just like the polling that showed a red wave in the mid terms right? Also, what do expect a politician to say if the polls show them down??? lmaoredseven94 said:Jeeper79 said:Lemme guess… Trump told you not to believe polls?VP at Pierce and Pierce said:Lolz this guy believes polls. It is 2024, come one. What is next? You tell us Hunter's laptop was verified misinformation?BoydCrowder13 said:ApachePilot said:
It's easy to blame Trump. He is not a politician nor wants to be one. He just says what he thinks. But if anyone is to blame it's the deep state and media. Both are once again working overtime to skew the narrative. It doesn't matter who was running, this anti-American block would misrepresent the facts. While protecting the dem. Sadly we live in a world of sound bites and folks that just read headlines. Hard to over come disinformation when people are purposely stupid.
This is a silly take. Trump has been in politics for 9 years now. He is a politician.
And truly only Trump could almost be assassinated, take that epic picture while yelling fight, and a month later have no momentum and be losing in the polls.
Trump talks more than any politician ever about polls, when they favor him. When they don't they "can't be trusted". How is that not plainly transparent to everyone?
I do think polling is less reliable in the digital age but we are able to see far more polls in real-time which, in aggregate, are probably directionally accurate. Meaning trends and momentum.
Will Donald Trump Blow Another Election? - WSJ Editorial Board
19,674 Views |
359 Replies |
Last: 15 days ago by jeremy
Trump WAS a Dem. He didn't win until he became an R. Had he thought he'd succeed as a D, he'd have swung that way.girlfriend_experience said:LOL Harris is a 100x worse she has the media behind if Trump was dem he would be the next coming of Jesus.evan_aggie said:William K. Klingaman said:rathAG05 said:
He was always a terrible candidate.
The Dems stole the last election, and are going to steal this one as well. Get used to it, or blame every Republican candidate from here on out. Your choice.
No. He is a terrible candidate. Petty, childish, emotionally stunted. He is off putting for the middle 10%. That middle swings elections.
Harris doesn't have to debate, interview, etc. she just has to look mature and say the right things whether she will do them or not.
Also, Trump thrives on stoking R's grievances and victim mentality. "Oh the media is so horrible to us! Oh the election was stolen! The deep state is out to get us!" The Dems don't have that mindset to exploit. He'd never win a primary with his schtick.
I agree with you. For statewide elections in swing states, the GOP leadership has outdated strategies that has costed them in multiple elections. Since 2010, the Republican leadership has been caving into the Tea Party movement and Donald Trump's rise to the White House in 2016. As a result, the GOP has catered primarily to the radical right and alienated many moderate voters, especially in swing states.Definitely Not A Cop said:
I think GOP does pretty well at the state level and below. However, with federal elections (particularly in swing states), the leadership has outdated strategies and still believe they can win like it is 2016. They have given up gains in 3 straight elections since then due to this.
That being said, there are states that could definitely benefit from stronger leadership assistance at the national level to help with state elections and below (Arizona comes to mind).
Trump is completely in charge of the party now, there is nobody left to throw under the bus in regards to this. Though I'm sure he will try and some people will parrot it as if it's the truth.
I hope Donald Trump and JD Vance win the Presidential Election, but I won't be surprised if they lose to the most radical left ticket of Kamala Harris and Tim Waltz. If that happens, it's a sign that that the GOP needs to move on from Trump. In 2022, the Trump backed Senate candidates did not win any of the battleground states in 2022, costing us control of the Senate. High-profile losses included battleground states that were key to Republicans' effort to flip the Senate, including Herschel Walker's loss in Georgia, Blake Masters' loss in Arizona, Adam Laxalt's loss in Nevada, and Mehmet Oz's loss in Pennsylvania. If GOP primary voters had already learned to vote for the most electable candidates, the GOP would have gained control of the Senate and a larger House majority in 2022.
Glenn Youngkin, Ron DeSantis, Sarah Huckabee, Nikki Haley, Marco Rubio, and Tim Scott would be much more electable than Trump in 2028. I hope GOP primary voters vote for the candidate, who has the best chance of defeating Harris. I can't fathom two terms of a Harris-Waltz administration.
MAGA must first acknowledge that Trump is the issue, but they've been trained that it's always someone or something else's fault. I had high hopes in 2020 that they'd figure it out. No such luck. So I'm not optimistic for this go-around either.Iraq2xVeteran said:
I agree with you. For statewide elections in swing states, the GOP leadership has outdated strategies that has costed them in multiple elections. Since 2010, the Republican leadership has been caving into the Tea Party movement and Donald Trump's rise to the White House in 2016. As a result, the GOP have catered primarily to the radical right and alienated many moderate voters, especially in swing states.
I hope the Donald Trump/JD Vance ticket wins, but I won't be surprised if that ticket loses to the most radical left ticket of Kamala Harris and Tim Waltz. If that happens, it's a sign that that the GOP needs to move on from Trump. In 2022, the Trump backed Senate candidates did not win any of the battleground states in 2022, costing us control of the Senate. High-profile losses included battleground states that were key to Republicans' effort to flip the Senate, including Herschel Walker's loss in Georgia, Blake Masters' loss in Arizona, Adam Laxalt's loss in Nevada, and Mehmet Oz's loss in Pennsylvania. If we had already learned to vote for the most electable candidates, we would have gained control of the Senate and a larger House majority in 2022.
Glenn Youngkin, Ron DeSantis, Sarah Huckabee, Nikki Haley, Marco Rubio, and Tim Scott would be much more electable than Trump in 2028. I hope GOP primary voters vote for the candidate, who has the best chance of defeating Harris. I can't fathom two terms of Harris-Waltz.
Back in 2016, he said we'd get tired of winning, but there's been an awful lot of losing since then. Maybe he really did get tired of it.
evan_aggie said:William K. Klingaman said:rathAG05 said:
He was always a terrible candidate.
The Dems stole the last election, and are going to steal this one as well. Get used to it, or blame every Republican candidate from here on out. Your choice.
No. He is a terrible candidate. Petty, childish, emotionally stunted. He is off putting for the middle 10%. That middle swings elections.
Harris doesn't have to debate, interview, etc. she just has to look mature and say the right things whether she will do them or not.
And if that 10% is going to vote against their wallet then let them eat cake.
They will get to suffer. How many more elections will it take to teach the lesson? I have no idea. It seems simple to me.
I'd expect them to acknowledge the gap and the need to close it instead of publicly pretending it wasn't true.girlfriend_experience said:just like the polling that showed a red wave in the mid terms right? Also, what do expect a politician to say if the polls show them down??? lmaoredseven94 said:Jeeper79 said:Lemme guess… Trump told you not to believe polls?VP at Pierce and Pierce said:Lolz this guy believes polls. It is 2024, come one. What is next? You tell us Hunter's laptop was verified misinformation?BoydCrowder13 said:ApachePilot said:
It's easy to blame Trump. He is not a politician nor wants to be one. He just says what he thinks. But if anyone is to blame it's the deep state and media. Both are once again working overtime to skew the narrative. It doesn't matter who was running, this anti-American block would misrepresent the facts. While protecting the dem. Sadly we live in a world of sound bites and folks that just read headlines. Hard to over come disinformation when people are purposely stupid.
This is a silly take. Trump has been in politics for 9 years now. He is a politician.
And truly only Trump could almost be assassinated, take that epic picture while yelling fight, and a month later have no momentum and be losing in the polls.
Trump talks more than any politician ever about polls, when they favor him. When they don't they "can't be trusted". How is that not plainly transparent to everyone?
I do think polling is less reliable in the digital age but we are able to see far more polls in real-time which, in aggregate, are probably directionally accurate. Meaning trends and momentum.
That is true. The MAGA voters need to acknowledge that the Donald Trump is the biggest reason for the losing winnable elections, but they've been indoctrinated to always blame others. Hopefully, 2 straight Trump losses will wake them up in the 2028 GOP primary. Otherwise, the GOP is doomed in future Presidential elections.Jeeper79 said:MAGA must first acknowledge that Trump is the issue, but they've been trained that it's always someone or something else's fault. I had high hopes in 2020 that they'd figure it out. No such luck. So I'm not optimistic for this go-around either.Iraq2xVeteran said:
I agree with you. For statewide elections in swing states, the GOP leadership has outdated strategies that has costed them in multiple elections. Since 2010, the Republican leadership has been caving into the Tea Party movement and Donald Trump's rise to the White House in 2016. As a result, the GOP have catered primarily to the radical right and alienated many moderate voters, especially in swing states.
I hope the Donald Trump/JD Vance ticket wins, but I won't be surprised if that ticket loses to the most radical left ticket of Kamala Harris and Tim Waltz. If that happens, it's a sign that that the GOP needs to move on from Trump. In 2022, the Trump backed Senate candidates did not win any of the battleground states in 2022, costing us control of the Senate. High-profile losses included battleground states that were key to Republicans' effort to flip the Senate, including Herschel Walker's loss in Georgia, Blake Masters' loss in Arizona, Adam Laxalt's loss in Nevada, and Mehmet Oz's loss in Pennsylvania. If we had already learned to vote for the most electable candidates, we would have gained control of the Senate and a larger House majority in 2022.
Glenn Youngkin, Ron DeSantis, Sarah Huckabee, Nikki Haley, Marco Rubio, and Tim Scott would be much more electable than Trump in 2028. I hope GOP primary voters vote for the candidate, who has the best chance of defeating Harris. I can't fathom two terms of Harris-Waltz.
Back in 2016, he said we'd get tired of winning, but there's been an awful lot of losing since then. Maybe he really did get tired of it.
I don't want to win with a moderate. I would rather lose and deliver the message to those idiots voting for economic pain because of feelz.
If we can't win on policy, then so be it.
If we can't win on policy, then so be it.
I understand he crushed the other candidates in the Primary. That is kind of my point.aginlakeway said:agsalaska said:
Trump supporters do not care if he wins or loses. All they care about is getting their chance to cast their vote for Trump. They know that the only way he could lose is if the Democrats cheat him again. They don't even need real proof, they just need to be told that it happened.
If the Trump supporters really wanted to win the election Trump would not be the candidate.
I care A LOT if he wins or loses.
Trump crushed the other candidates. So supporters thus wanted him to win the primary.
Trump was one of the most moderate candidates in the primary. Just about the only thing not moderate about Trump is his mouth.Tom Fox said:
I don't want to win with a moderate. I would rather lose and deliver the message to those idiots voting for economic pain because of feelz.
If we can't win on policy, then so be it.
And he wants 10% tariffs on everything. You want economic pain? Put 10% tariffs on everything while you're in a recession and inflation still isn't fully under control.
agsalaska said:I understand he crushed the other candidates in the Primary. That is kind of my point.aginlakeway said:agsalaska said:
Trump supporters do not care if he wins or loses. All they care about is getting their chance to cast their vote for Trump. They know that the only way he could lose is if the Democrats cheat him again. They don't even need real proof, they just need to be told that it happened.
If the Trump supporters really wanted to win the election Trump would not be the candidate.
I care A LOT if he wins or loses.
Trump crushed the other candidates. So supporters thus wanted him to win the primary.
You said "Trump supporters do not care if he wins or loses."
I don't know any supporter who doesn't care if he wins or loses. They want him to win.
That's my point.
thats speculative and if they did it would have not much effect on inflation.Jeeper79 said:Trump was one of the most moderate candidates in the primary. Just about the only thing not moderate about Trump is his mouth.Tom Fox said:
I don't want to win with a moderate. I would rather lose and deliver the message to those idiots voting for economic pain because of feelz.
If we can't win on policy, then so be it.
And he wants 10% tariffs on everything. You want economic pain? Put 10% tariffs on everything while you're in a recession and inflation still isn't fully under control.
Most companies would eat that 10% as the US market is too important to their bottom line
girlfriend_experience said:thats speculative and if they did it would have not much effect on inflation.Jeeper79 said:Trump was one of the most moderate candidates in the primary. Just about the only thing not moderate about Trump is his mouth.Tom Fox said:
I don't want to win with a moderate. I would rather lose and deliver the message to those idiots voting for economic pain because of feelz.
If we can't win on policy, then so be it.
And he wants 10% tariffs on everything. You want economic pain? Put 10% tariffs on everything while you're in a recession and inflation still isn't fully under control.
Most companies would eat that 10% as the US market is too important to their bottom line
Measurably inaccurate. Tariffs become a tax on consumers.
Strategically they can combat unfair trade practices that are hurting the US (like China selling us steel below cost to drive our domestic competition) but broad based a tariff will 100% be borne by consumers/citizens.
Meh, I think if they really wanted to win they would have picked someone else. His cult of personality drives people to want to vote for him win or lose.aginlakeway said:agsalaska said:I understand he crushed the other candidates in the Primary. That is kind of my point.aginlakeway said:agsalaska said:
Trump supporters do not care if he wins or loses. All they care about is getting their chance to cast their vote for Trump. They know that the only way he could lose is if the Democrats cheat him again. They don't even need real proof, they just need to be told that it happened.
If the Trump supporters really wanted to win the election Trump would not be the candidate.
I care A LOT if he wins or loses.
Trump crushed the other candidates. So supporters thus wanted him to win the primary.
You said "Trump supporters do not care if he wins or loses."
I don't know any supporter who doesn't care if he wins or loses. They want him to win.
That's my point.
Don't get me wrong, I hope he wins. And I will almost certainly vote for him. But he is a truly awful candidate. Fortunately he is going against possibly the worst candidate ever.
girlfriend_experience said:thats speculative and if they did it would have not much effect on inflation.Jeeper79 said:Trump was one of the most moderate candidates in the primary. Just about the only thing not moderate about Trump is his mouth.Tom Fox said:
I don't want to win with a moderate. I would rather lose and deliver the message to those idiots voting for economic pain because of feelz.
If we can't win on policy, then so be it.
And he wants 10% tariffs on everything. You want economic pain? Put 10% tariffs on everything while you're in a recession and inflation still isn't fully under control.
Most companies would eat that 10% as the US market is too important to their bottom line
I don't know what business you're in, but "most" companies wouldn't just eat a 10% increase in their cost without passing on most or all of it. That's Fantasyland.
Yea that is the craziest thing I have read all day.
Jeeper79 said:Trump was one of the most moderate candidates in the primary. Just about the only thing not moderate about Trump is his mouth.Tom Fox said:
I don't want to win with a moderate. I would rather lose and deliver the message to those idiots voting for economic pain because of feelz.
If we can't win on policy, then so be it.
And he wants 10% tariffs on everything. You want economic pain? Put 10% tariffs on everything while you're in a recession and inflation still isn't fully under control.
That will not really affect me. Income taxes really affects me. Trump cut those.
redseven94 said:girlfriend_experience said:thats speculative and if they did it would have not much effect on inflation.Jeeper79 said:Trump was one of the most moderate candidates in the primary. Just about the only thing not moderate about Trump is his mouth.Tom Fox said:
I don't want to win with a moderate. I would rather lose and deliver the message to those idiots voting for economic pain because of feelz.
If we can't win on policy, then so be it.
And he wants 10% tariffs on everything. You want economic pain? Put 10% tariffs on everything while you're in a recession and inflation still isn't fully under control.
Most companies would eat that 10% as the US market is too important to their bottom line
Measurably inaccurate. Tariffs become a tax on consumers.
Strategically they can combat unfair trade practices that are hurting the US (like China selling us steel below cost to drive our domestic competition) but broad based a tariff will 100% be borne by consumers/citizens.
The Biden admin has levied almost 2x the tariffs that Trump did. The tarring talking point from the left is stupid.
Jeeper79 said:Trump was one of the most moderate candidates in the primary. Just about the only thing not moderate about Trump is his mouth.Tom Fox said:
I don't want to win with a moderate. I would rather lose and deliver the message to those idiots voting for economic pain because of feelz.
If we can't win on policy, then so be it.
And he wants 10% tariffs on everything. You want economic pain? Put 10% tariffs on everything while you're in a recession and inflation still isn't fully under control.
What's the record on Biden's tariff policy? Might want to look at that before you start reflexively attacking Trump.
they will if their US business declines, also previous posters tariffs are actually higher under Biden in regard to China so its a moot point for CM.Duckhook said:girlfriend_experience said:thats speculative and if they did it would have not much effect on inflation.Jeeper79 said:Trump was one of the most moderate candidates in the primary. Just about the only thing not moderate about Trump is his mouth.Tom Fox said:
I don't want to win with a moderate. I would rather lose and deliver the message to those idiots voting for economic pain because of feelz.
If we can't win on policy, then so be it.
And he wants 10% tariffs on everything. You want economic pain? Put 10% tariffs on everything while you're in a recession and inflation still isn't fully under control.
Most companies would eat that 10% as the US market is too important to their bottom line
I don't know what business you're in, but "most" companies wouldn't just eat a 10% increase in their cost without passing on most or all of it. That's Fantasyland.
That's the point. The Biden tariffs have contributed to inflation. Trump wanting to double down on the tariffs, including on all "friendly" countries, will throw more fuel on inflationary pricing.
girlfriend_experience said:they will if their US business declines, also previous posters tariffs are actually higher under Biden in regard to China so its a moot point for CM.Duckhook said:girlfriend_experience said:thats speculative and if they did it would have not much effect on inflation.Jeeper79 said:Trump was one of the most moderate candidates in the primary. Just about the only thing not moderate about Trump is his mouth.Tom Fox said:
I don't want to win with a moderate. I would rather lose and deliver the message to those idiots voting for economic pain because of feelz.
If we can't win on policy, then so be it.
And he wants 10% tariffs on everything. You want economic pain? Put 10% tariffs on everything while you're in a recession and inflation still isn't fully under control.
Most companies would eat that 10% as the US market is too important to their bottom line
I don't know what business you're in, but "most" companies wouldn't just eat a 10% increase in their cost without passing on most or all of it. That's Fantasyland.
That's equally speculative. If you're saying Biden has put high tariffs in place, and everything we pay for now costs more than it used to, do you not think tariffs play a part in that?
So much of what you said here is spot on. Username definitely does not check out, in my opinion.Pumpkinhead said:
Because this board is mostly a right wing echo chamber, some posters maybe don't appreciate how half the country hates Trump. How much left wing conspiracy theories are believed and flourish just as much as right wing conspiracy theories.
For example, was reported 1 in 3 Dem voters in a poll a couple weeks back believe Trump staged being shot in Butler, PA. When asked to explain the fireman killed, the response from one of the polled was 'Trump is evil and doesn't care who dies as long as he's elected'.
To be fair to the left wing conspiracy theorists, this same problem is just as bad on the right. There are many right wing conspiracies that Trump's shooting was planned by his opponents because 'Dems are evil and don't care who is killed as long as they get elected'.
This extreme polarization where both sides seemingly see the other as the End of Democracy and America, I largely blame the polarized media and the internet (including message boards like this one if posters are using it as a 'news' source) feeding on Fear & Hate Porn because that draws the clicks, likes, and views and brings in the money. The politicians themselves also play a role demonizing their opponents.
I read when CNN got new ownership a couple years or so back and that ownership tried to move their news to be just a bit more moderate, they started LOSING viewers and money. Moderate, balanced bipartisan debate and news sources doesn't seem to be what many actually people want to follow. So this is where our culture now is.
Trump had Biden cold, Biden was toast, but who knows now with Kamala. She is bad choice but They polled independents and there was a group out there who hated BOTH Biden AND Trump and were maybe going to sit the vote out, but now if there is a Not Biden Or Trump 3rd choice, who knows. And of course it is the swing voters in the swing states who can really matter the most.
The debate performances may end up being pretty critical.
I don't think concerns that Trump is "blowing it" are overblown. Polls show it as well. I have a close friend who regularly has breakfast with one of Trump's former Cabinet members. I got a text from him this morning after their breakfast saying essentially the same thing - the former Cabinet member is also afraid that Trump is running an undisciplined campaign right now and needs a significant shift if he is going to win in November (not to mention September and October and after polls officially close).
If the economy doesn't crash, and we only have a few murders or rapes by people here illegally, and the Middle East doesn't explode, I can easily see Kamala winning this. People are stupid and uninformed, by and large. And the mainstream media (ex TexAgs and F 16 and Fox News) are going to be in full-on Pravda mode.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I have read reports that Trump Campaign has no field offices in the battleground states. I find that impossible to believe.
Does anyone know what the truth is?
I understand he uses different ways to get people out to vote but in what looks like it's going to be really close don't you think we will need to turn over every rock to win this thing!
Does anyone know what the truth is?
I understand he uses different ways to get people out to vote but in what looks like it's going to be really close don't you think we will need to turn over every rock to win this thing!
When cost of food and almost everything else goes up another 25%+ in the next four years, will they vote dem again?
If the answer is yes, then nothing can be done other than disenfranchising over half of the electortate.
If the answer is yes, then nothing can be done other than disenfranchising over half of the electortate.
Tom Fox said:
When cost of food and almost everything else goes up another 25%+ in the next four years, will they vote dem again?
If the answer is yes, then nothing can be done other than disenfranchising over half of the electortate.
Average annual inflation rate by President:
Reagan - 4.6%
HW Bush - 4.3%
H Bush - 2.8%
Trump - 1.9%
Clinton - 2.6%
Obama - 1.4%
Biden - 5.5% (3.5 years)
Removing political noise there isn't a fundamental difference in monetary policy (deficit spending) between the two parties.
It is an important talking point bc it helps us/Trump but the combination of the first stimulus and the rapid reopening of the economy (supply chain challenges) would have drove inflation if he had won too.
I do think Biden increased it by sending out the second stimulus.
Minus a global pandemic I don't believe that either party is going to greatly impact our current insatiable appetite for debt and devalued dollars.
I don't disagree. But we are in a situation where just under 50% of voting age citizens pay NO federal taxes and have no skin in the game. Another significant percentage of them are going to vote D in order to destroy the unborn. Many of the rest get their politics, if not also their morals from watching The View. It's an uphill fight. When Trump goes out and acts like a thin skinned, narcissistic carnival barker (and I do plan to vote for him), it's extra easy for his opponent to sit back and do nothing and let him self destruct. The media certainly aren't going to call her out on it.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
redseven94 said:Tom Fox said:
When cost of food and almost everything else goes up another 25%+ in the next four years, will they vote dem again?
If the answer is yes, then nothing can be done other than disenfranchising over half of the electortate.
Average annual inflation rate by President:
Reagan - 4.6%
HW Bush - 4.3%
H Bush - 2.8%
Trump - 1.9%
Clinton - 2.6%
Obama - 1.4%
Biden - 5.5% (3.5 years)
Removing political noise there isn't a fundamental difference in monetary policy (deficit spending) between the two parties.
It is an important talking point bc it helps us/Trump but the combination of the first stimulus and the rapid reopening of the economy (supply chain challenges) would have drove inflation if he had won too.
I do think Biden increased it by sending out the second stimulus.
Minus a global pandemic I don't believe that either party is going to greatly impact our current insatiable appetite for debt and devalued dollars.
22% for Biden over 7.6% for Trump is a massive difference my friend. Especially to the less affluent which overwhelming vote dem.
You do understand that inflation is a lagging not a leading economic indicator right? Biden is to blame for the second stimulus package which definitely made it worse.
Inflation in 1981 was 9%. None of us blame that on Reagan (especially since the FY1981 budget was passed in 1980)
I am telling you to true conservatism (tea party) isn't alive in either ruling majority. The numbers are the numbers.
Inflation in 1981 was 9%. None of us blame that on Reagan (especially since the FY1981 budget was passed in 1980)
I am telling you to true conservatism (tea party) isn't alive in either ruling majority. The numbers are the numbers.
Good rant on who Trump really is....not the establishment
GREG GUTFELD just gave the most impressive & precise definition of Donald J. Trump that I've ever heard. Listen 'til the end!
— Gracelyn 🇺🇸 (@Gracelyn72) August 9, 2024
Kudos đź‘Ź @greggutfeld pic.twitter.com/5BUkkep9eW
redseven94 said:
You do understand that inflation is a lagging not a leading economic indicator right? Biden is to blame for the second stimulus package which definitely made it worse.
Inflation in 1981 was 9%. No of us blame that on Reagan (especially since the FY1981 budget was passed in 1980)
I am telling you to true conservatism (tea party) isn't alive in either ruling majority. The numbers are the numbers.
So you think that Trump and Harris will have the same impact on the economy? Inflation? Taxation? Entitlement spending?
Tom Fox said:redseven94 said:
You do understand that inflation is a lagging not a leading economic indicator right? Biden is to blame for the second stimulus package which definitely made it worse.
Inflation in 1981 was 9%. No of us blame that on Reagan (especially since the FY1981 budget was passed in 1980)
I am telling you to true conservatism (tea party) isn't alive in either ruling majority. The numbers are the numbers.
So you think that Trump and Harris will have the same impact on the economy? Inflation? Taxation? Entitlement spending?
I don't know. I was talking inflation. Economy is far more than inflation (GFP growth, unemployment, capital investment, business starts etc).
I think Trump would do better for economic growth and profits (stock market) bc he would remove government regulations and push for reductions in interest rates. Also think he could increase the deficit with spending/tax cuts.
redseven94 said:
You do understand that inflation is a lagging not a leading economic indicator right? Biden is to blame for the second stimulus package which definitely made it worse.
Inflation in 1981 was 9%. None of us blame that on Reagan (especially since the FY1981 budget was passed in 1980)
I am telling you to true conservatism (tea party) isn't alive in either ruling majority. The numbers are the numbers.
Inflation was due to the extreme spending by the US government because the Dems went complete chicken little claiming that GOP was trying to kill grandma if they didn't agree to every single economic wet dream of the socialists in this country. And they duped the majority of the public into believing it. Biden absolutely played a large part of it. He only exacerbated it once he got into office.
redseven94 said:Tom Fox said:redseven94 said:
You do understand that inflation is a lagging not a leading economic indicator right? Biden is to blame for the second stimulus package which definitely made it worse.
Inflation in 1981 was 9%. No of us blame that on Reagan (especially since the FY1981 budget was passed in 1980)
I am telling you to true conservatism (tea party) isn't alive in either ruling majority. The numbers are the numbers.
So you think that Trump and Harris will have the same impact on the economy? Inflation? Taxation? Entitlement spending?
I don't know. I was talking inflation. Economy is far more than inflation (GFP growth, unemployment, capital investment, business starts etc).
I think Trump would do better for economic growth and profits (stock market) bc he would remove government regulations and push for reductions in interest rates. Also think he could increase the deficit with spending/tax cuts.
The only thing that matters is reigning in spending to reduce debt. 30T. 1T annually.
99% of this election is propaganda bs. It doesn't matter. If we don't get spending under control, it won't matter.
redseven94 said:Tom Fox said:redseven94 said:
You do understand that inflation is a lagging not a leading economic indicator right? Biden is to blame for the second stimulus package which definitely made it worse.
Inflation in 1981 was 9%. No of us blame that on Reagan (especially since the FY1981 budget was passed in 1980)
I am telling you to true conservatism (tea party) isn't alive in either ruling majority. The numbers are the numbers.
So you think that Trump and Harris will have the same impact on the economy? Inflation? Taxation? Entitlement spending?
I don't know. I was talking inflation. Economy is far more than inflation (GFP growth, unemployment, capital investment, business starts etc).
I think Trump would do better for economic growth and profits (stock market) bc he would remove government regulations and push for reductions in interest rates. Also think he could increase the deficit with spending/tax cuts.
Then Trump is the easy button choice.