FLASHBACK: Biden Promised During Campaign, 'You'll See Your Standard of Living Go Up and Your Costs Go Down'

In case you all forgot........................      

You'll actually see your standard of living go up and your costs go down.
Economic forecasters have advised that costs are likely to continue rising at a heightened pace through at least 2024, particularly if massive new spending proposals are passed.

Well so far we haven’t seen anything but rising costs and according to economic forecasters it will continue. Who do we believe?

Well the first step is to take every promise by a politician with a grain of salt.   Second, never buy any bullshit that a PotUS can somehow magically make a positive change in the economy.   That is as much bullshit as televangelist Kenneth Copeland claiming he can control the weather or that Trump would build a wall and make Mexico pay for it.

Well the first step is to take every promise by a politician with a grain of salt.  

That is probably putting it mildly, and necessarily includes a taking. Much of what they say needs to be left. 

Second, never buy any bullshit that a PotUS can somehow magically make a positive change in the economy.  

Depends on what they are selling. Biden's brand is bullshit, and should have been left. 

Depends on what they are selling.

Not when it comes to the economy.   No human being has the ability to effect specific positive changes to our economy.

So your position is that humans do not effect the economy? Policy does not influence the economy nor can it positively impact the economy?

An individual human being does not have control over the economy.   The collection of individuals comprising the economy have control but they are not coordinated and thus the control is diffused (ineffective per an objective).

Policy such as reducing taxes, infusing money into the economy, etc. can have a temporary positive effect but that is not guaranteed either.   And that is not in the power of a PotUS.   

Bottom line, improving (positive) the economy is not something that a presidential candidate can deliver;  take it as bullshit.   However, if the candidate is promising a negative impact on the economy, that is indeed something that can be accomplished.

An individual human being does not have control over the economy. 

Not absolutely but the POTUS has more control over the economy than virtually any individual American, by pushing policy that affects it directly and intensely at times.     And by a significant margin.

Contrast that with the average joe, working the average job, making the average wage who “individually” truly does have nearly zero control over the economy.    Or the employer who employs 1000 people thus supporting many families who have much more control over the economy with their buying power and potential community involvements that control the economy at their local level.    But still negligible compared to POTUS.

And on it goes.

Saying that POTUS doesn’t have control over the economy would be like saying a football coach doesn’t have control over the results of the team being coached.     While it’s true the coach doesn’t have absolute control, he/she arguable has more control than any other single entity on or involved with that team.    The coach fails, the team likely fails.    The guy riding the bench fails to show up and the effects are negligible in comparison

Being POTUS is like that so saying POTUS doesn’t have control over the US economy is just a little bit disingenuous IMO.

Contrast that with the average joe, ...

Why are you contrasting the PotUS with the average Joe?    Since we are talking about the economy, you should contrast the control of a PotUS with the worldwide collective participants in the economy.   As I noted, the worldwide collective participants do control the economy but since they are not coordinated (and cooperative) the control is diffused (and thus the control  effectively does not exist).   But, if organized, they could indeed control the economy because the economy is the result of their individual actions / decisions in aggregate.

A PotUS can influence the psychology of the domestic economy by talking it up or down.   Talking it up is basically limited to promises that encourage consumer spending (and thus production) but those promises need to be widely applicable and accepted by the consumers.   Similarly, one can make promises to businesses with the same caveat of applicability and trust.   In a bad economy, mere promises typically do not move the dial much (especially if the PotUS is in office past the honeymoon period).  

In contrast, a PotUS can actually talk down an economy.   It is much easier to introduce concern with the result of people conserving and businesses holding back on expansion plans than to give people and businesses the confidence to take risk (consume and expand).   So, as I noted, a PotUS (or candidate) has far more power to do harm to an economy than to do good.

Outside of the words alone, the PotUS can sign or veto bills, etc.   The control over the economy in this case is directly related to the control the PotUS has over Congress.   I trust everyone understands how indirect and weak this is.   But even when the PotUS and Congress are politically aligned (the best possible case for the PotUS), Congress' level of 'control' over the economy now becomes the key.   Congress can certainly pass legislation to dampen a good economy.   That is, Congress can screw up a good economy.   And, as we have seen in the past two decades, Congress can also pass legislation to try to jump-start an economy;  typically this involves a tremendous amount of borrowing and spending with questionable results.   Never close to what is promised and with questionable cause and effect (did the 'stimulus' really stimulate or did the economy naturally start cycling up under its own volition?).

A PotUS can also engage in war, trade policy, etc.   Here again, very little control (indirect influence at best) over the economy and again so easy to harm the economy and very difficult to improve it.

Bottom line, a PotUS who promises to improve a bad economy is delivering bullshit.   There is no way that a holder of that office can make the economy do as s/he desires.   The best a PotUS can honestly do is promise to try to improve the economy and cross their fingers that the attempts actually work.   That is not control.

The entity that has demonstrably the largest influence over the economy is the Fed, not the PotUS.   But even here, the Fed has very few tools and they are blunt instruments.   Even the Fed does not have control.

Saying that POTUS doesn’t have control over the economy would be like saying a football coach doesn’t have control over the results of the team being coached.    

Not even remotely close.   Football coaches have substantial options and influence at their disposal and the complexity of a football game is several orders of magnitude less complex than the economy.    Probably a better analogy is the CEO of a business.   The level of options and influence held by a CEO over their market is far beyond that of a PotUS over the domestic economy.   And even with the greater options and influence, they typical CEO does not have control over their market.   Best case scenarios are transnational mega corporations like Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon which have established the biggest respective markets on the planet.   They have locked in a lot of their market and have tons of information on the individuals within the market.   They can directly communicate and persuade individuals and have resources to detect and act on consumer trends.   Here the CEO largely works with a predictable (albeit complex and dynamic) market and with good executive management arguably has substantial control over the market.   Compare that level of 'control' with a PotUS' 'control' over the domestic economy (within the global economy). 

Bottom line, if a PotUS could control the economy then, since the economy is historically the key factor driving reelection, every PotUS would use this magical control to produce a good economy.    Reality, however, shows that the economy is an enormously complex dynamic that human beings have yet to fully understand and control.   We have learned all sorts of ways of analyzing it, identifying factors that are more influential than others, identifying early indicators of future states, etc.   But controlling the economy (especially given we are part of the global economy) is not something that falls within our competency.   Thus the notion that the PotUS, with their limits on power and influence, can control the economy is a bit silly.

If there’s a GOP President, the bad is their fault but anything that happens that is good is out of the control of a President. If a democrat is in office, the reverse applies.  
liberal “logic” 101.  

If there’s a GOP President, the bad is their fault but anything that happens that is good is out of the control of a President. If a democrat is in office, the reverse applies.  liberal “logic” 101.  

Apparently you do not understand how partisan politics works.  

When a D is in office, s/he will be defended by Ds and attacked by Rs.   Does not matter, most of the time, what the politician actually does.

When an R is in office, s/he will be defended by Rs and attacked by Ds.   Does not matter, most of the time, what the politician actually does.

Sometimes the defenses are sound.   Sometimes the attacks are sound.

Most of the time, pure partisan 'logic' is emotional, dishonest, exaggerated nonsense.

You demonstrate this phenomenon daily with your (mostly) emotional, exaggerated, petty attacks on Biden, et. al.    You even tell us that you do this knowingly and intentionally because 'they did it when Trump was PotUS' and that it is good to 'spite them' (trigger them) just for the sake of spite.   

Such comments are childish, emotional, irrational, irresponsible and unpatriotic. 

Why are you contrasting the PotUS with the average Joe?  

Because you said:

An individual human being does not have control over the economy.

That simply isn’t true as I outlined in my original post.    POTUS by definition can “control” the economy through policy and direct action.    Your average Joe has virtually no control over it by comparison.   Each are  individual human beings.

But I agree “Control” in the context of this discussion is not exclusive omnipotent power over the economy.   That would be silly to assume.    No single person has that exclusive power.    However, the power to influence the direction the economy goes is fully within the POTUS’s power.   And that, by definition, is “control.”

People can convince themselves of just about anything if they try hard enough.    

I watch the same people here who hammered on what they called Trumps bad behavior, enable or ignore Biden’s equally bad behavior.

Hypocrisy just drips off those folks, all day long

Because you said:  An individual human being does not have control over the economy.

Right.  A single individual does not have control over the economy.    I was comparing the actions of an individual to the aggregate actions of all individuals within an economy.   The former clearly does not have control whereas the latter does.

Your average Joe has virtually no control over it by comparison.   Each are  individual human beings.

Correct, but I never even hinted that an average Joe has control.   In fact I focused on (per the context) the PotUS (clearly not an average Joe) who, as a single individual, would be more likely to have control.   But, as I explained, even the PotUS does not control the economy (if s/he did then we would always have a great economy, right?). 

POTUS by definition can “control” the economy through policy and direct action.

You seem to be using a very diluted usage of 'control'.   A PotUS can at best weakly influence the economy especially if the intended result is to improve a bad economy.   However, as I noted, if a PotUS were inclined to harm an economy, s/he actually has more influence here.   A PotUS can, as an example, talk down an economy (but not talk it up).   But I have already explained this in my post.

But I agree “Control” in the context of this discussion is not exclusive omnipotent power over the economy.

Well, good.   But omnipotent goes too far in the opposite extreme.   I am writing with a conventional usage of 'control'.   Typically 'control' is taken to mean the controller has the ability to effect specific results in the target.    CEO's, for example, have control over the strategies and objectives of their organizations.   In your analogy, a football coach has control over who plays, when, calls the plays, etc.   The coach has control over the makeup and preparation of his team.  

However, the power to influence the direction the economy goes is fully within the POTUS’s power.   And that, by definition, is “control.”

Control implies a strong influence, not a weak influence.  

If someone were to tell you that X can control Y you would expect that X has the power to cause Y to achieve a certain state.   Using your football coach analogy, a football coach arguably has control over his team given he determines who plays, position, sets the plays, etc.   So the football team on the field is a result of his control over the team.   But does the coach have control over the game?   No.   The coach has an indirect, weakened influence over the game (via his team's configuration and real time directions).   The coach cannot ensure a particular outcome (a W, of course).

The 'control' of a PotUS, as I explained, is even weaker over the economy than a football coach's influence over the game itself.   The coach has substantially more power over his team and the game than the PotuS has over the domestic economy (which is a function of the global economy).   No comparison.   Similarly, my other analogy of the CEO and his market is a level of influence substantially greater than that of the PotUS over the economy.

Ultimately reality shows my position to be correct.   The good and bad economies attributed to a PotUS are the result of fortune and misfortune.   The PotUS gets credit/blame for the economy that has manifested during their term of office.   When an economy is sour, no PotUS has found the magical control dials to disrupt the natural, uber-complex dynamics of an economy and cause it to behave as the PotUS desires.   Do you believe that Obama's stimulus, for example, corrected the economy after the 2007/2008 financial meltdown?  Obama and Congress did what they could and hoped for the best.   Even FDR who dealt with the worst economy in our history and who pulled out all the stops could not buck the natural dynamics of the economy.   WWII is viewed as the factor that most significantly influenced our economy to the positive and a critical factor of that was the decimation of international economies which left the USA as largely the last major economy standing.

Economies cycle of their own volition.   Until human beings gain a deeper understanding of the domestic economy within the global economy, it is quite the exaggeration to use the word 'control' to describe a PotUS' level of positive influence over same (and, again, I repeat that a PotUS can negatively influence the economy easier than positively influence it).

I watch the same people here who hammered on what they called Trumps bad behavior, enable or ignore Biden’s equally bad behavior.

Well, speaking for myself, I hammer on Trump's behavior from the time he lost the election until the present.

Trump's behavior upon losing was historic.   No sitting PotUS (no candidate even) has engaged in such an extreme campaign to discredit the electoral system of the United States than Trump and Trump's entire campaign was based on lies.   No evidence, just bullshit from Trump and his minions.  

Never have we seen a PotUS abuse the influence and power of his office to try coerce election officials and legislators to change the results or take actions that would help him secure a win in their states (especially after the results have been certified).   Never have we seen a PotUS try to coerce his VP to engage in an unethical, unconstitutional act of setting aside certified votes of select states to steal the election.   Never has a PotUS engaged in a two-month campaign of lies (while in office) and trigger 61+ frivolous lawsuits to try to steal an election.

And then we have the lying to his supporters and working them up into a frenzy by telling them their votes have been disenfranchised by a rigged system (the USA electoral system).   And this lying and claiming to be the legitimate winner of the election continues to the present.

I cannot equate Trump's behavior (as I described above) with any PotUS in our history.    Yet you equate this behavior with Biden's behavior and cry 'hypocrisy'.  

Fascinating that you can bring yourself to try to defend Trump's post election loss behavior (ignoring, for now, the crap he pulled while in office).

Ultimately reality shows my position to be correct.  

That’s just your opinion only and certainly not reality as you infer.

Nothing you said disproves the points I’ve made unless you’re trying to redefine the meaning of already defined words again.

I made the mistake of providing a thoughtful and serious reply to your comment thinking that might be reciprocated.

Your nuh'uh reply is noted.

Lol ... and we see nothing but acceptance from Biden’s useful idiots right now regarding his past bad behavior, lies and misdirection as his policy works towards crushing the “moderate” claims he made to get in.

I don’t really see that as fascinating.      I just see it as just sad for people who claim to be so intelligent.    Most of them are sill too deranged about Trump to see forest for the trees.

And the usual unhelpful, snarky response for anyone who has the temerity to hold a different viewpoint than yours, is logged with all the others

... and we see nothing but acceptance from Biden’s useful idiots right now...

You (incredibly) equate Trump's behavior with Biden's and then deem Biden supporters as useful idiots.   

Given Trump's behavior post his loss was extreme and historic (no other PotUS in our history has engaged in such an outrageous series of actions to try to steal a presidential election and for such a long period of time based on nothing but lies).

But even if you so blindly downplay what actually happened in reality with Trump to compare it with the acts of another PotUS (in particular, Biden) then —by equating Trump with Biden— your deeming Biden supporters useful idiots is, by consistency, deeming Trump supporters useful idiots.  

Yeah, I know your standard response, you did not write those exact words and thus it is unfair of me to point out the logical consequences of your words.    

That’s just your opinion only and certainly not reality as you infer.

Here is another opinion:   nytimes

But the reality is that presidents have far less control over the economy than you might imagine. Presidential economic records are highly dependent on the dumb luck of where the nation is in the economic cycle. And the White House has no control over the demographic and technological forces that influence the economy. Even in areas where the president really does have power to shape the economy — appointing Federal Reserve governors, steering fiscal and regulatory policy, responding to crises and external shocks — the relationship between presidential action and economic outcome is often uncertain and hard to prove.

This article is easy to read and does a fine job of illustrating the control a PotUS has over the economy.

Another opinion:  cbsnews

But that doesn’t really answer the more important question: How much influence does the president actually have over the economy?  The stock answer is that presidents get too much credit when the economy does well and too much blame when it slumps. The boom-and-bust cycles that are inherent in capitalist economies depend on forces that are independent of any president’s actions. It’s mostly luck that determines how the economy is doing when it’s time to elect a president.

As with the other article, this covers the weak, indirect influence a PotUS has and clarifies the control the PotUS does not have (but much of the electorate thinks the office has).

Another opinion:  fortune

So what’s the explanation, if not the President? Could it be the party that controls Congress? No, say the researchers; they checked. After testing many plausible factors and scores of combinations, the best explanation they could propose is a combination of oil shocks, changes in European growth, and changes in overall productivity often associated with long-term technology advances. Those factors share almost nothing in common except that Presidents exert little if any control over them. The most ambitious claims some Presidents could make, the researchers conclude, is that they benefited from “blends of good policy and good luck.”

These articles came from the first page of a Google query.   There are myriad articles making the same (obvious) observations.   The research is easy to do and one can dig deeper to see the reasoning behind these conclusions.

My point was clear from the start and ignored by you from the start.    

The fact remains no single individual has more influence over the US economy than the POTUS and significantly more.     Whether it be via policy, appointment of cabinet members, implementing executive actions that can help or hurt businesses, etc.

I also clearly stated this control is not omnipotent.    Sure, sitting POTUS’s often get too much credit for good economies and too much blame for bad economies but that doesn’t mean their actions can’t influence the economy.    

They can and often do.   Usually more than any other individual.

... and ignored by you  ...

The fact remains no single individual has more influence over the US economy than the POTUS and significantly more.    

Not what we were debating.   The Fed chair arguably has a stronger (at least more effective, predictable and direct) influence but who has the strongest influence was not the question.   The question was about the PotUS' ability to CONTROL the economy ( control is taken as a direct, strong influence over the economy rather than an indirect, weak influence).   And, importantly, I stated that no single individual can control the economy.

I also clearly stated this control is not omnipotent.

And I agreed while noting that this is obvious and interpreting control at the extreme would be silly.    So why do you present (as if rebutting) one of the points where we were in agreement?  ( Rhetorical.  I know why. )

Sure, sitting POTUS’s often get too much credit for good economies and too much blame for bad economies but that doesn’t mean their actions can’t influence the economy.    

As I have noted, control connotes a strong (even direct) influence in this context.   The PotUS has at best a weak, indirect influence.   Read the articles (and others);  my posts seem to be well-aligned with the conclusions of those articles.   But, better still, just review history and think this through.

Here is a test to see, in spite of all your protestations, if you do in fact recognize the feckless 'control' of the PotUS over the economy (domestic as a function of global).

When Trump brags that we should elect him so that he can fix the economy, will you be among those who believe that bullshit or will you realize that Trump (and every other individual who assumed the office of PotUS) does not have such power / control over the economy and that the economy will operate according to its complex dynamics largely regardless of actions Trump might take?   And if any of his actions do happen to significantly affect the economy in some positive way (assuming this can even be measured), the effects will most likely occur well after his term of office.   The economy is a force of nature and it is arrogant to think that we (or an individual PotUS) has enough influence to deem this to be: "PotUS controls the economy".

Will you simply accept Trump's claim to be able to fix (i.e. improve) the economy or reject it as bullshit?

See, Sparty, I strongly suspect that you do not buy any claim from any candidate or PotUS that they have the means to do anything more than try a few tricks and hope for dumb luck while they are still in office.   But maybe you will surprise me.

Not what we were debating. 

Sorry, that was exactly what my point was.    My first comment quoted below in post 3.1.4:

Not absolutely but the POTUS has more control over the economy than virtually any individual American, by pushing policy that affects it directly and intensely at times.     And by a significant margin.  

It’s disappointing that you continue to attempt to make this personal and manipulate the conversation to suite your preferred narrative.    I know you are smarter than that and by now you should know i am as well. 

Regardless, I know any POTUS has a significant ability to influence the economy via all the means I have mentioned here numerous times.   That is beyond any debate but feel free to have the last word on this matter as i tire of having to repeat myself.

You have a nice Sunday now ya hear!

Sorry, that was exactly what my point was.

Well that is a fine point, Sparty, but since you replied to the point that I had made (in great detail) about the CONTROL the PotUS has over the economy, that really does not add much to the conversation.    Your now proclaimed singular 'point' that "no single individual has more influence over the US economy than the POTUS" does not in any way argue that the PotUS can CONTROL the economy;  it simply argues that the PotUS has more influence over the economy than some other single individual.  In fact @3.1.8 you wrote "Your average Joe has virtually no control over it by comparison [to the PotUS]."  indicating that the PotUS has more CONTROL than the "average Joe".   Why not add that the moon orbits the Earth or water is wet?    Your stating the obvious adds nothing to the debate and in no way argues/explains how the PotUS can CONTROL the economy (where control = direct, strong influence as opposed to the indirect, weak influence that a PotUS actually has).

Regardless, I know any POTUS has a significant ability to influence the economy

Oh, we now have a 'significant ability to influence'.   You have watered this down from CONTROL and if you were more descriptive of the nature of the power you would have  'weak, indirect influence' —and we can add 'significant'  (vs. insignificant) to that as well without changing the meaning.    The significant ability to influence the economy by the PotUS is indirect and weak.

When a presidential candidate promises to fix the domestic economy (a function of the global economy), do you recognize that as political bullshit or do you actually believe that the individual would, as PotUS, have CONTROL over the economy to fulfill that promise?

You ignored this (and most every other question and link) question once implying that you would not recognize the claim as bullshit.

Tig wrote: "Such comments are childish, emotional, irrational, irresponsible and unpatriotic."

And comments like the above are petty, divisive, and condescending

When a comment is childish, emotional, irrational and unpatriotic, labeling it as such is spot on.

When someone repeatedly claims that they would vote for Trump instead of another GOP candidate because they want to spite the political opposition, that is childish, emotional and irrational.   And voting for a miserable human being like Trump instead of a halfway decent human being is unpatriotic.

Do you support voting for Trump instead of a more suitable GOP candidate just to spite your political opposition??

[removed]

Maybe in our opinion Trump is the single most suitable person who will be running for the nomination in 2024…maybe we like his pre pandemic record on the issues and appreciate that he got us the vaccines in record time and revived the economy in the process.  That he is so offensive to certain people here is only gravy, not the meat.  

Maybe in our opinion Trump is the single most suitable person who will be running for the nomination in 2024

Then you have great disregard for the entire field of GOP candidates if you think the most suitable person for PotUS is an ex-PotUS who abused the power and influence of his office in an attempt to steal an election through blatant, proven lies and discrediting the entire electoral process of the USA, by attempting to coerce government officials, legislatures and even his own V.P. to engage in unconstitutional and unethical practices.   And, worse, to work his sycophantic followers into a frenzy by telling them their votes were disenfranchised.

…maybe we like his pre pandemic record on the issues and appreciate that he got us the vaccines in record time and revived the economy in the process.  

What, you think Trump is the only person in the GOP who holds to those core GOP issues?   That only Trump could preside over a vaccine campaign that was already in the best interest of big pharma??

That he is so offensive to certain people here is only gravy, not the meat.  

And here you go again with a childish, irresponsible and unpatriotic comment.

[deleted]

You will just have to deal with the criticism, because when someone (such as you) repeatedly claims that they would vote for Trump instead of another GOP candidate because they want to spite the political opposition, that is childish, emotional and irrational.   And voting for a miserable human being like Trump instead of a halfway decent human being is unpatriotic.

Or we could just vote for an incompetent incestuous pedophile like the Democrats put into the White House. Do pedophiles now qualify as a halfway decent human being in the land of the left?  It is so hard to keep up these days with the Democrat hierarchy of racism, sexism, and criminals. 

Do you want Trump for PotUS in 2024 rather than seek a different GOP candidate who has not attempted to steal an election, etc. and who is at least a decent human being?

Do pedophiles now qualify as a halfway decent human being in the land of the left? 

Do you believe that labeling Biden a pedophile does not damage your credibility?    Why engage in such obvious theatrics?

Then you have great disregard for the entire field of GOP candidates if you think the most suitable person for PotUS is an ex-PotUS who abused the power and influence of his office in an attempt to steal an election through blatant, proven lies and discrediting the entire electoral process of the USA, by attempting to coerce government officials, legislatures and even his own V.P. to engage in unconstitutional and unethical practices.   And, worse, to work his sycophantic followers into a frenzy by telling them their votes were disenfranchised.

What entire field of GOP candidates are you talking about? Or have we all missed the stampede of Republicans announcing their bid? So far if looks like only Trump is positioning himself to run; as much as I hate to say it.

What, you think Trump is the only person in the GOP who holds to those core GOP issues?   That only Trump could preside over a vaccine campaign that was already in the best interest of big pharma??

But Trump is the one that made sure the vaccines were rushed through the red tape. Not any of the other GOP; and definitely not any of the Democrats. Remember Biden and Harris questioning the "Trump" vaccines on the campaign trail; and saying that they wouldn't take them? That came back to bite them both in the ass big time. Biden doesn't seem to be having any success with the whole pandemic thing. Deaths are up; and infection rates are spiking all over the US. I know it galls TDS sufferers; but sometimes you have to give credit to Trump when he does something right.

And here you go again with a childish, irresponsible and unpatriotic comment.

I mean just wow. Calling someone childish, irresponsible, and unpatriotic because they support Trump. It is not like they support the current incompetent, incestuous, pedophile in the White House. One who has definite ties to Chinese money; and has a son cashing in on his name (kickbacks being investigated at a snails pace by the FBI). One who abandoned US citizens, Green Card holders, and Special VISA holders in Afghanistan. One that has turned our southern border into an unvaccinated illegal track meet during a pandemic. One that defied a Supreme Court ruling and extended the renters moratorium. One that has presided over a huge hike in inflation and oil prices. One that has made the US and our allies less safe from terrorists, China, and Russia. One that is going to preside over the two largest spending bills in the history of the US; which will cause inflation to spike even more. One that has seen a sharp increase in the violent crime rate under his watch. What should we call those that still support Biden. If those that support Trump are Deplorables; then all those that support Biden are Brandons.

What is next Hillary Clinton is 2024?

What entire field of GOP candidates are you talking about?

Is Trump the only possible candidate in your mind?    Do you have no desire to seek an alternative to Trump?  

Calling someone childish, irresponsible, and unpatriotic because they support Trump.

That is NOT what I wrote.    First, I stated that the comment was childish, irresponsible and unpatriotic.   Second, it was not because of support for Trump, but rather:

• Support ONLY for Trump when there is an entire party available to find a better human being to represent the party
• Support for Trump as a dig to political opponents.

Strawman arguments are intellectually dishonest.

What is next Hillary Clinton is 2024?

No idea why you asked me such a question.    My guess is that your presume way too much and do not pay sufficient attention to what people actually write.

Didn't read that is what his daughter called him in her diary? She has yet to deny it is true. Wonder why? Or is taking an inappropriate shower with your 4 year old daughter now acceptable to leftists.

Is Trump the only possible candidate in your mind?    Do you have no desire to seek an alternative to Trump?  

Sure I do; but as I stated only Trump is positioning himself to run. Doesn't look like that is going to change any more than the Democrats are suddenly going to push forward a candidate to replaced Biden or Harris. I don't do the whole wishful thinking BS. If there is a Republican candidate that primaries against Trump I will weigh their positions; and if I think they can beat whomever is going to run for the Democrats. If they can't then it will be Trump; because getting the Democrat nightmare out of power is a must. 

That is NOT what I wrote.    First, I stated that thecommentwas childish, irresponsible and unpatriotic.   Second, it was not because of support for Trump, but rather:

• Support ONLY for Trump when there is an entire party available to find a better human being to represent the party
• Support for Trump as a dig to political opponents.

Strawman arguments are intellectually dishonest.

You know, I used to give a damn about what Democrats and the left thought. That was until they put this country 5 and half years and counting of TDS driven hell. People got what they wanted- they put the anti-Trump into office. Too bad they didn't do any research into the incompetent, corrupt, and miserable piece of garbage that they replaced Trump with. Biden is the number one reason that Trump will be the Republican nominee and probably win reelection. Because as much as the TDS sufferers hate Trump; there are far more voters having buyers remorse over Biden.  Biden's ever sinking poll numbers prove it.

Didn't read that is what his daughter called him in her diary?

Do you believe everything you read (if it suits your partisan interests)?    I do not.   I wait for credible facts to emerge.   So I did not rush to conclusions about Trump and his daughter ("lap dance", etc.).   Political opponents nowadays are ridiculous and over-the-top in stretching the truth and outright lying.

Stay grounded.   Follow the facts, not the hype.

Sure I do; but as I stated only Trump is positioning himself to run.

So what?    Forget Trump and look for a decent person to lead the GOP.   Why do GOP members continue to inflict damage on the party by holding to Trump?    How can you disregard what he did after his election loss?    There is no excuse;  Trump is poison to the GOP and should never be allowed a public office much less PotUS.

You know, I used to give a damn about what Democrats and the left thought.

Well I am not a D so stop your presuming.   If you are going to challenge a comment of mine then at least understand what I wrote.   Don't just spin your own version.

I'm going to add to what Tig said.

I'm an indie and I have voted for Presidents from both parties.

I will never vote for Trump. You better hope that Biden remains in the tanks, because If the Republican party does not put an alternative up to Trump, the only way he can win, is by apathy and his own die hards.  

btw, under Biden, the market is up and so is spending. He just let the reserves of oil out to bring down gas prices. They just passed the infrastructure bill and if jobs come out of that, that will be a win. So his numbers may be in the tank now, but who knows in the future. The public has a very short memory.

Tig wrote: "Such comments are childish, emotional, irrational, irresponsible and unpatriotic."

And comments like the above are petty, divisive, and condescending

well said!

Letting out the oil reserves was such a freaking stupid thing to do.  There was no need for that.  We have plenty of domestic production and resources available to get at and some we were doing before idiot became President.  There has not been one single policy issue that Brandon has gotten right since he took office.  Many on our side have more I’ll feelings toward Brandon than the left has toward Trump.  And back to the reserves, they are for a real emergency like natural disaster, war, or economic blackmail from competition, not to fix self made crisis.  

If Trump doesn’t run there will be many choices that would be very good.  If he does, then no one who would run against him would offer me anything I’d be interested in.  Certainly not a northeastern state governor like the former governor of New Jersey or the current ones of Massachusetts or Maryland.  Or an establishment never Trumper.  If he runs it’s him or no one.  If he doesn’t run, we will go for one who will make the left wish he did.  

If he does, then no one who would run against him would offer me anything I’d be interested in.

Nobody in the entire GOP would appeal to you???      Nobody in your mind is better than a malignant narcissist and pathological liar who uniquely engaged in the most egregious attempt by a presidential candidate to steal a US election based on a campaign of lies, coercion and abuse of the influence of his office??

Irrational, and damaging to the GOP (and the nation).

When someone repeatedly claims that they would vote for Trump instead of another GOP candidate because they want to spite the political opposition, that is childish, emotional and irrational.   And voting for a miserable human being like Trump instead of a halfway decent human being is unpatriotic.

For me to have an intelligent discussion with you, you can't refer to Biden as Brandon. I don't call Trump names and I would expect in kind. Is that possible?

There has not been one single policy issue that Brandon has gotten right since he took office.  Many on our side have more I’ll feelings toward Brandon than the left has toward Trump.  And back to the reserves, they are for a real emergency like natural disaster, war, or economic blackmail from competition, not to fix self made crisis.  

This is all ridiculous. You were calling Biden names long before he took office or even won the election. 

Why? Because he's not Trump or another one on the right. Your "ill feelings" are not based on policies but your adherence to right wing ideology and devotion to Trump. . 

.  And back to the reserves, they are for a real emergency like natural disaster, war, or economic blackmail from competition, not to fix self made crisis.  

Are you aware that Trump completely lied about the oil reserves in a statement today?

Trump said that when he arrived the oil reserve was depleted and he claims he built it back up before he left office. 

All lies. The reserve was not depleted when he arrived and when he left last January the oil reserve was slightly lower than when he took office. 

You dont care that Trump lies like this on a regular basis.  That is why no one here takes you seriously. 

As The New York Times' Peter Baker notes, the Strategic Oil Reserves (technically the Strategic Petroleum Reserve,) were far from empty when Trump took office, but they were far less full when he left:

That's not the only lie Trump told.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is authorized to holdup to 714 million barrels(in 2009 it was 727 million barrels), so they were nearly full when Trump took office. He also exposed his ignorance about how the federal government "buys" the oil. The oil is effectively traded to the government as payment (royalties) for drilling leases so presidents not wanting to "pay the price of filling them up" is false as well.

rawstory

There has not been one single policy issue that [Biden] has gotten right since he took office.

The pap quoted above is another example of the mindless propaganda constantly spewed by reactionary extremists.

Many on our side have more I'll [sic] feelings toward [Biden] than the left has toward Trump.

Not humanly possible, but those who might claim they do would clearly be imbued with a deep sickness.  And, if in fact they actually do, the sickness that pervades them would be based on such severe psychological disorder they would best be isolated from the rest of society.

If he does, then no one who would run against him would offer me anything I’d be interested in.

Nobody in the entire GOP would appeal to you???    

reread what I wrote again.  There are many in the GOP that would appeal to me.  What I said was that there’s no one in the GOP that would choose to run in the primary against a declared Trump candidacy that would appeal to me. 

And that is what I am referring to.   Notice that I am talking about the GOP finding someone other than Trump because of the damage he does to the party.   You stated that you will still support Trump and that the only way you would not is if he did not give you the opportunity to support him by not running.

So assume Trump is running and now seriously read my question:

TiG @3.1.42 ☞ Nobody in your mind is better than a malignant narcissist and pathological liar who uniquely engaged in the most egregious attempt by a presidential candidate to steal a US election based on a campaign of lies, coercion and abuse of the influence of his office??

See?

If he doesn't run, we will go for one who will make the left wish he did.

Your attempt to resurrect Hitler is not going to meet with much success.  I guess you will have to throw your support behind David Duke.  He has neo-Nazi credentials.   Based on the criterion you set forth above, that should make him an ideal candidate for you.

For me to have an intelligent discussion with you

Perrie, really?

If Trump is running in 2024, no one else who I would like or consider voting for will run against him in those primaries. They would all defer to him.  Thus if Trump runs in 2024 I will support him.  I will never support a Cheney/Kinsinger type candidate or a northeastern Rockefeller Republican. How many times must I repeat this?  
If Trump does decide not to run in 2024 then my first inclination would be to support De Santis because he’d be the most like Trump and have the same effect on secular progressive elites as Trump does.  

Hitler was a tool of the fascist national socialist left.  

If Trump doesn’t run, I will support either Gov. De Santis, Sen. Tim Scott, or Gov. Kristie Noem and hope that one of the others is the VP.  

Comment 3.1.53 demonstrates either complete and total ignorance, or, more likely, is a knowingly asserted big, fat fucking lie.

The individual who most closely represents your frequently expressed ideology is David Duke.

I will never support a Cheney/Kinzinger type candidate

Further proof that patriotic Americans are no longer welcome in the Trumpist-Republican Shithole Party, the home of coup plotters, insurrectionists and self-declared enemies of the state.

And thus you are part of those who currently support Trump and thus enable this miserable character to continue his lies and to continue influencing (and poisoning) the GOP.

Well done!

That would be comment 3.1.55

He’s far closer to your ideology and outlook than he is to mine. 

There’s nothing patriotic about those establishment warmongering neocons.  

Thanks!  

Better take a look at what the meager release of oil reserves had on the market- the price went up, not down. The exact opposite affect Brandon wanted.

Americans must have short term memories- the left seem to have forgotten those US citizens, Green Card holders, and special VISA holders Brandon abandoned in Afghanistan. Wonder what they are doing this Thanksgiving while Brandon parties in a billionaire donor's mansion? Don't care about Afghanistan- there is a horde of other crisis Brandon is responsible for.

• The world's largest super spreader event on the southern border; and the complete failure to enforce our border laws.
• Speaking of Covid- more deaths in less than a year under Biden than under Trump. Biden has the benefit of several vaccines- that he and Kamala both questioned during the general elections as "the Trump vaccines" that they wouldn't take. Biden didn't hesitate to take credit for the vaccines as soon as he took office. Damage done. No one trusts Brandon.
• Violent crime is way up; and the nightly news treats everyone to the left's latest game of smash and grab shopping.
• Millions of jobs are left unfilled; but still a massive amount of unemployed. Continuous stimulus, never ending unemployment benefits, and an illegal renters moratorium will do that.
• We now have a two tier justice system. Jan 6th rioters are being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; while BLM and Antifa rioters that commit far worse crimes are set free w/o charges. But at least parents are being investigated by the FBI as they question moronic tone deaf school boards and superintendents that are pressing the Democrat programming agenda. 

btw, under Biden, the market is up and so is spending.

The market was up under Trump as well; believe the attitude then was either "All thanks to Obama"; or "Who gives a damn".  Brandon didn't do shit to help the markets- he is riding Trump's coattails. Spending is up; because everything costs more! Of course spending is up. The basic necessities have endured massive inflation. People are paying more for less! That is a world of spin to make it seem like a positive for Brandon.

They just passed the infrastructure bill and if jobs come out of that, that will be a win.

Who is going to fill those jobs? The same people that refuse to fill the millions of jobs that are available now? What is going to happen when that 1.75 trillion hits a system that is already saturated with money. Did people fail basic economics? Hey, maybe the Democrats can pass their Build Back Better bill; and dump a few trillion more on the dumpster fire they are creating. 

Lest we forget- the heightened terror level thanks to Brandon not being able to gather intelligence or retaliate against terrorist factions he is allowing to operate in Afghanistan. Unless we want to kill some more allies he has proven that our "over the horizon" capabilities are worthless. Maybe a terrorist attack on US soil will give those clinging to Brandon the wake up call they need.

Jobless rates and unemployment claims have also significantly dropped.  It took Trump four years to almost destroy this country and it will take time to repair the damage he did and is still doing.  Biden has his work cut out for him, that's a fact.  A good first step would be to drain the congressional swamp and get people in who will work for the good  of the people and not themselves or Trump.

So perfect!  We said and right on regarding every point you made.  Bravo!  

It’s just a cheap personal insult directed at me a conservative by the left here that is not only allowed but seemingly encouraged by some in moderation here.  

Let’s see how they like the 900 point drop in a short trading day Friday. It seems they have a new variant with which to control individual rights, economic freedoms, and religious liberty with in blue areas.  

It seems they have a new variant with which to control individual rights, economic freedoms, and religious liberty with in blue areas.  

A perfect example babbling BS.

Well you have one portion right; Biden didn't make a positive change in the economy. He made several negative ones; and we are all feeling the affects. He still has one last gigantic negative to throw at it in the reconciliation porkulus bill. The US dollar will be used for toilet paper after that- it will probably be much cheaper than using real toilet paper.

My entire post was right.

Not one word of it was that…

Brilliant analysis.   You did not even notice you contradicted Ronin.   Just brilliant.

Lyin' Joe has got  to go!

That says it all!  Let’s go Brandon!  

Blood on his hands from a mild oil shortage. 

Wonder what you had to say about the gulf wars?

Holy hyperbole.

I can still remember odd/even days at gas stations because of major gas shortages in the 80's.

Blood on his hands due to abandoning US citizens; Green Card holders; and Special VISA holders in Afghanistan. Biden has done jack shit of nothing to get them out, as he has "turned the page". The very least he could do is get out of the way of the charities and private organizations doing his job on getting them out of Afghanistan,

Forget holy hyperbole. 

This is holy rewrite of history. Unless you have proof US citizens were abandoned behind enemy lines during the Gulf Wars; and nothing was done to get them out?

It’s because of his abandonment of Americans, green card holders, and Afghan allies to the Taliban in Afghanistan and also all the covid positive illegal aliens that he spread all around the country on purpose.  Blood on his hands is appropriate and some conservative cartoonists almost always include blood on his hands when they draw Biden’s image.  

"None of you will have your taxes raised. Anyone making less than $400,000 will not see a penny in taxes raised. You'll actually see your standard of living go up and your costs go down. Why [sic] I'm going to do this? I'm going to ask big corporations, the wealthy, to pay their fair share."

So just in that statement are 4 promises.  We are 10 months into the Biden train wreck and we have:

1. Taxes are going up for everybody.
2. Standard of living is going up.
3. Costs are going up.
4. Shelves are not getting restocked.  (Reminds me of photos of stores in North Korea)

4 promises made.  4 promises broken.  And exactly what is the "fair share" these blithering idiots keep talking about.  It's been proven time and again that those who aren't supposedly paying their "fair share" are actually paying MOST of the taxes.

I know, pretty amazing people actually fall for this nonsense

1 in 6 Biden voters said they never would have voted for him if they knew about Hunter's laptop.

Notice how the left and Democrats are quite about that.

Our standard of living go up and our costs go down eh? 10 months later costs are up and we should lower our expectations. Let’s go brandon.