their alternate trade sources.
If you cannot figure this out from logic alone, then note the public backlash from Mexico and Canada.
Note what other nations (e.g. England) are saying about Trump's irresponsible attempts to bully trade partners. They naturally and responsibly take the threats as a clear possibility and are reacting accordingly:
You dismiss his irresponsible rhetoric and pretend that it has had no negative effect. That is either Trump apologetics or naivety. I suspect it is the former.
So you said that, but didn't mean that.... Hmmmmmm...... OK.
You forgot to tell us your experience negotiating international trade deals. Done a lot of that, have you? No?
Let's make sure we maintain the distinction between "saying" and "doing". Let's also go over (once again) the idea that politicians say one thing and do another with great frequency. Let's also remember that they know this about each other.
This idea that our trade agreements or relationships have been jeopardized in the slightest by Trump's bluster exists exclusively in your imagination.
Did you not read the headline of the article you linked?
Well.... There we have it.... If Trump is going to talk shit, the Redcoats are about to dump all that oil they buy from us straight into the River Mersey.
Playing the game of faux obtuseness? Here is a simple example to help you understand the concept. Republicans (the group) favor (at least used to) fiscal responsibility, family values, religion, individual responsibility, and a traditional view (i.e. not favorable to social changes such as acceptance of alternate sexual identification, right to choose,...). Those are properties one can assign to the group as a whole. That does not mean that every individual Republican will have those properties (that is the fallacy of division ). Similarly, my long standing view of the electorate is that it is too apathetic and too uninformed. That does not mean that everyone voting is apathetic and ill-informed. My current position that the electorate has earned the property of stupidity for electing Trump does not mean that everyone voting is stupid.
Now, do the math.
Do you need to be a professional baseball player to understand the rules of the game, the history and trends of actual games, the strengths and weaknesses of the current teams, the philosophy of the teams, strategies, tactics, motivations, etc.? Shall we expect you to refrain from opining on matters unless you are a professional in the matter of interest?
So all you do is read headlines ? The point is that even the U.K. who was not directly threatened by Trump, have acted in response to his irresponsible rhetoric. Trade partners worldwide are naturally reacting to Trump's rhetoric. I should not need to explain to you that every nation is in a different trade situation relative to the US trade decisions so Trump's threat, even if made direct, will affect each nation differently. But, again, the point is that they are acting (negatively) to his rhetoric ... even as president-elect.
Isn't it amazing that some fail to recognize the shitty nature of both candidates, but also fail to recognize that, at the very least, one candidate was able to clearly lay out ideas and policies that may or may not be beneficial to all Americans, and the other one could only generalize what they wanted, ie, fight price gouging, or most times, not even be able to put out two sentences without turning them into word salads?
Most states have laws against this, so to say you are going to "fight" price gouging, you are doing nothing but say they recognize that the states have that fight under control and that candidate would do nothing more than to piggy back off the states, then probably try and claim that they were the ones that did the fighting against. Hilarious.
Now, before I am incessantly hounded with questions of me not "recognizing" things about Trump, the truth is, I do recognize that he can be a crappy person, but that person was able to communicate far better to the electorate, most that have thinking ability anyway, and get their message across far better then the person that the alternative.
It will not be long before Harris joins the "Clinton blame everybody but me" tour simply to rake in cash from idiotic people willing to listen to her.
Hopefully, she will simply be relegated to the pages of "The worst candidates in presidential history" book. That is where she belongs.
Just amazing. What are the clear policies that Trump articulated?
Trump told his gullible supporters that if they elect him, he will take care of all problems. Nobody will have to worry about money, the world will be at peace, crime will be quiesced, etc. Basically he told supporters whatever they wanted to hear and unlike most politicians, did not even stop at the point of outrageous claims. Trump just kept promising the universe and too many of those who voted for him kept sucking it up.
“…Trump articulated?”
…. the definition of an oxymoron…unless of course, one is an adherent of the ‘weave’…
It is clear you do not understand that all politicians bluster during a campaign to get elected. Even the DEI hire on your side that could not put two sentences together.
‘
I consider it politics. What would be your response if he somehow manages, through a policy not yet in place, brings down prices? Would you give credit to Bidenomics?
‘He claims that he is going to impose outrageous tariffs to generate revenue to cover all of his programs. Do you consider that’
Again, political bluster and probably a means to get Canada and Mexico to do what Trump wants. Again, for the politically challenged, all politicians do it.
‘
He built quite a bit during his first term. Where were you? He will continue to do so, however, because of the president you voted for, we. Taxpayers will probably have to repurchase much of the materials the dementia fool sold off with pennies on the dollar. How do you feel about that?
‘
Yes, getting rid of criminals and thise that ignored deportation orders need to go. Do you hire illegals to cut your yard? Why would you hire an illegal over a legal immigrant or a citizen?
‘
Sorry, unlike some here that claim to be, I am not an expert on tariffs, so ai will not opine on your talking poi t.
‘
What would your response be if he did? My guess is you would give credit to Biden. Who cares if itnis one call or a thousand. If he grts
peace, then he has done far more than dementia boy and the DEI hire you voted for have done.
‘
Simple economics. The more supply, the less prices. We will just have to see instead of constantly bloviating on a social site about things we know nothing about.
‘
Show us EXACTLY where he said what you claim. Anything other than those exact words is nothing more than bullshit lies.
’Trump told his gullible supporters that if they elect him, he will take care of all problems. Nobody will have to worry about money, the world will be at peace, crime will be quiesced, etc’
Exact quotes on this?
‘Basically’
So you really don’t know
’Basically he told supporters whatever they wanted to hear and unlike most politicians, did not even stop at the point of outrageous claims. Trump just kept promising the universe and too many of those who voted for him kept sucking it up.’
Pretty much sums up all politicians, even the DEI candidate you voted for.
What is clear is that you are trying to normalize Trump. Your pathetic 'logic' is that most all politicians lie (which is true) so Trump's lying is normal. That is a fallacy known as false equivalence. Trump is a pathological liar whose volume and outrageousness of lies is in a category of its own.
Your fallacious reasoning is akin to claiming that a shoplifter and a serial murderer are equivalent since they are both criminals.
I would give him credit if he actually did this. Do you understand that Trump does not have the power to accomplish this?
You really need to get informed about Trump's actual accomplishments. The border is 2,000 miles. Now, read:
Trump's grand accomplishment was 52 miles of primary barriers and 33 miles of secondary barriers.
It should always be an objective to rid the USA of illegal criminals. But that is not the point. Do you believe Trump is actually going to accomplish what he claimed? Do you actually believe his bullshit? Do you have any concept of what is required to do what he promised?
Yeah, of course you are not going to try to defend that utterly stupid rhetoric. You do not need to be an expert on tariffs to understand that a tariff is a tax on imports that is paid by the importer and then passed down through the supply chain to ultimately be paid by the consumer. That means, bugsy, tariffs increase consumer prices. You get that, right?
See you just cannot believe that independents exist. I have stated in this forum (I literally volunteered this) that if Trump were to end the Ukraine war without forcing Ukraine to capitulate to Russia, that I would credit Trump for that accomplishment. I even stated that this is one case where his irrational, loose-cannon nature could possibly help.
Except that the USA is already producing record levels of crude exports. We have an abundance of crude. Further, our domestic refineries predominantly work with sour/heavy crude whereas our domestic crude is sweet/light. Thus we can drill like crazy and would wind up merely exporting it. We are tied to Saudi / Venezuela, etc. because
So given we are already exporting like crazy, there is not much room for Trump to affect prices. If we had a supply shortage, matters would be different. To wit, Trump's "drill, baby, drill" only matters to those who do not understand what is actually going on. It is bullshit from Trump designed to appeal to an ignorant base.
This stupid literal game illustrates how feeble your arguments are. If you cannot see how Trump " ... claims he will go after his political enemies and would even consider using the military. " then you need to remove your Trump-supporter blinders.
‘ Your pathetic 'logic' is that most all politicians lie (which is true)’
Funny how you call my logic pathetic then go on in the same sentence and agree with it.
That is pathetic
‘I would give him credit if he actually did this’
somehow ai doubt it.
‘Do you understand that Trump does not have the power to accomplish this’
Do you understand that you have zero idea of any policy he may put in place that will help bring down prices? Do you understand basic economics?
’Trump is a pathological liar whose volume and outrageousness of lies is in a category of its own. ’
Only to the triggered who only look at politics through a highly partisan lens.
’You really need to get informed about Trump's actual accomplishments. The border is 2,000 miles.’
So you admit I am correct. I never said he built the entirety of the southern border. That is your fantasy, and yes, he will continue to build the wall, just like the dementia boy you voted for said he would also. That looks less and less liely since he is selling off everything for scrap. Don’t you think that is theft against American taxpayers?
‘Yeah, of course you are not going to try to defend that utterly stupid rhetoric. You do not need to be an expert on tariffs to understand that a tariff is a tax on imports that is paid by the importer and then passed down through the supply chain to ultimately be paid by the consumer. That means, bugsy, tariffs increase consumer prices. ’
Let’s put it this wayTG… if it stops illegals or at least dramatically reduces it where border control can apprehend and immediately deport illegals, then I have no problem paying a little more. You shouldn’t either.
’See you just cannot believe that independents exist’
Not on this forum they don’t. Every comment shows partisanship, even yours.
’ I have stated in this forum (I literally volunteered this) that if Trump were to end the Ukraine war without forcing Ukraine to capitulate to Russia, that I would credit Trump for that accomplishment. I even stated that this is one case where his irrational, loose-cannon nature could possibly help. ’
You must be a politician because you are doing exactly what you are bitching about Trump might or might not do. You claim you will do something, but because that something has not yet happened, we have no idea how you will react. Just because you say it doesn’t mean you will do it. The exact same thing you(collective you) leftists say about Trump.
‘If we had a supply shortage, matters would be different. To wit, Trump's "drill, baby, drill" only matters to those who do not understand what is actually going on. It is bullshit from Trump designed to appeal to an ignorant base.’
Yes just like those ignorant ass hats that voted for Harris because she said she was going to fight price gouging.
As far as the rest of the rant, if Biden did not ban exploration and drilling on hundreds of thousands of acres, then we could drill more and supply the countries Russia exports to, thanks to dementia boy allowing them to complete a pipeline that had been previously halted, but stopped the pipeline, and lost many jobs, here at home.
This stupid literal game illustrates how feeble your arguments are. If you cannot see how Trump " ... claims he will go after his political enemies and would even consider using the military. " then you need to remove your Trump-supporter blinders.‘
Failed attempt. Not only did he not say the exact words you claimed, he has repeatedly said he does not have an enemies list. Your faux outrage is overwhelmingly……meh.
‘
Irony just eludes you, doesn't it?
So armchair quarterback it is.
If you've never actually played baseball it's difficult to recognize the difference between a fastball or a slider coming at you at 94 mph. It's difficult to judge when to steal 2nd if you've never been on 1st.
I'm sure you'll want to argue that, just as I'm sure you never played competitive sports. If you had, you'd recognize "trash talk" and it wouldn't send you into orbit every time Trump does it.
Nice try. Sad, but probably the best option available given the hole you've dug.
"Acted". Hmm. What have they actually done? What are these "actions"?
Once again, when all is said and done, more will be said than done.
Your comment is extensive and non interrupted babbling.
Trumps "trash talk" is underpinned to pathological lying.
Trumps campaign was so bizarre and disconnected from reality that the only way to defend it is to say "everybody does it" which is clearly insanely ridiculous.
Trump dwelled on the size of a dead golfers cock, during a campaign speech.
Funny way to say ‘you just handed someone their ass and even I can’t counter it in any way’.
You could have just said that.
Amazing how some want to play armchair quarterback, giving play by play, when the game hasn’t even started yet.
You've never handed a single person their ass since you have been on this site.
Trump supporters tend to be delusional.
Hmmmm….
John Russell. 0
Bugsy. Every debate against the above name
Not a hard thing to do.
To keep from you giving a bs ticket that you instigated, how about trying to counter ANY of mine or Jack’s comment.
I can wait
Amazing lack of understanding on your part.
Clearly you think there is a policy he could effect. That illustrates that you do not understand market economics and the power of the presidency.
You claim that Trump "He built quite a bit during his first term.". So in your generous mind, you consider 52 miles of primary barriers and 33 miles of secondary barriers on a 2,000 mile border to be "quite a bit". So you think that 4.25% is "quite a bit".
Well at least you admit that tariffs will increase consumer prices. But you also expect that effecting tariffs will magically make significant changes in illegals ... not sure where you get that fantasy.
You are totally confused.
Yeah, you deflect since you (as has been true your entire post) have no argument.
More confused nonsense. The energy companies are not complaining ... they have plenty of places to drill. You are simply repeating nonsensical talking points.
Of course, you ignore what he actually stated in the video. That was totally predictable. And I made no claim that he stated he had an enemies list.
In all, your responses were nothing but confused logic and talking points.
Are you going to hold back on commenting except on subjects in which you are a professional? No? Get serious.
When busted you ignore the point and make a lame quip. Your responses are now no better than the typical Trump apologist crap littering this site.
Do even a little research. For example (from a quick search):
As I noted, trade partners will clearly be formulating their responses to Trump. They are revising plans, warming up alternative trade channels, etc. Why? Because that is what rational individuals do in response to a public threat from a loose-cannon who will soon have the powers of the US presidency.
Is that the answer Greg? You have it all figured out? One fucked up response on the View and in spite of everything else she articulated in her campaign that one thing is predominantly why she lost?
And of course Trump can make all sorts of mistakes and outrageous rhetoric but none of that matters, eh?
The mind of Trump supporters ...
‘Amazing lack of understanding on your part.’
Amazing the irony of that statement.
‘Clearly you think there is a policy he could effect. That illustrates that you do not understand market economics and the power of the presidency’
From your posts that are nothing more than opinion, neither do you.
‘But you also expect that effecting tariffs will magically make significant changes in illegals ... not sure where you get that fantasy’
Armchair quarterback before the first play. Pathetic.
‘You claim that Trump "He built quite a bit during his first term.". So in your generous mind, you consider 52 miles of primary barriers and 33 miles of secondary barriers on a 2,000 mile border to be "quite a bit". So you think that 4.25% is "quite a bit". ’
There was a total of about 450 miles of new wall built. Because you don’t understand that replacing old wall with new wall is building a wall is not my fault.
’You are totally confused.’
We see that from many of your posts. Too bad you don’t see the irony.
’Yeah, you deflect since you (as has been true your entire post) have no argument’
Most see the same in your comments
‘And I made no claim that he stated he had an enemies list’
This not you?
’ If you cannot see how Trump " ... claims he will go after his political enemies and would even consider using the military. " then you need to remove your Trump-supporter blinders.
Speaking of needing to remove blinders…..
‘In all, your responses were nothing but confused logic and talking points’
Most see the same in your posts. What’s your point?
Some just don’t seem to understand that her saying that one thing to millions of Americans was telling them to expect 4 more years of failure.
That was a large part of her being rejected.
I don't think you understand how trash talk works.
Do you understand the difference between words and actions?
Has Canada cut off crude oil exports to the United States? Have enacted tariffs? Have the Maple leafs left the NHL? Has anybody actually done anything?
No?
So pretty much this is all just grandstanding. And we all know how much politicians love to grandstand.
So you do not consider Canada, as but one example, planning how they will counter Trump's tariffs as actions?
When a company engages in strategic planning is that an action? When Putin was planning his invasion of Ukraine, was that an action?
Have you ever designed a house? When one goes through the process of identifying and prioritizing key objectives (e.g. location, neighbors, natural features, square footage, basic elevation criteria, basement / walkout, energy sources, etc.) is that an action? When one designs the floorplan and makes the myriad decisions of functionality, style, ..., considering cost and time, are those actions? When one investigates potential architects, contractors, financial sources, legal requirements, insurance, material requirements, geological tests, ..., are those actions?
Note, no ground has even been broken, but a ton of planning / deciding actions have taken place.
You seem to have a very simplistic understanding of what constitutes action.
‘Have you ever designed a house? When one goes through the process of identifying and prioritizing key objectives (e.g. location, neighbors, natural features, square footage, basic elevation criteria, basement / walkout, energy sources, etc.) is that an action? When one designs the floorplan and makes the myriad decisions of functionality, style, ..., considering cost and time, are those actions’
This is not an action in the thought of physically doing something. This is a planning action. Much like you are complaining Trump is doing. When he commences in the ohysical action of his plan and it goes wrong, then you will have something to complain about.
Until then…………..
Yes, bugsy, that is precisely my point.
I have been speaking about planning actions by trade partners.
See? You are not paying attention.
Do you consider planning a vacation as taking it? Do you consider planning your investments the same as buying the stocks? Is planning your funeral the same as burying yourself?
How is this even in question?
No. So you continue to pretend that you do not understand that planning is an action. Why? To what end?
Throughout I have used planning, communication with alternate trade partners, etc. as my examples of actions. I have been quite clear and consistent.
What is the point of continuing with this faux obtuseness?
Trump's irresponsible rhetoric has harmed our relationships with trade partners. It was an unforced error. It was a stupid move by an arrogant buffoon. And this is not limited to China, Mexico, and Canada since we have seen other nations weigh in on this and at the very least assess their strengths and weaknesses and review their alternatives. Most of our trading partners (if not all) will of course respond to the fact that Trump, even as president-elect, has chosen to use bullying tactics rather than engage in private, responsible, constructive trade negotiations. The actions that they have taken at this point will at the very least be focused on strategy, shoring up contingency plans, securing political support for select plans, etc. Even if none of them act physically (e.g. preemptively establish new trade agreements) the actions I have repeatedly noted are indeed actions.
Is this all you are going to do now ... stupidly insist that the word 'actions' does not include planning, review, meetings, analysis, etc.?
You continue to cling to desperate pedantry. We all know why.
Only in your mind.
I have stated that Trump's tariff threat was irresponsible rhetoric which has (obviously) damaged trade relationships. I have noted that trade partners will naturally pay attention to a public threat from Trump —even while president-elect— and will take what they each believe are appropriate actions. I have given plenty examples of these actions which will be primarily planning in nature.
You continue with an idiotic insistence that trade partners have NOT done anything in response to Trump's rhetoric. Not only is that logically absurd, it is demonstrably false based on the public comments from Mexico, Canada, et. al. Trade partners are indeed taking actions to prepare for whatever idiotic move Trump might make when he assumes the presidency. And instead of making a real rebuttal, you try to redefine the English word 'action' to exclude all actions such as planning, communication, analysis, warming up contingency plans, etc.
Instead of thoughtful discourse you engage in low-grade tactics such as faux obtuseness / antagonistic games playing the role of a Trump apologist.
Bottom line, it is not reasonable for you to believe that our trade partners have taken no action in response to the irresponsible threat from Trump. Especially since we have public evidence that they are indeed acting in response to the threat. Yet another example:
So governments have to plan on possible actions of other countries. Oh my, having to plan will destroy any relationships they have.
Fun with words I see. According to google AI planning is not considered an action:
Hanging your hat on the false meaning of words shows how weak an argument is.
Diff a cult to explain how any and every thing Trump does, irregardless of the detriment to US, is somehow defended by his supporters, the aborters of common sense conclusions that now allow formerly distinct illusions, to be sources of confusions, on what should be obvious agreements, but when disputes about 'actions', become dispute reactions, tough to not call Trump distractions, an obvious 'alternative' truth reality, for too many who wish to hide from the actuality of what Trumps words do to neutrality, as it tends to reverse and drive negativity of scenes that were formerly agreed upon, as to what would and could result, as opposed to "no, Trump has changed with alternate facts what should be common sense interpretations resulting in an electorate that has been so fooled that it can now contest the obvious and just deny the obvious unrest that Trump LIES will certainly cause and without a beneficial for US reason, and to myself, just more actions of behaviors treasonous, and detrimental for US. Trump a tempting of to be Christ like a savior figure, seem to make it a disfigured conclusion that Trump the dissed illusion, continues to spread the confusion that allows the masses to not dwell in the here and now of what is true and obvious, because they see justification via a rationalization that is illogical and akin to the opposite of the what used to be quite obvious, to US all, but is now another point of contention, as is almost everything Trump is and has caused, to become a subject of contention, with just a mere mention, while if brought out in the open, accused of just being paranoid about what previous words and actions did result in, after watching first hand those words and actions resulting in the contractions shrinking the greatness of our formerly United States myself included, as sick of watching the spin from within to fool the peoples via the lies and miss-truths spread to an absorbing and easily mulled and mal able mindset, that have forgotten to forget what dictators tend to due when not challenged, and as they accept and agree to be subjective to what some others of US refuse to even consider,
and it should and must concern, for it seems too late for so many to learn, especially when there are ones supporting and spreading what LIES ahead for US All if we do not adjust the path that leads back to provable 'math' that will determine the fate of a Country, that used, to be so easy to see where it went wrong, as it becomes no longer strong when unable to think for itself,
for it becomes poor, when led away from what gave it its' unique wealth, and when this occurs via means no longer needed be stealth,
it is not the knowledge of wealth stolen, it is more the goal in
which that stated, remains missed by those confused by a win from a loss, by a loser who had to win at all a cost,
and stolen has been more than thought achievable,
and now we observe counts receivable that find about anything deceive able to have become
believable,
and unbelievable is now no longer unachievable,
and that should be concerning to any and all, who can see the here and now,
writing , upon the wall.....
This is such a confused retort ... one that totally misses the point I made. Which was that trade partners have in fact acted in response to Trump's threats.
A process is an action.
The insanity in some ' arguments ' nowadays ... you actually are trying to argue against usages defined in dictionaries.
For future reference, since you really should know this, strategic planning is an action. So is tactical planning. So is holding meetings to discuss options, weaknesses, strengths. So is opening lines of communication with alternative trade partners. So is assessing one's ability to deal with potential threats.
Go argue with city planners, architects, engineers, scientists, et. al. and tell them that all of their research, planning, design, communication, etc. work is not really an action.
Hanging your hat on the false meaning of words shows how weak an argument is.
Or strategic planning
While "strategic planning" itself is not considered a single action, it is a process that outlines the actions an organization needs to take to achieve its long-term goals, meaning it serves as a framework for future actions rather than a single, immediate action.
But keep trying to twist things to show you have no argument
The meaning of words are codified in dictionaries. If you want to make a sound argument, use sound sources.
Your truly stupid 'argument' ignores the codified meaning of the English word 'action'.
Don't you pretty much say that about anything Trump says?
It is as obvious as the idea that the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 was started by a dragon.
You still want to equate "talking about things" with "doing things". They are not the same.
Only on his impactful irresponsible | dishonest rhetoric.
Then you are ignoring what is actually happening (and not using any common sense). Does it look to you as though Mexico and Canada are looking at the USA TRUMP as a trade adversary or a reasonable partner?
The dishonesty of your claim is staggering.
You cannot deny that our trade partners are indeed acting on Trump's rhetoric so you pursue this ridiculous tactic of claiming that planning, analysis, communication, prioritization, warming up alternatives, etc. are not actions — that these actions are not ' doing things '. Amazing that you believe the trade partners are simply sitting back and waiting for Trump to act once he becomes PotUS.
The level of debate from Trump supporters / apologists has devolved into dishonest nonsense.
And in addition to trade partners, domestic forces are also reacting to Trump's threats:
It looks to me like you only want to acknowledge something as political rhetoric when it's convenient to you.
No sane individual with a modicum of intelligence believes that people sophisticated and tough enough to become leaders of their countries are going to be put off, offended, or otherwise influenced by a little political bluster.
All politicians love a chance to pound a podium, and Trump gives them that. They're thrilled, just like the news media is thrilled with the endless supply of clickbait.
You are clearly prepared to die on this hill rather than admit the obvious validity of a viewpoint that wasn't originally yours. It's just silly obstinance at this point, but you do you.
Another bullshit claim that does not correlate with what I wrote. You have nothing.
It is obvious that the trade partners have been influenced by Trump's threat. I have posted several videos showing their reactions. One would have to be living in a fantasyland to not recognize that trade partners are most definitely responding to Trump's threats. You can see that in their public comments (I have posted several videos). But beyond that, for you to actually believe that a 25%/10% across-the-board tariff threat from the USA president-elect is not going to result in trade partners planning, analyzing, communicating, prioritizing, and engaging in preparatory work (e.g. warming up alternate trade avenues) is a level of wishful naivety that frankly is laughable.
But clearly you will never admit that your claim that the trade partners are not influenced by Trump's threat is preposterous — even when we all can watch them describe their analysis and how they are influenced and what they will likely do in response (i.e. plans).
That level of denial is delusion.
Big Whoop.
Every time a new party comes to power in any country the other countries have to consider how to have a relationship with that party keeping their own country's best interest at heart. To try and make it seem that this is a Trump phenonium is just dishonest..
If the new leader/party is weak (Biden) the other countries will try to take advantage of the weakness. If the new party/leader is not weak they will have to change their tactics accordingly. Welcome to the real world, a world that did not start with Donald
Well talk to Jack because he keeps insisting in direct defiance of demonstrable fact that trade partners have not reacted to Trump's threats.
[✘]
[✘]
Then why did Trump get elected? You do not think these voters complaining about the cost of living believe that Trump is going to fix their problems? In other words, why vote for such an abysmal character if one does not believe the asshole is going to deliver on the promises that matter most to them?
A senile old man has shuffle walked us to the brink of WWIII while being PotUS during an economy that has sucked for most people. She said she wouldn't do anything different, not hard to figure it out.
Because it pisses off people they think are woke arrogant godless hipster nerds. If the next four years are the worst in American history and everyone's lives go to shit, the MAGAites will still be happy because it wasn't ever about fixing America, it was always about retribution.
Your opening claim of the brink of WWIII is nonsense ... parroting Trump ... not a smart move. Your second claim of a poor economy is demonstrably bullshit. What is true is that prices are too high and that interest rates are too high. The rest of the economy is in great shape; simply not deniable. And Trump cannot do anything about prices or interest rates so voting for him in the hope that he will fix things is naive.
Harris not answering that one question properly was a mistake. She did qualify her statement many times afterwards noting that her administration will be different than Biden's, but she did indeed screw up that question. But if one is measured, one would realize that Trump made myriad (many dozens) of mistakes and looked like a fool (because he is) during the campaign. So if one is literally going by mistakes and bad answers, Trump should have lost big.
Why Trump won is a complex question and your banal answer does not even scratch the surface.
Yet he didn't...
Scratch the surface? He won, she lost. What surface are you trying to scratch?
Yes, Greg, Trump won.
That doesn't really jive with post election polling...
Just saying...
And?...
I see, so those two indicators should be ignored by the people most affected by them because?...
Clearly, NOT.
Meh, if you say so. Seems fairly obvious...
T G
As I mentioned above, Trump won because he told the people what they wanted to hear and Harris gave them no reason not to vote for Trump.
Trump gave them plenty of reason NOT to vote for Trump, but they didn't care.
Too many people in the electorate who have a cultish belief that Trump is telling the truth and can do what he claims.
Yes, Trump told them whatever they wanted to hear and too many were gullible enough to believe his bullshit.
‘Yes, Trump told them whatever they wanted to hear and too many were gullible enough to believe his bullshit’
Or maybe enough were not gullible to believe the bullshit that came from the DEI hire and her stolen valor idiot running mate
And you don't think Harris was doing the same............SMH
Her message(s) didn't resonate as it turns out
Yet again more purely partisan bullshit.
What were Harris' qualifications to be Vice President?
You think that the lies from Harris were anywhere near the frequency and outrageousness of Trump's??
Every gathering she attended, yes.
That explains how Trump got elected. Even on the most blatantly obvious negative of Trump ... his incessant and outrageous lying ... you actually believe that Harris was just as bad.
Trump's super power truly is demagoguery.
And millions of voters agreed that actually, she was a worse choice. Live with it. It is in the cards for four more years..........for all of us
That, Jim, is exactly the problem.
For decades now I have held the opinion that the electorate is too apathetic (does not put much value in voting / making good choices) and ignorant (does not pay attention ... votes on feelings, habit, name-recognition, etc.). With the election of Trump, my position is that we also apparently have an acute problem with stupidity. The key stupidity is the belief that Trump has some magic power over the economy. Near that is the stupidity that yields a belief that Trump gives one shit about the people ... in particular, his middle class and lower supporters.
We have witnessed a perfect example of people stupidly voting against their own best interest. And, worse, continuing to hold true to their irrational beliefs no matter what evidence manifests to the contrary.
So should we blame the gullible morons for buying the bullshit? Or praise Trump for seizing the opportunity to harvest the low hanging fruit and target those who he knew would buy his bullshit?
What should rational intelligent people do when witnessing such glaring displays of stupidity and gullibility? Are we not supposed to point it out for fear of making the morons angry?
Trump cabinet picks trying to figure out how to do the jobs they were appointed to...
The primary blame goes to those who voted for this scoundrel.
I do not know about others, but I am going to point out Trump's most glaring failures. I will, as I did with his first term, largely ignore minor matters but I suspect I will have plenty of major factors to analyze and critique.
Are you part of the electorate?
Yes, yes you are so it seems you feel the same of yourself the way you speak down about others.
The irony
"What were Harris' qualifications to be Vice President?"
Not being a complete idiot would have been a plus for most that did not vote for her.
You need someone to explain to you how one can speak of the electorate as a whole (as a group) without apply the group properties to every individual member of the group?
Yet again you run from the question: What were Harris' qualifications to be Vice President?
You said this"
"the electorate is too apathetic"
You did not say most, you did not say some, you did not say a few.
Your post insinuated the entirety of the electorate.
You are part of the electorate.
Own what you posted.
I'm not going to address this again after I reply, no matter how much you want to continue it.
Harris was a DEI hire, mainly because Biden specifically said he would nominate a black woman as his VP.
He did not care about her "qualifications".
She was a DEI hire, and the American people decided they did not wat a DEI hire to lead them.
Even when explained, you continue to not understand how a group can possess properties that are not necessarily true of each member of the group.
Her main qualification was to be so unqualified that if Republicans gained enough seats to impeach Biden, they would not because of her
Trump gave them plenty of reason NOT to vote for Trump,
All evidence to the contrary
Just a politicians from all political parties have been doing since the beginning of the republic
He gave them the reasons, they just did not recognize them.
There is a matter of degree at play here Robert. Don't make the mistake of normalizing Trump. All politicians necessarily lie (if not, they could not be elected in today's political environment).
It is a false equivalence to equate Trump's pathological and outrageous lying with the stretching of truth and pandering done by most politicians. Trump is in a league of his own. Just because this involves lying in both cases does not mean Trump lies like the normal politician so we should excuse him as 'just another politician'.
I have never tried to normalize Trump, I dislike his actions, his attitude and his presence in the White House.
He lies about something most every time he opens his mouth
Most politicians, without regard to party affiliation, only lie when they are telling voters what they will do for them.
He gave them the reasons, they just did not recognize them
I will give you that, but Harris and the Democrats gave them no reasons not to vote for Trump and they disliked her and the Biden administration and deemed (arguably wrongly) the lesser of two evils.
The Democratic plans and campaign strategy to win the White House, hold the Senate and retake the house was the worst in recent history.
I agree.
The fact that other politicians lie does not mean that Trump's lying is normal or that it is even close to the level of lying that has been tolerated by the electorate in the past.
Well they certainly gave me reasons. Harris would have been presidential as opposed to the loose-cannon buffoon who threatens our trade partners based on a confused understanding of current trade and the impact of tariffs while president-elect.
Harris is intelligent, experienced, rational, and would (like every other PotUS except for Trump) predominantly respect the office of the presidency and treat it as a duty rather than a means to play king.
Harris winning would have ended the Trump fiasco and enabled the GOP to start healing. Her losing exacerbated the problem and at this point I wonder if I will live to see a rational GOP again.
Harris winning would have allowed justice to continue and hold Trump accountable for his crimes. Instead, his crimes have become a horrible precedent for this nation.
Harris was focused on working for the middle and lower class. Trump does not give one shit about these folks. They stupidly voted against their best interests.
Harris lost a close race. We are not talking about Mondale here.
LOL
Trump IS the reason not to vote for Trump. No one should have needed another reason.
She lost a race that she could have won with a little thought, a little effort and less rhetorical shit slinging
Harris was focused on working for the middle and lower class.
You know I think I believe that, the problem is that she was totally unable to communicate this to them or to convince them
Trump IS the reason not to vote for Trump. No one should have needed another reason.
The Democrats failed to provide them with an alternative that they believed was better.
That sums it up perfectly, in the 2 times that rump won the presidency they managed to find choices that were more unlikely and worse than he was. amazing but true. and we see why this trend is likely to continue, their attitude is, Kamala wasn't bad, trump supporters are just stupid, that takes an amazing amount of Hubris, but here we are.
Easy to say. It was close, so she could have won. Then again, the fact that it was close shows that there were a lot of people who were unreachable.
I thought she did a fine job of communicating her objectives and her plans. She clearly was up against a successful demagogue ... there is no convincing people who would even consider Trump.
The point that I do agree with is that she failed to get enough people motivated to go out and actually vote. I find that curious given the alternative was Trump ... I would have expected more in the electorate to vote for Harris just to ensure Trump does not get elected. That failure is my biggest surprise.
Of course that is not true. Just the fact someone would consider Trump does not mean they would not consider Harris also. They are usually called independents and they should have been the ones Harris was going for in a meaningful way. She didn't, she lost.
Annnnnnd.............REJECTED.
Fun fact, there are more Independents than Democrats...
Independent Party ID Tied for High; Democratic ID at New Low
I guess "I wouldn't do anything different from Joe" and "Trump will destroy democracy" was not enough to convince them.
A lot of evidence to the contrary
We a lot of people that have historically voted Democrat (all genders, all races and all age groups) voted for Trump so she did not convince many those that had historically supported the left
Demagogue.
Voting for Trump is irrational. He cannot (and of course will not) do what he promised. He is more likely to cause harm to those who are counting on him to perform magic. Case in point: an electorate up in arms over the cost-of-living getting hit with inflation resulting from Trump tariffs.
How does one convince someone who would vote for Trump (implicitly, they believe his bullshit) to vote for someone else?
They would probably need deprogramming first.
I feel as mentioned earlier by i believe DP, many were more interested in showing those pompous individuals on the left, as Trump is the stick in the proverbial eye can't seem to burn as wood think ones own detriment would be a better incentive than 'showing others' who obviously threaten they ' that it is more important to stick it to the man/woman than to do what is best for our country. What a sad reality those that so strongly believe in Trump and his lies, that they would sacrifice something so extremely rare in this world , US.
Demagogue
You mean the manner in which Harris specifically avoided the issues important to the voters that actually cost her the election, and spent her time saying that she wouldn't change anything done by the Biden administration or attacking President Trump's character.
I think Trump's character should be attacked by the way.
This approach to the election cost her the swing voters that turned to Trump or just stayed home
She stated once, on the View, that she could not think of anything she would have done different. Then, repeatedly, during the campaign, she spoke of her agenda and made the point that every PotUS has a different set of priorities and a different agenda. She even explicitly stated that hers would not be a continuation of the Biden presidency.
Why focus on one poor answer and ignore the many times she explained otherwise?
Also, how exactly do you apply the label demagogue to Harris?
First impressions are lasting impressions. Methinks she screwed up, again, the message thinking that the majority of Americans liked Biden's agenda. As it turns out, she was wrong. Then when she flipped, it seems it was too late.
That happened in the middle of her campaign. She naturally was not going to throw Biden under the bus, was unprepared for the question, and wound up giving a poor answer.
Again, looking at this one answer as the reason she lost seems to really be going out on a limb.
I do not know why those in the swing states who did not want Trump to be PotUS were not out voting huge for Harris. In the end, we are all now stuck with Trump. The only good that might come out of this (doubtful) is that those who do not think their vote matters will get a painful lesson when they see the impact an irresponsible loose-cannon buffoon as PotUS can have on the USA (and the planet). To wit, those who think Biden was a bad PotUS are likely to see what bad really is.
If Trump really does impose tariffs as he has threatened I wonder if Trump supporters will deny that the subsequent rise in consumer prices and availability of goods are a result of Trump's arrogantly irresponsible actions. Will they realize that they voted against their best interests?
Also, how exactly do you apply the label demagogue to Harris?
Demagogue= a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument:
Harris campaigned against Trump (appealing to peoples' hatred and prejudice against Trump rather than offering clear, rational policy alternatives to Biden's policies or to those proposed by Trump no matter how vaguely.
She was almost totally engaged in identity politics vs issue politics and that cost her the votes of many middle class voters that traditionally vote for the Democratic candidate and ticket.
I didn't as I left that line blanks because I felt neither would be good for the U.S.
Millions of voters did not agree with and voted for Trump where historically they would have voted for a Democrat any Democrat, but not this time and not Harris.
Exactly. As everyone should know it is hard to walk something back. Hillary had her deplorable moment and Harris had her Biden 2.0 moment. Don't know how much of a difference those things meant but trying to walk them back is not going to work well.
The left is still trying to juice Trumps "a few good people on both sides "comment even though it has been debunked.
Oh come on Robert. Every politician campaigns against their opponent. That would make every politician a demagogue. Pointing out Trump clear faults, is not demagoguery by any rational interpretation of that word. Rallying supporters against a class of people, however, clearly is.
A demagogue is one who appeals to emotions and bigotry based on race, sex, gender identity, religion, disability, age, class, foreign status, education, body size, color, ... against groups of people. It is used as a term to define individuals who exploit the emotions and bigotry of others to achieve power.
People like Hitler, Mussolini, McCarthy, Chávez, and Trump are perfect examples of demagogues.
I did not ask you who you voted for, I asked why you focused on one isolated poor answer by Harris in the middle of her campaign while ignoring the countless other answers and explanations she provided which argue that hers would NOT be an extension of Biden's administration.
And how many moments did Trump have? Harris did not make a discriminatory comment about any group of people, but rather was consistently inclusive. So no Hillary deplorable. Yet Trump routinely discriminated, routinely made idiotic statements, ..., Trump gave all sorts of reasons for why nobody should have voted for him yet they did. That indicates more of a fundamental problem with the electorate than a single weak answer by Harris.
In public anyway.............and the virtue signaling award in 2024 goes to...............Kamala Harris
Opinions do vary and given the outcome, greatly. Not everyone is of the same mindset as the fewer.
You always say that yet, many feel comfortable in their skin and don't bow to the wishes of those who differ.
The USA just elected a scoundrel demagogue as PotUS; someone who by historical standards should have been rejected by the primary process. That indicates a fundamental problem with the electorate.
Except for you? That's the way you make it sound every day.
Like Harris wasn't? Seems like the pinch hitter struck out.
Again, Jim, cease with the faux obtuseness. I have explained several times now that I am referring to the electorate as a group. You, et. al. insisting that the properties of a group are automatically applied to each member of the group is the fallacy of division . It is, in other words, wrong thinking. Logically incorrect.
No of course not. Harris was a normal D candidate by historical measures. How on Earth can you even think to equate the outrageous behavior of Trump (relative to other presidential candidates) and the normal campaign of Harris?
Trump's campaign was, more often that not, lunacy. Even leaving ideology aside I'd be embarrassed to death to have voted for that guy.
And thats without even bringing up his traitorous behavior post 2020 election.
Tig, you will never get anywhere with these people . They are either in the cult or indifferent or apathetic toward it.
It' amazing the constant attacks on the electorate, it's almost like they are communist totalitarian supporters who want to be ruled by an elite class.
Lets look at the difference between the 2 parties.
Party 1: held an open primary and chose it's representee, and the won an election
Party 2: held an open primary and chose it's representee, and then the party elites kicked them aside and chose a miserable huma being with no charisma or redeeming qualities that the electorate could relate to, to represent them. to this day not 1 person in a position of power has said Joe was replaced because he was unfit, so one can only assume he was replaced because the electorate was too stupid to nominate the right person. The amount of Hubris required to claim that trump was elected because the electorate is stupid when you voted for Harris is mind boggling.
If your history only started in 2016 when democrats started choosing candidates who have no personality or likability. otherwise, your comment is disconnected from reality.
You mean like campaigning on the idea that conservative men are so abusive that their wives need to be told that their husbands won't know how they voted?
Meh.
McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, even Gore to some extent.
Normal = policies, demeanor, experience, etc. consistent with historical candidates. Harris was a normal D candidate.
Trump, in contrast, is so atypical of a presidential candidate that he is in a category of his own. This should be obvious.
The word ‘demagogue’ is another normal English word with clear meaning and powerful examples. Redefining words is a feeble tactic.
All normal.
Do you consider Trump to be a normal political candidate?
And thus, once again, he won the election..................When are some poeple going to realize that that is what the people wanted. Escape from the status quo. Politics as we once knew it is gone and the sooner realized, the better off all of us will be.
"I agree to this Constitution ... and I believe, further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other." - Benjamin Franklin
If you don't agree with me it is because there is something wrong with you. Everyone knows that. S/
The only fundamental "problem" with the electorate is they are not as dumb as many dems and Trump haters thought and hoped they were. They really thought if they kept saying the same old tired shit enough times people would buy into the Trump hysteria. Nazi, end of democracy, fascist......etc. Come on man, no one could be as bad as they were screaming at the top of their lungs. After awhile their screaming just became background noise and people voted for who they wanted.
And here we have many people who can't let go of the narrative a month and a half after election. Rather than consider what they could have done wrong and what they could do better they are doubling (tripling) down on it must be the electorate that is the problem. Maybe if you keep saying it they will vote as you want to try and prove they are not a problem but I would not hold my breath that is a winning strategy.
Interesting. She does seem to fit the definition. Not that it matters in the grand scheme of things. Demagogue is just the latest in a long long list of names for people to call Trump that are meaningless. This probably won't gain any more steam than any of the other names they have come up with but I do give them credit for a creative new name.
Stating the obvious is not an argument.
I wonder when people are going to wake up and realize that what they want is NOT what Trump will deliver.
Now that is true.
Do you believe that Trump is going to lower prices like the electorate primarily wants?
Do you believe that Trump is going to clean up politics (drain the swamp) like people want?
Do you believe that Trump is going to make government more efficient (without screwing his supporters)?
Yes. That was the point. Harris was a less capable, less inspiring version of those.
Oh no. I think that's the whole point of him.
Specifically, I think that's the point most of his detractors miss. They get fixated on how he's not "going to lower grocery prices" or he's not "going to get Mexico to pay for a wall" or any of the other thousands of nonsensical things he says and try to convince themselves that his supporters actually ever believed those things.
In doing so they lose sight of the reasons people really vote for Trump, which are all to do with the fact that he is not a normal political figure.
[✘]
Just using your definition.
Then you did not actually respond to the point I made which was that she was a historically normal D candidate in contrast to the historically unpresidential, unfit, pathologically lying con-man loose cannon buffoon Trump.
So your hypothesis is that Trump supporters do not actually believe he will do what he promised and that they voted for him because he is not a normal politician. That they voted for a vindictive lying asshole who will use the powers of the presidency for his own purposes and NOT to benefit the people.
Is that a smart way for the electorate to operate?
Then you are confused.
I did. All of those were normal candidates, especially in contrast to the bellicosity of Trump. She was normal in that regard, but slightly lower quality than the ones I listed. The list was not comprehensive, BTW. I'm sure we could find worse Democratic candidates.
With the obvious caveat that any group of 77 million people is not homogenous, I'm pretty sure his popularity as the "counter-candidate" is well-established at this point.
*eyeroll*
Then you agree that she was a normal D candidate. In contrast to the outrageously atypical (in a very negative way) Trump.
Yes. The properties of a group do not necessarily apply to each member of the group. Especially true as the cardinality of the set increases.
Yes, a NEGATIVE counter-candidate. A counter-candidate replete with faults. A counter-candidate who is demonstrably unfit for the office ... among many other negatives.
More or less, yeah. It kinda depends on what you consider "normal", because with Democrats there is a pretty wide swing. You get everything from FDR or Bill Clinton or Obama to Harris, Hillary, Mondale, or Dukakis.
Dude. Learn to take yes for an answer.
That's going to be a matter of perspective. Obviously, not everyone agrees with you.
All candidates are replete with faults. Most do a better job at hiding them.
Again, your perspective. 77 million people saw it differently.
As you know, I felt that way about Trump AND Harris, so 150+ million people disagreed with me. But I refuse to call them all deluded, stupid, unpatriotic, deceived, or any of the other bullshit things Trump haters routinely spout in their self-righteous tirades.
I used the word in the most conventional sense. I stated that Harris was a normal D candidate. She basically fit the mold of the D candidates we have seen in history. This was in contrast to Trump who is not a normal R candidate AND not a normal candidate regardless of party. Trump is in an outrageous class of his own and it is replete with negatives.
So, back to the point which precipitated the 'normal' comparison, the electorate had the option to pick a candidate who was not unusual for a D, was presidential, experienced, intelligent, articulate, etc. but instead they went for a vindictive, loose-cannon, pathological lying, narcissistic, buffoon. And if they did not believe his bullshit ... then why did they vote for him? And if they did indeed believe his bullshit, that shows a fundamental problem with the electorate (as a group).
Your posts (and others) are replete with sarcasm. Given you have tried to argue against my comment that Harris was a normal (as in not outrageously negative) D candidate, I qualified my note that you 'agreed'.
Those who do not recognize that Trump is an outrageously bad, unfit candidate for PotUS are the reason he was elected.
Again you try to normalize Trump ... acting as though he is just another flawed politician.
Again, that is why I have stated that we have a fundamental problem with the electorate.
And again you misrepresent what I have stated. I did not call ALL of the electorate stupid, etc. I observed that the electorate (as a group) is too apathetic, poorly informed, and given Trump was elected, I question the collective intelligence of the electorate.
The fallacy of division occurs when you take properties of a group and pretend they apply to each member of the group. A strawman fallacy is when you use that to pretend that this is what I have argued.
That is the definition of a demagogue and it describes the Harris method of campaigning and it cost he the election. She never explained how she was going to make things better for the working class voters that she ultimately lost to Trump, she never detailed what was done wrong by the Biden administration and how she was going to do things differently.
She spoke in generalities about issues and spent the rest of the time bashing Trump and trumpeting that she was so much better.
Well not enough people believed her
I asked why you focused on one isolated poor answer by Harris
I answered your question - I didn't focus on that one answer and didn't vote for either of them because I thought neither was qualified.
But many,many people did focus on that answer and decided to vote for change.
That is the definition but one has to stretch it past the breaking point to apply that to Harris. After, all, look at who is normally deemed as a demagogue (that is why I gave you a list). You take a list typified with the likes of Hitler, Mussolini, McCarthy, Chávez, and Trump and then tack Kamala Harris on the end?? And by your extremely loose interpretation, every candidate who speaks in generalities while campaigning is a demagogue. So one wonders who would NOT be a demagogue by such an interpretation.
I will not argue degree with you but will say that I think you are being overly harsh on Harris. Instead of degree, I am going to just point out that you believe Harris lost the election because she spoke in generalities and bashed her opponent.
Now, just for a moment, honestly recall what Trump did during the campaign. That should explain why I am shaking my head at your analysis. If Harris lost for what you note, then Trump instead should have lost in a landslide.
He was change (good in the eyes of his MAGA group and bad in the eyes of the rest of us) but he was change and the people wanted change.
Harris did not tell them what change she would bring - Trump did.
She lost - he won.
That should explain to you why I am shaking my head at your inability to grasp the reality that Harris lost the election, rather than Trump won it.
To a certain extent. Let's not forget she didn't win any primaries. She also made huge mistakes in key situations.
Again, his abnormality is the whole point of him, and people are obviously willing to accept the negatives.
I don't think she was very good at any of those things. I think that's why she couldn't maintain the post convention lead.
They went with a person they thought would affect change.
Again, it's easier to blame "the electorate" than face the problems that drove them away.
No, just the ones who disagree with you.
Exactly. You consider them inferior. If they weren't inferior, they would have elected the person you wanted. Never mind the outrageous hubris required to hold such a view.
Well, when you say moronic shit like "voting for Trump is unpatriotic", that applies to every member of that group of people, whether you meant that or not.
Change in and of itself is not good or bad. So you apparently think Trump voters thought that Trump would bring good change.
She most certainly did. Are you seriously suggesting that Trump was more specific than Harris?? I have to assume that you are just counting all the promises that Trump made regardless of how realistic they were.
What I see is you continuing to be unusually harsh on Harris and giving Trump a pass. When I noted that the people elected a demagogue, you tried to argue that Harris was a demagogue. (Good grief man.) The failures you cite of Harris were also failures of Trump; in most cases, worse. For example, in terms of policy, Trump was all over the map. He kept adding new bullshit (e.g. no taxes on overtime), increasing the volume on his border issues (e.g. claiming that nations were emptying their prisons and mental institutions and these people were added to our illegal immigrant population). He claimed that he would pay for his abstract promises with massive revenues from tariffs yet offered no numbers.
And in terms of demeanor and coherence, the guy was the most unpresidential candidate of any major party in my lifetime ... by far. His speeches were rambling and often pointless. He went off on tangents about Hannibal Lecter, magnets being destroyed by water, described an utterly ridiculous narrative about the battle of Gettysburg, etc. I would not blame anyone on the planet watching this buffoon campaign and wondering why anyone would vote for such a person for PotUS.
It is easy to blame Harris since she lost. But your mere blame is not much of an argument. What would be quite helpful is to answer the question of why people voted for Trump. You can give general answers like: 'they voted for change' which then suggests they believed his bullshit and that he was the kind of person they wanted to see as PotUS or that 'Trump told them what he was going to do' which suggests that he was both specific (was not) and that again they believed his bullshit.
If I had to summarize why Trump won in a single sentence, my summary would be that the majority of the electorate bought into the outrageous bullshit of a demagogue. What is not clear is why so many of the electorate believed this scoundrel.
Irrelevant. I did not say her situation was normal, it clearly was unique. No other candidate ever took over from a withdrawn candidate with about 100 days to campaign. I was speaking of her as a person and in terms of her stated positions. She was a normal D candidate.
If people realize the negatives and accept them then that illustrates a fundamental problem in the electorate given a normal candidate was available. If they do not realize his negatives that too illustrates a fundamental problem in the electorate.
The electorate voted in a scoundrel in spite of overwhelming available information. That is a fundamental problem in the electorate.
Compare Harris to Trump in terms of being presidential. What do you find?
Compare Harris to Trump in terms of experience: Trump was PotUS and private businessman, Harris was VP, Senator, AG of CA (twice), DA of SF, and a prosecuting attorney. It is hard to find a presidential candidate in a major party with more experience than Harris.
Compare Harris to Trump in terms of intelligence. What do you find? Do you think Harris thinks magnets are destroyed by dropping them in water. Do you think she thinks that tariffs do not raise consume prices? Do you think Harris thinks migrants were eating people's pets in Springfield, OH? Do you think Harris believes that the rising ocean levels will produce 'more beachfront property'? (Fucking hell, Jack, the man is an idiot.) Do you think that Harris believes that schools are performing sex-change operations without the parent's knowledge? You surely have heard Trump and you know that this list goes on and on.
Compare Harris to Trump in terms of ability to speak. In spite of GOP 'word salad' nonsense, her speeches and interviews were coherent and organized. Now, compare that to the rambling nonsense from Trump.
You have Harris v. Trump yet you do not find Harris, by comparison even, to be more presidential, at least as experienced, more intelligent, and more articulate than Trump. Just watching the debate should have made this obvious to you.
Then they must somehow have believed that the change he would effect would be good for them. This is a fundamental problem in the electorate.
This is a democracy. The electorate IS the deciding force for who is to be PotUS. Yeah, Jack, I will blame the decision makers. Especially given the available information.
Trump is a demonstrated traitor (one of many highly negative factors). Voting for a traitor is unpatriotic. The fact that you claim voting for a traitor is NOT unpatriotic is a fine example of 'moronic shit'.
No, he won't, but his policies are going to raise them.
Well, he already made his case, so his supporters won't blame him if he fails or doesn't even try in the first place because he said, "You know, it's very hard". Funny how his excuse for not being able to bring grocery prices down is eerily similar to the line he uses just before he grabs female strangers by the pussy...
that is a tell. "Its very hard" in Trump speak means it will never happen.
It was never going to happen anyway. No PotUS has the power to do what he promised.
They do have the power to not do what they said they wouldn't do, either.
Not entirely. POTUS does have the power to investigate and, to an extent, deal with corporate price gouging. So does Congress. However that will never happen under a republican run government.
Your proof of this is where?
Trump did not promise that. He promised to lower grocery bills. You are citing what Harris promised. Very different since she promised something that she actually could effect.
Another banal retort devoid of any thoughtful content.
[✘]
[✘]
And Trump knew it wouldn't. He was just seeing how many of his gullible cultists would believe him, and maybe pick up a few votes.
Is it your impression that criticism of posts on a social media site have been fact-checked by a fact-checking entity and stored in their database?
To believe that you would have to have no understanding whatsoever of fact-checking.
What? You mean Trump lied? Say it ain't so!
You are correct, he did not. However I was merely pointing out that POTUS, and Congress, does have the ability to effect certain grocery prices.
I remember a number of years ago (too many to think about) that Congress did an investigation of rising gas prices, they called in oil company CEO's and such to testify as to why prices have gone up so much more than the costs for making the gasoline. CEO's had no response and during that investigation, and consumer prices did drop.
Flooding the swamp with over a dozen billionaires and destroying regulations across the board won't bring back $2 dollar a gallon gas and while food and groceries also will continue to climb without cheap labor, we will also see more illnesses and death from unsafe food and lack of inspections and food regulations.
If you think inflation is bad try deflation a while. If the prices of homes and stocks collapse and oil becomes unprofitable to produce things could be a lot worse leading to runaway unemployment and defaults.
If you voted for Trump thinking he was going to lower prices at the store or lower your bills generally, you are a fucking idiot. Full stop.
Who has done that?
Trump posted this on his social media today
Trump is a vindictive, completely unlikeable prick. If Chris Christie had supported Trump he'd be nominated for the cabinet now, not the butt of 12 year old level jokes.
Christie did support trump in 2020, to the point of being somewhat of a buttkisser. He wanted a cabinet position and didn’t get it. That’s when he became a trump hating hero to the left.
“Trump is a vindictive, completely unlikeable prick.”
Using a simple metric to determine one’s worth…would I pop to play a round of golf with you?
As anyone who has enjoyed the game in its excepted rules of etiquette would confirm, he would never make a fourth, even if he toted a fifth. All one needs to know.
NEWS FLASH
McDONALDS LOWERS PRICE OF THE ‘’HAPPY MEAL’’.
TRUMP CLAIMS VICTORY IS WAR AGAINST GROCERY PRICES.
Lol so glad that politics continue to bring this nation together
ending this seed
I think all the possible ground has been covered