Trump Biden
Energy 0% 38.8%
Gasoline -2% 47.8%
Electricity 3% 29.3%
Natural Gas -1.9% 26.9%
Groceries 3.3% 21.1%
Eggs -3.6% 49.3%
Milk 2.6% 15.0%
Chicken 3.7% 23.9%
Transportation 2.3% 32.5%
Airfare -13.8% 32.7%
Public Transportation -8.1% 22.2%
Used Cars 2.4% 20.9%
Apparel 0.6% 13.5%
The numbers above are the relative inflation rates for various sectors of the economy at the same point in the Trump and Biden administrations. As you can see prices during the Biden administration are significantly up over the Trump administration. What's interesting about inflation is that is is, in essence, an incredibly regressive additional tax which disproportionately affects those on the lower end of the economic spectrum.
We know that the Biden administration has been adjusting the items that they use to measure the inflation rate so that things appear better than they actually are. But the reality is that we've lost a significant amount of buying power in the last three years and at least some of that is a direct result of Biden policies. The answer to the oft asked question must be, "No, we are not better off than we were 4 years ago.". Yet how many will vote for 4 more years of high inflation because they're conditioned to vote DFL? How many will vote to have less money in their checking accounts every month, because they're conditioned to vote for the DFL?
26 comments:
How many will vote DFL because they're conditioned to hate Trump and thus against their own self-interest? Pretty much all lefties who reject Trump. Dan is a prime example of someone conditioned to hate Trump, except that he pretty much conditioned himself. For one who laughingly claims to be a Christian, he does little to regard Trump in an objective, Christian manner, preferring to heap upon him whatever scrap of negative he can dredge up or exaggerate, as if Trump's character flaws actually need any additional highlighting.
Until Jesus throws his hat into the political ring, I can only weight the tradeoffs of choosing one flawed individual over the other. This choice is far easier than it was in 2016...by about a universe. It's a massive understatement to say that one has to be a suicidal moron to choose Biden over Trump. In cases like a Trabue, it's also a case of one being evil to do so.
I'm sure there will be plenty who'll vote DFL for those reasons. Some who'll do it because that's what their group (labor, LGBTQXYZPDQ+-?, greens, teachers, minorities, etc) has always done. Essentially LBJ's "n#####s" who'll vote that way because LBJ bought their votes in the '60's.
I agree that the every nature of elections is the try to weigh the relative worth of two flawed, sinful, imperfect humans and to pick the one that is closer to your ideal of a president. We aren't voting for perfection, nor are we voting for a pastor. Do I wish that we had two better choices? Absolutely. Are these two of the worst candidates in the past 75 years? I'd argue yes. Although Trump's record as president is better than his appearance as a candidate would suggest.
We are faced with a relatively shitty choice, and we have to vote as our conscience dictates. We also have to accept the consequences for our actions.
https://www.vox.com/politics/24094752/biden-trump-strong-economy-2024-inflation
Dan
Essentially LBJ's "n#####s" who'll vote that way because LBJ bought their votes in the '60's.
Holy shit.
I'll simply point out that nothing in you article demonstrates that the above reflationary numbers are incorrect.
I'll simply point out that massive credit card debt isn't healthy for the economy long term.
I'll simply point out that much of the "growth" these charts show is the rebound from the absurd COVID restrictions, not any actual policies Biden has enacted.
I'll simply point out the the Fed is not going to lower rates because inflation is too high.
I'll simply point out that "printing" billions of new dollars in inherently inflationary.
I'll simply point out that the jobs being "created" are disproportionately part time/hourly/entry level jobs and many are people getting second jobs.
I'll simply point out that mortgage rates are up significantly.
I'll simply point out that the very fact that the administration is removing high inflation items from the inflation calculations calls into question the accuracy of the numbers.
I'll simply point out that if "record high stock prices" and now something that the president gets credit for, then that standard must be applied to any future presidents regardless of party.
NBC news just made a big deal out of the fact that gas was $.01 less than this time last year as if that is some kind of huge win. Further, Biden's repeated tapping of the strategic oil reserve to buy votes is merely kicking the can down the road. If that oil was purchased at $50/barrel, and later replaced at $70/barrel, that alone is a massive increase to the deficit/debt.
I'll simply point out that virtually all of these charts show numbers lower than the highest numbers during Trump's administration.
I'll simply point out that the COVID recession was over and the economy was rebounding before Biden took office.
The problem is that you can't actually demonstrate how Biden's policies have caused what's happening in the economy, nor can you demonstrate what the economy would have been with different policies.
"Holy shit."
Yes, it's appalling that there was a democrat president during the '60's who was clearly a racist, and who was blatantly cynical about why he wanted to pass the various civil rights/welfare legislation he did.
It's been reported that he said this to John Stennis early in his presidency. It's ugly and by our modern standards unthinkable, but the reality is that the DFL in the '60's was a party with a lot of racists.
"Essentially LBJ's "n#####s" who'll vote that way because LBJ bought their votes in the '60's."
These words are not an indictment of LBJ. Yes, there were so many crudely, overtly racist political leaders in both parties back then. That's a given.
But for you, as a modern adult to refer to black people this way, suggesting that black people can be bought, that's an indictment on you.
Holy shit, those words of yours are literally overtly racist.
Dan
"These words are not an indictment of LBJ. Yes, there were so many crudely, overtly racist political leaders in both parties back then. That's a given."
Look at Dan making excuses and defending racism as being merely "crude". The facts are that, while the US was more "racist" then (at least according to 21st century liberal standards), the Democrat party was the primary home of racists and racism during the'60s. Pretend otherwise all you want,
"But for you, as a modern adult to refer to black people this way, suggesting that black people can be bought, that's an indictment on you."
I was quoting/paraphrasing LBJ's comment/belief. Or is it somehow wrong to quote/paraphrase racist democrat presidents because it offends you. What offends me is that LBJ believed that, said that, and supported civil rights/great society legislation because he believed it would buy black votes for 200 years. The fact that I reference that bit of history, in the context of black voters supporting Trump, is simply pointing out the reality that LBJ's 200 years might not last that long. If this quote/paraphrase is an indictment on anyone, it's an indictment on LBJ, the DFL, and those who benefit from the cynical, manipulative DFL legislation from the '60s. It's almost as if you're determined to forget the history of the DFL, which seems to indicate that you're destined to repeat the history you ignore.
"Holy shit, those words of yours are literally overtly racist."
No, they're not. They're literally not my words. They were racist when LBJ said them, and the very intent of his buying the black vote with "civil rights" legislation and endless welfare, was racist. But, since I was a young child in the '60's and have never voted for or supported a DFL candidate, and all I've done is quote/paraphrase LBJ's words, your attempt to tar me for the words/actions of others is a failure.
But really excellent job trying to engage in ad hom attacks on me, instead of adding anything germane to the conversation. It's easy, it's lazy, and it's a demonstration of your lack of character, but it's also expected of you.
Well, this is what Dan means by "embracing grace"...to use whatever he can manipulate to disparage his opponents who are better people and far more emblematic of what a Christian is then he will ever be. Note how he wants to pretend the GOP was just as loaded with racists as his Jackass Party, when most civil rights legislation had no dissenters from anywhere but the Jackass Party...and that's being gracious! I don't think ANY civil rights legislation had any Republican dissenters. I could be wrong on this. I didn't research it before commenting. But I'm certain that civil rights legislation in the 60s was opposed by Dems in significant numbers.
Worse, however, is Dan's feigned outrage at you daring to quote LBJ's words with the actual word he used not spelled out, as if that should be necessary...as if spelling out "nigger" in quoting the person who used it is any more offensive (if it even should be in the context in which it is appearing---which it shouldn't to any honest person) than the way you chose to represent it ("n#####s"). It's laughable that Dan thinks he has an argument at all by his pearl clutching over it.
Oh, yes! It should be remembered that Dan and his party of Jackasses continue to act and legislate in the same way as regards "special interests" instead of legislating the way good American politicians do (almost all in the GOP despite the RINOs among them), which is on behalf of ALL Americans. That's certainly how Trump did it.
I don't believe we're faced with a shitty choice at all. It's an outrageously, blatantly easy choice. That choice is all about track record and nothing else. Trump has one and Biden doesn't. Trump has a really good one and Biden hasn't got a thing for which he can be commended.
Dan pretends the above fact isn't true, because he's too busy embracing grace, which means being dishonest in order to protect all the sinfulness he favors.
When God was passing out brains, Dan thought He said "stains" and replied, "That's OK. I've already got plenty in my shorts."
And that's why Dan is how he is.
RE: What you're trying to blame on LBJ:
What YOU said with YOUR words...
I'm sure there will be plenty who'll vote DFL for those reasons.
Some who'll do it because that's what their group
(labor, LGBTQXYZPDQ+-?, greens, teachers, minorities, etc) has always done.
Essentially LBJ's "n#####s" who'll vote that way because
LBJ bought their votes in the '60's.
Those were all YOUR words in defense of the unproven allegation that there will be "plenty" who'll vote for the Democrats for a variety of bad reasons. Right?
THAT's the context, where you claim (with no support and no data and no numbers) that "plenty" will vote for the unproven bad reason that people they associate with (Labor, LGBTQ - and then you insulted/mocked them with your additional witless initials - teachers, MINORITIES have "always done." That's YOUR words and YOUR unsupported allegation, right?
You then conclude with using an edited version of the N-word (NO INDICATION that you were speaking of Johnson or anyone else's use of the term) and the unsupported claim that "they" (the "n****'s" in question) will vote for Democrats because LBJ "bought" them.
Right?
SO, you - YOU, not LBJ - are saying that "plenty" of people will vote for Democrats for what you perceive/suggest without support are bad reasons, including that, you claim, LBJ and the Democrats were able to "buy" black ("n*****") votes.
Right?
The problem, the RACISM in that quote from YOU is the notion that you seem to suggest that black people can be bought, like slaves, in fact. That black people (again, "n****" in your quote/your words) are shiftless and dishonest enough to sell their votes.
Don't post overtly racist insinuations and then complain when people are noting, "Damn, boy, those are racist words and vulgar, false claims."
As to "plenty," by all means, put a number to it. If you say that there may be (not that you're proving it) actually DOZENS of black people (or "n*****s" if you prefer)
and liberals are willing to sell their votes for bad reasons.
On the other hand, if you're suggesting that black people en masse are dishonest enough to be "bought" and sell their votes for personal gain, well, that's an unproven and dishonest claim, racist at its core.
Further, even IF LBJ used vulgar and racist terms and words to refer to black people (which he clearly did, as did Nixon and Reagan, etc), that doesn't mean that it's wrong for black people to vote for the party that would work for civil rights for all, nor that they are being "bought" by voting for the party that agreed to work for civil rights.
There are so many problems with this and you just don't seem to see it. Good luck, tiny tim.
"Those were all YOUR words in defense of the unproven allegation that there will be "plenty" who'll vote for the Democrats for a variety of bad reasons. Right?"
Yes, I did provide a partial list of reasons why "plenty" (a vague, general term) of people might vote DFL. It was not an exhaustive list, nor was it pejorative, it was just a list. Yes, one of those reasons quoted/paraphrased LBJ's cynical/racist quote. The reality is that LBJ's rationale wasn't wrong. The reality is that there are plenty of people who'll vote DFL for exactly the reasons LBJ thought they would. Yet, I'm still onlt referencing LBJ's words and vision of a black voter population that will vote DFL for "200 years".
"THAT's the context, where you claim (with no support and no data and no numbers) that "plenty" will vote for the unproven bad reason that people they associate with (Labor, LGBTQ - and then you insulted/mocked them with your additional witless initials - teachers, MINORITIES have "always done." That's YOUR words and YOUR unsupported allegation, right?"
Yes. Those are my words, some of which quote/reference/paraphrase LBJ. Those are my words where I point out the obvious, that plenty of people DO vote out of habit, or out of obligation, or because their family voted that way. Your problem seems to be around the use of the term "plenty". That you want to argue about what "plenty" is. Well, you are welcome to arguing yourself blue in the face over a word that intentionally is vague and subjective. This is an excellent example of you reading into what I've actually said all sorts of things that I didn't say so you can create a straw man to argue against. It gets old, this constant straw man bullshit.
"You then conclude with using an edited version of the N-word (NO INDICATION that you were speaking of Johnson or anyone else's use of the term) and the unsupported claim that "they" (the "n****'s" in question) will vote for Democrats because LBJ "bought" them. Right?"
I apologize, I thought you were smart enough to figure out that the second usage was simply referring to the first usage. Further, I'd have thought that you'd be aware that the little "" marks around the word are the English language indicator that the word is a quotation of someone else's word or words. My bad.
"SO, you - YOU, not LBJ - are saying that "plenty" of people will vote for Democrats for what you perceive/suggest without support are bad reasons, including that, you claim, LBJ and the Democrats were able to "buy" black ("n*****") votes. Right?"
No, that would be a completely inaccurate representation of what I actually said, with you adding in all sorts of things that are not present in what I originally wrote.
Again, stop with the straw man bullshit.
"The problem, the RACISM in that quote from YOU is the notion that you seem to suggest that black people can be bought, like slaves, in fact. That black people (again, "n****" in your quote/your words) are shiftless and dishonest enough to sell their votes."
Again, with you making shit up out of thin air and pretending that I said it or that it represents anything I've said.
To be clear, I AM saying that the DFL in general and the GOP to a similar degree both engage in things to buy votes. Hell, Biden's unconstitutional efforts to transfer private debt to the taxpayers is clearly a vote buying exercise.
We've come a long way fro "Ask not what your country can do for you...".
"Don't post overtly racist insinuations and then complain when people are noting, "Damn, boy, those are racist words and vulgar, false claims.""
Damn boy, don't keep making these bullshit straw man arguments and pretending like the shit you've made up is anything I've actually said. I understand why you do it, but still, it gets old.
"As to "plenty," by all means, put a number to it. If you say that there may be (not that you're proving it) actually DOZENS of black people (or "n*****s" if you prefer)
and liberals are willing to sell their votes for bad reasons."
More than 5 less than 330,000,000.
"On the other hand, if you're suggesting that black people en masse are dishonest enough to be "bought" and sell their votes for personal gain, well, that's an unproven and dishonest claim, racist at its core."
Well, I'm not. I'm suggesting that LBJ thought they would and did, and that all sorts of people are willing to sell their votes for all sorts of crap.
"Further, even IF LBJ used vulgar and racist terms and words to refer to black people (which he clearly did, as did Nixon and Reagan, etc), that doesn't mean that it's wrong for black people to vote for the party that would work for civil rights for all, nor that they are being "bought" by voting for the party that agreed to work for civil rights."
You do know that (pesky history) none of the civil rights legislation would have been passed if it was solely up to the DFL don't you? You left out welfare.
"There are so many problems with this and you just don't seem to see it. Good luck, tiny tim."
The biggest problem I see is that you are adding all sorts of things to what I did say that allow you to work yourself up into this frenzy of name calling, ad hom attacks, and attacking straw men you've constructed. I applaud your creativity and how much effort you put into arguing with yourself.
Art,
Yeah, Dan and grace don't really seem to have much in common. Yes, absolutely zero civil rights legislation would have passed had the DFL had it's way, zero.
It's interesting that Dan focuses on civil rights legislation in the vote buying conversation, while ignoring the great society welfare legislation. The fact that LBJ pumped billions of dollars into the back community (and got a shitty ROI) is how he metaphorically bought votes, and ruined families at the same time.
To suggest that the GOP isn't trying to buy votes through policy is simply ignoring reality. It may not be a blatant as Biden's unconstitutional student loan bullshit, but both parties have imbibed the wine of "what your country can do for you.".
I'll stick by my shitty choice comment. The reality is that it's a less shitty choice because of Trump's record than otherwise, but Trump is a shitty candidate who was a decent president.
To deny that both parties could have offered better candidates in 2024 is to deny reality.
"Those were all YOUR words in defense of the unproven allegation that there will be "plenty" who'll vote for the Democrats for a variety of bad reasons. Right?"
He says this as if there's ever a good reason to vote for Democrats. I refer of course to legit reasons which one can provide evidence to support...evidence which can't be countered or debunked. Dan certainly can't provide one.
""The problem, the RACISM in that quote from YOU is the notion that you seem to suggest that black people can be bought, like slaves, in fact. That black people (again, "n****" in your quote/your words) are shiftless and dishonest enough to sell their votes.""
First, "bought like slaves"??? Dems never gave money to slaves. The gave it to whomever was selling them. Thus, this is Dan lying intentionally again by intentionally picking an inflammatory word choice to suggest racism on your part. He doubles down with the accusation you regard black people as shiftless and dishonest. But the reality, to which you allude and of which Dan lies in dismissing, is that the black community has wrongly decided for decades that the Dem racists have their backs. It's the same with the Jews. It's the same with women. The Dem scumbags have pandered to these and others in the lead up to elections and then either didn't deliver at all, or delivered that which resulted in more harm and oppression...something about which Dan feigns concern.
People do indeed, as they have for a very long time, vote according to self-interest. I believe I'm best served by a government who manifests a reverence and devotion to the US Constitution and American principles. In doing so, a wealth of blessings fall upon us all. What's more, they address the true needs and worthiest of desires of all the groups to which the Dems pander with bribes.
What LBJ did was indeed a bribe as clearly indicated in the quote Craig provided. The blacks were conned and remained conned to the notion that Dems care and the GOP only loves white rich people and are racist. For the Al Sharpton types, it's an outright intentional lie. For the rest, they perpetrate it out of ignorance, except where truly intelligent people like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams...great men with whom way, way too many black people are totally unfamiliar...point it out. The Thomas Frank book, "What's The Matter With Kansas?", tried to suggest many were voting against their own best interests by backing conservatism. This is untrue, but what is would be the far more blatant manifestation of that by blacks, Jews and women, as well as others. Voting Dem does not serve the best interests of anyone except Dem overlords, perverts and criminals.
Craig,
It's still not a "shitty" choice unless the focus remains on the character of the two candidates. But even then, as regards Trump, I insist "less than ideal" is more appropriate and more accurate. He's less than ideal because of his adulteries unpolished, un-presidential demeanor. However, as I say, it's record of performance which counts and his record makes him a good choice, not at all a shitty one, even though his record isn't perfect. And despite how repulsed you are by his character, to continue framing it in this way serves the leftist narrative. It makes it easier for them to deflect from his superior record to have yet another center-right person waste time on that which is irrelevant to what's at stake.
I would also submit that the parties don't "offer" candidates, except to back that (or those) candidates who've thrown their hats into the ring AND meet their approval. That's something Trump never did. The party never like him at all.
No. The candidates offer themselves and the people select from among them. The people from one side of the ideological divide therefore offered Trump, while stupid people offered an asshole. Those who selected Trump regarded him as the best candidate from among all primary contenders. Without doing something like hiding information like Hunter Biden's laptop, the party has little to do with it.
"It's still not a "shitty" choice unless the focus remains on the character of the two candidates. But even then, as regards Trump, I insist "less than ideal" is more appropriate and more accurate."
The only way it's NOT a shitty choice is to completely ignore the character of both candidates. Unfortunately, character drives action and one's character will be evident in how one governs. "Less than ideal" is just playing a semantic game. They're both "less than ideal", significantly less.
"He's less than ideal because of his adulteries unpolished, un-presidential demeanor. However, as I say, it's record of performance which counts and his record makes him a good choice, not at all a shitty one, even though his record isn't perfect."
Yes, his inability to behave in a moral manner and his demonstration of lack of character make him a shitty candidate. The fact that he managed to govern is a manner that was better than his candidacy would indicate is great, yet he's still a shitty candidate.
"And despite how repulsed you are by his character, to continue framing it in this way serves the leftist narrative. It makes it easier for them to deflect from his superior record to have yet another center-right person waste time on that which is irrelevant to what's at stake."
No it doesn't. It' simply acknowledging that there are two of the worst human beings that have run for president in in quite some time. It's acknowledging that neither of them is a great choice, yet we still have to choose one of these two options. Trump is the less bad option from a policy perspective.
"I would also submit that the parties don't "offer" candidates, except to back that (or those) candidates who've thrown their hats into the ring AND meet their approval. That's something Trump never did. The party never like him at all."
I'd submit that this is just semantics. The GOP clearly went through the process at their convention of officially choosing Trump as their official, endorsed, candidate. The GOP spent time and money getting Trump elected as well. The entire primary/convention process is the parties deciding which candidate they will offer as their representative in the general election.
"No. The candidates offer themselves and the people select from among them. The people from one side of the ideological divide therefore offered Trump, while stupid people offered an asshole. Those who selected Trump regarded him as the best candidate from among all primary contenders. Without doing something like hiding information like Hunter Biden's laptop, the party has little to do with it."
The entire primary and convention process is almost totally controlled by the parties. It's bizarre to suggest that the parties have no control or responsibility for a process that they literally control.
"The only way it's NOT a shitty choice is to completely ignore the character of both candidates. Unfortunately, character drives action and one's character will be evident in how one governs."
By this measure then, Trump's not a shitty candidate because he governed quite well the first time around. And by your measure, Biden's governance reflects his true character...quite a match, in fact. Trump's belies the claim his character is so poor he's a shitty candidate.
"It' simply acknowledging that there are two of the worst human beings that have run for president in in quite some time."
How long is "quite some time"? I recall Obama and Clinton and LBJ. We could add JFK as well, given his and his family's history. "Two of the worst" alone is hyperbole, though Biden certainly is the worst because his record is the worst as well.
"I'd submit that this is just semantics. The GOP clearly went through the process at their convention of officially choosing Trump as their official, endorsed, candidate. The GOP spent time and money getting Trump elected as well. The entire primary/convention process is the parties deciding which candidate they will offer as their representative in the general election."
Not semantics at all, but reality. Does it matter how much time, money and effort the party spends to get Craig Nelson elected if Craig doesn't want the job? Thus, Craig must first express the desire for the job, then go through a process which also requires citizen participation to get on ballots. Eventually there's the primary process which pushes Craig to the top of the list if he gets more votes than any primary opponent. At that point, it's pretty much going through the motions for the party at the convention, because as I said, the delegates there do have some obligation to nominate the candidate chosen by the majority of the people those delegates represent.
The responsibility the party has is the will of the people of the party, not those who preside over the operation of it. Do you want the head of the GOP picking George Santos, or who the majority of GOP voters chose?
No, he's a shitty candidate, who governed reasonably well, but not well enough to get reelected. I know it might be hard to process, but a person can be a shitty candidate and a decent president. I'm drawing that distinction.
The problem with your worst examples is that you ignored their opponents. In all of those cases their opponent was not shitty. I'd argue that P-BO was a decent candidate his first go around, and I'd argue that Clinton's policies are essentially conservative at this point.
Look, argue semantics if you want, but to pretend that the GOP didn't work to get Trump elected is simply not in line with reality.
I'd argue that Clinton's policies were the result of sticking his wet finger in the air to see which way the wind blew. For a large period of that time, the wind blew according to the GOP majority led by Newt Gingrich. He just chose to get in front of the parade.
As to Obama, being from his state and knowing a bit of how he performed on the state level, he was shitty as shit can be. He was never more than a poser, and even his shitty performance as a state and federal senator didn't match how shitty he became, making him a clearly shitty candidate the second time around. And of course, Obama had buffoons for opponents, but he also had a large populations of voters sexually aroused by the prospect of getting the second black man elected president (Clinton said he was the first), even though he's only half black.
The GOP did as little as they could to get Trump elected the first time, as it was the outpouring of support by the voting population which did it. And they certainly didn't do nearly enough to get him elected since then. One must be pretending to suppose they broke their backs in the effort. Laughable.
I do want to point out that Obama was/is not a black man. He is half-black so he is not the first black president. What we have with him is racism, the old "one drop of negro blood makes one a negro" ideology.
Obama is in is third presidency since he is Biden's puppeteer.
How Clinton got to his policies is irrelevant. The reality is that his policies are very similar to the 2024 GOP policies.
Who claimed "broke their backs"? I merely pointed out the reality that the GOP did, in fact, campaign for Trump to be elected.
Glenn,
It's interesting how the modern left has adopted that old, racist, philosophy.
Post a Comment