President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
Yes. Harris lost. Getting 48% against Trump is incompatible with losing the primary as the sitting VP. If she got 43% you could maybe make that argument. Clinton won the nomination pretty easily and also lost to Trump.
Good thing nobody said that. Ever.
Trump's meme coin dinner takes crypto self-dealing to a whole new level
A president is supposed to serve the public,
not his own interests or the interests of a wealthy few.
With this meme coin dinner, Trump is giving the highest
bidders access to the president while lining his own pockets.
These wealthy investors are getting a unique chance to
potentially influence decisions that could affect regular Americans’ lives.
Meanwhile, tens of thousands of civil servants are
losing their jobs thanks to his administration’s budget cuts
because the buyers behind crypto transactions are generally not disclosed,
foreign governments could in fact be buying these coins, meaning that
Trump could be violating the Constitution without the public finding out
The point is it's stupid to pretend like her performance as a Senator matters when she would be running as a VP, not a senator. To say a poor performance in your first primary means your party is disgusted by you means a high percentage of presidents and party nominees actually disgusted their party which is super dumb but on par for the source.
the other people you named weren't polling at 2% in their home state when they retired from primaries after spending 50 millions, which is what Harris did, basically one of the worst performances ever in primaries in American history given the money spent.
maybe only Bloomberg compares in history.
Harris was truly despised by the voting base more than almost any other person who ever participated in a democratic presidential primary given exposure, endorsement and money spent, almost no one ever did as bad as her.
truly a bottom 1% candidate historically.
she got 48% of the vote because she was running against the worst candidate the opposition could muster and she still lost lol
It's a very bad game for us to play. The objections to trump are not because of what the markets think or economic headline figures. We risk looking really stupid and giving trump credibility while missing the point completely.
A president who harms the economy by making capricious and badly thought out decisions is doing the job wrong, so that would be a reasonable objection.
the other people you named weren't polling at 2% in their home state when they retired from primaries after spending 50 millions, which is what Harris did, basically one of the worst performances ever in primaries in American history given the money spent.maybe only Bloomberg compares in history.Harris was truly despised by the voting base more than almost any other person who
She did as well as Biden or Desantis so already no.
You apparently do, because you got your knickers in a twist as soon as jal ridiculed the idea. He obviously did not mean that the US was on the losing side, but that Americans are inclined to overclaim the credit.
They did the same for WW1, and the manual issued to US troops in Britain from 1942 had to warn them not to try that argument in British pubs, or indeed anywhere.
Trump's meme coin dinner takes crypto self-dealing to a whole new levelA president is supposed to serve the public, not his own interests or the interests of a wealthy few. With this meme coin dinner, Trump is giving the highest bidders access to the president while lining his own pockets. These wealthy investors are getting a unique chance to potentially influence decisions th
Presidents host donor and other dinners fairly often. The meme coin is dumb, but I wouldn't get too up in arms about him hosting a dinner for people of a specific group.
except secret services aren't independent in Germany (like in most of the world), they are just a branch of the ministry of the interior, so everything they do is always purely political and claiming any independence is as bad faith as a claim can be.
she should own the political choice to start the proceeding to ban a part with which between one fifth and one fourth of German voters agree with.
instead as usual your side mystifies reality and claims it is a "technical decision" even if it's just a choice.
btw "she" is the morbid radical leftist green party foreign minister speaking under pretense of officiality there
You apparently do, because you got your knickers in a twist as soon as jal ridiculed the idea. He obviously did not mean that the US was on the losing side, but that Americans are inclined to overclaim the credit.
They did the same for WW1, and the manual issued to US troops in Britain from 1942 had to warn them not to try that argument in British pubs, or indeed anywhere.
Gulf of America !
A president who harms the economy by making capricious and badly thought out decisions is doing the job wrong, so that would be a reasonable objection.
It would be but
a) it's not the real objection to trump
b) good decisions that we want might be taken very badly by the markets and short term economic headlines
c) the markets and economy might do very well despite trump (and conversely). They are a very poor metric of decisions accept sometimes maybe partially on a very short term basis.
d) we're encourage very simplistic very short term thinking when we need to encourage longer term thinking
On the other hand it is fun
It would be but a) it's not the real objection to trumpb) good decisions that we want might be taken very badly by the markets and short term economic headlinesc) the markets and economy might do very well despite trump (and conversely). They are a very poor metric of decisions accept sometimes maybe partially on a very short term basis. d) we're encourage very simplistic very
Maybe I misunderstood you badly in your last couple post but :
And the market was dropping hard because of trump and the bond market was almost collapsing like it did in England with Strauss policies Â….
But fwiw I trust this guy more then someone like Navarro
It would be but a) it's not the real objection to trumpb) good decisions that we want might be taken very badly by the markets and short term economic headlinesc) the markets and economy might do very well despite trump (and conversely). They are a very poor metric of decisions accept sometimes maybe partially on a very short term basis. d) we're encourage very simplistic very
It's true that there are other objections to Trump and he would still be a dubious proposition if the markets were doing well for the time being.
The result of the resposne to truss's awefulness was a very large shift to the right by the labour party as they exploited and bought in to the narrative that the right wing bankers/markets were what really mattered. It's a diaster both for current policy (from the supposedly left wing party) and because the main beneficaries are farages lot.
Truss was appaling beause among otehr things she was redistributing to the rich. Our response was to applaude the right wing bankers/etc because she was also so incompetent they took fright. The labour party are now wriggling to try to escape the stupid net they cuaght themselves in.
Our response to awefulness from the right is to move to the right but try to do it more competently. ****ing stupid hitting ourselves in the head with a hammer.
It's true that there are other objections to Trump and he would still be a dubious proposition if the markets were doing well for the time being.
Not 'other' objections. All the main objections to trump remain even if the markets do well. And they might
Making it about the markets is aaargh!
I don't think Michael Howard has ever served a prison term, let alone a spell in solitary.
If evasiveness were a crime, he would have have got the max though.
Probably deserved 12 months just for that face too, to be fair. Up there with Trump and Cruz and Blair for the most punchable faces of all time.
great development on the deregulation front.
the Senate just voted to ditch an insanely cumbersome regulation passed by Biden EPA last year, using the congressional review act (so no filibustering allowed)
it would be better if congress passes a reversal of the procedure as they are attempting to (no new regulation enters I'm effect unless and until congress votes in favor), but still a good development.
Not 'other' objections. All the main objections to trump remain even if the markets do well. And they might
Making it about the markets is aaargh!
making it about the markets is what makes normal people agree with you.
normal people are selfish and care infinitely more about not losing 20k or 50k or 100k in their retirement funds than they care about Garcia something being deported or children in Gaza or removing the last 10% of pollution at great cost from rivers thousands of miles away or paying for transitioning prisoners.
It's directed at everyone who is opposed to trump etc etc but makes it about markets/short term economics
It's hitting ourselves on the head with a hammer and we do it repeatedly.
That's reason about 457 that I'm against Trump. Out of probably 10,000.
On a rapidly sliding scale of imporantce I assume
Plus much of what trtump is doing might be very good for the markets. They like a good solid slashing of regulations, failing to worry about pandemics, climate change etc, treating the vulnerable like **** and bullying the rest of the world - usa is well positioned to win an economic war (as buffett puts it). And the usa economy is a powerhouse that might do well despite the president ***** *****y ***&*
On a rapidly sliding scale of imporantce I assumePlus much of what trtump is doing might be very good for the markets. They like a good solid slashing of regulations, failing to worry about pandemics, climate change etc, treating the vulnerable like **** and bullying the rest of the world - usa is well positioned to win an economic war (as buffett puts it). And the usa economy
Bold is false. And you don't "win" trade war, at most your enemies loses more, but you never win, as there is nothing to win by trading less.
But yes ofc rightwing policies are good for asset markets (and so for all decent people IE people with savings)
