|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Greedflation is a logical consequence of a system that promotes and even demands eternal growth
|
It does not demand or promotes it per se. It's just the "current meta" so to speak. You'd be stupid to be put out of business because your competitors are turning over every stone to find every single penny (although it's ridiculous how inefficient large corps. are, or at least, from where I'm sitting, how inefficient mine seems to be, lol).
So you need to be going with the stream or you'll be put out of business, unless you've carved out some niche for youself.
Also: it feels like, at least for me, the inefficiences are constantly patched with other stuff that then in turn becomes inefficient or deficient and you get some financial black hole perpetuum mobile where finance just can't wrap their heads around because how could they, or you come with a tabula rasa but who's going to greenlight that when all the cogs need to keep turning. It's crazy.
Please, if someone with some sort of insight into this wants to shed more light here, would be much appreciated (i.e. someone who actually works in the finance department).
|
Fwiw, there's no such thing as greedflation, for the longest time, there is target and promo pricing meaning you don't sell the same products to your customers for the same price. It follows that the only reason one would do that is "greed". One could argue that there's value for the customer based on price, but that depends on the customer.
As to the inflation trends, it's pretty obviously it would turn out this way after COVID. To put it simply, from finance stand point, recoup all losses, maintain or increase growth, even if it's completely windfall.
|
On September 12 2024 17:37 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2024 16:22 BlackJack wrote:On September 12 2024 15:45 Liquid`Drone wrote:On September 12 2024 14:33 BlackJack wrote:On September 12 2024 11:45 Shinokuki wrote:On September 12 2024 06:54 BlackJack wrote:
Thank god those corporations decided to stop being greedy It's just unfortunate situation that we are in. CEOs are beholden to BoD to beat revenue/earnings target every quarter. Who do these BoD report to ultimately? Shareholders. The irony of this situation is that we are also part of this shareholder group because we own some of these stocks via retirement portfolio. We all have our own little agenda to make gains for ourselves based on the situation we are in. I want these stocks to grow which means i indirectly want these corporations to increase prices, do layoffs, and etc (w.e it takes to stay competitive and out perform). It just sucks man If you say so. My post was merely meant as a jab to people that bought the Democrat propaganda line that inflation is caused by corporate greed. As inflation is going down it must mean corporations are getting less greedy. Did people claim it was caused by corporate greed, or exacerbated by corporate greed - e.g. some companies took advantage of inflation to raise prices by more than inflation warranted? Cause I've seen many examples of the latter in Norway, where the owners of the biggest grocery store chains had a greater wealth increase during the period of highest inflation (and by a margin much higher than the inflation rate) than they've ever had before. It was a deliberate attempt to shift the blame for inflation onto corporations and their greed because their polling indicated it was a winning strategy. And the White House has been aggressively testing out the messaging on the airwaves and in internal polling ahead of Biden’s speech, according to two White House officials familiar with the matter, who were not authorized to speak on the issue and were granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations. Recent polling circulated within the White House has been favorable to Biden’s push to blast what he’s described on the campaign trail as “corporate greed” driving higher prices across a range of sectors. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/23/biden-food-shrinkflation-sotu-00142773Now, some progressives are urging Mr. Biden to follow those senators’ lead and make “greedflation,” as they call it, a driving theme of his re-election bid. They say that taking the fight to big business could bolster the broader Main Street vs. Wall Street argument he is pursuing against former President Donald J. Trump, particularly with the working-class voters of color Mr. Biden needs to motivate. And they believe polls show voters are primed to hear the president condemn big corporations in more forceful terms. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/06/us/politics/biden-inflation-greedflation-economy.html 'Greedflation' as defined by increasing prices above inflation during an inflationary period to increase profit is a real thing and contributes to inflation. It also polls well. Both statements can be simultaneously true.
It polls well because people will believe anything. Elizabeth Warren blames grocery giant Kroger for raking families over the coals with their price gouging. Except their profit margins are less than 1%. Convincing people the reason they are paying 30% more for their groceries than before the pandemic can be found hidden somewhere within Krogers 1% profit margins is great for someone looking for a scapegoat. Kamala Harris agrees and has promised to ban big grocers from price gouging, whatever that looks like. I’d be worried about what she was planning if I weren’t supremely confident this was just empty rhetoric to pander to voters.
|
On September 12 2024 19:07 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2024 17:37 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 12 2024 16:22 BlackJack wrote:On September 12 2024 15:45 Liquid`Drone wrote:On September 12 2024 14:33 BlackJack wrote:On September 12 2024 11:45 Shinokuki wrote:On September 12 2024 06:54 BlackJack wrote:
Thank god those corporations decided to stop being greedy It's just unfortunate situation that we are in. CEOs are beholden to BoD to beat revenue/earnings target every quarter. Who do these BoD report to ultimately? Shareholders. The irony of this situation is that we are also part of this shareholder group because we own some of these stocks via retirement portfolio. We all have our own little agenda to make gains for ourselves based on the situation we are in. I want these stocks to grow which means i indirectly want these corporations to increase prices, do layoffs, and etc (w.e it takes to stay competitive and out perform). It just sucks man If you say so. My post was merely meant as a jab to people that bought the Democrat propaganda line that inflation is caused by corporate greed. As inflation is going down it must mean corporations are getting less greedy. Did people claim it was caused by corporate greed, or exacerbated by corporate greed - e.g. some companies took advantage of inflation to raise prices by more than inflation warranted? Cause I've seen many examples of the latter in Norway, where the owners of the biggest grocery store chains had a greater wealth increase during the period of highest inflation (and by a margin much higher than the inflation rate) than they've ever had before. It was a deliberate attempt to shift the blame for inflation onto corporations and their greed because their polling indicated it was a winning strategy. And the White House has been aggressively testing out the messaging on the airwaves and in internal polling ahead of Biden’s speech, according to two White House officials familiar with the matter, who were not authorized to speak on the issue and were granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations. Recent polling circulated within the White House has been favorable to Biden’s push to blast what he’s described on the campaign trail as “corporate greed” driving higher prices across a range of sectors. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/23/biden-food-shrinkflation-sotu-00142773Now, some progressives are urging Mr. Biden to follow those senators’ lead and make “greedflation,” as they call it, a driving theme of his re-election bid. They say that taking the fight to big business could bolster the broader Main Street vs. Wall Street argument he is pursuing against former President Donald J. Trump, particularly with the working-class voters of color Mr. Biden needs to motivate. And they believe polls show voters are primed to hear the president condemn big corporations in more forceful terms. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/06/us/politics/biden-inflation-greedflation-economy.html 'Greedflation' as defined by increasing prices above inflation during an inflationary period to increase profit is a real thing and contributes to inflation. It also polls well. Both statements can be simultaneously true. It polls well because people will believe anything. Elizabeth Warren blames grocery giant Kroger for raking families over the coals with their price gouging. Except their profit margins are less than 1%. Convincing people the reason they are paying 30% more for their groceries than before the pandemic can be found hidden somewhere within Krogers 1% profit margins is great for someone looking for a scapegoat. Kamala Harris agrees and has promised to ban big grocers from price gouging, whatever that looks like. I’d be worried about what she was planning if I weren’t supremely confident this was just empty rhetoric to pander to voters.
I agree with you here, grocery stores run, for the most part, very thin profit margins. I would also like more detail on Harris' plan and how she's going to fix the supply side inflation.
I would argue, however, that looking only at grocery stores is myopic. There are many other industries that increased their profit margins during the inflationary period after the pandemic under the guise of 'it's a cost of living crisis, of course everything is more expensive'. Tech sector services come to mind, e.g. streaming subscriptions, phone contracts, etc. All of that contributes to further inflation and exacerbates the cost of living crisis.
|
How are the profit margins for super markets calculated? Is it an average of all your items in your store? Or is it a weighted number based on the volume? Because based on which it is, you could end up with very different numbers in the end.
|
United States43966 Posts
On September 12 2024 19:37 Uldridge wrote:
How are the profit margins for super markets calculated? Is it an average of all your items in your store? Or is it a weighted number based on the volume? Because based on which it is, you could end up with very different numbers in the end.
Neither number would be 1%. That number is way too low to plausibly be standard margin. I suspect it's net income/total revenue. I'd assume Blackjack misspoke and was using profit margins and net income interchangeably.
|
On September 12 2024 06:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:After being 3.X% for about a year, inflation is down to 2.5%, which is just about the conventionally ideal rate of ~2.0% ( https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/ ). Given the unique higher-than-average inflation rates from 2021-2023 due to the residual effects of the covid pandemic, would we be hoping that the inflation rate drops below 2% to "balance" things out (like decreasing towards the 1% rate), or would staying at the traditional 2% rate still be preferable?
There's significant lag between monetary policy changes and their effect, and the policy changes are based on past data so the whole interaction between central banks and the economy is somewhat clunky. It's not that a 2% inflation rate is more beneficial than 1% or 0.5%, but rather that 2% is a safer buffer in the context of not being able to accurately predict future pressures and your adjustments to shocks has delayed impact. At 2.5% trending downwards you will never see interest rate hikes, it's risky and at that point lowering inflation is no longer a main priority, you'll see rate cuts to drive up investments and employment.
|
On September 12 2024 19:55 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2024 06:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:After being 3.X% for about a year, inflation is down to 2.5%, which is just about the conventionally ideal rate of ~2.0% ( https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/ ). Given the unique higher-than-average inflation rates from 2021-2023 due to the residual effects of the covid pandemic, would we be hoping that the inflation rate drops below 2% to "balance" things out (like decreasing towards the 1% rate), or would staying at the traditional 2% rate still be preferable? There's significant lag between monetary policy changes and their effect, and the policy changes are based on past data so the whole interaction between central banks and the economy is somewhat clunky. It's not that a 2% inflation rate is more beneficial than 1% or 0.5%, but rather that 2% is a safer buffer in the context of not being able to accurately predict future pressures and your adjustments to shocks has delayed impact. At 2.5% trending downwards you will never see interest rate hikes, it's risky and at that point lowering inflation is no longer a main priority, you'll see rate cuts to drive up investments and employment.
Thanks for the elaboration!
|
Harris and her team have stated that they're happy to have more debates against Trump. After the debate, Trump seemed uncertain as to whether he wanted to debate again.
Trump was also asked by Fox News if Trump would be willing to debate Harris again on Fox News - where the deck would clearly be stacked in Trump's favor - and he said he wouldn't do it unless he got to specifically pick which Fox News people would moderate the debate. He's that desperate.
Former President Donald Trump shot down the idea of Fox News anchors Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum moderating a presidential debate on the network, offering suggestions for three people he'd like to see instead.
"Well, I wouldn't want to have Martha and Bret; I would love to have somebody else other than Martha and Bret," Trump said on Fox & Friends the morning after his first debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, naming Sean Hannity, Jesse Watters and Laura Ingraham as moderators he'd prefer. https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-next-debate-moderators-fox-sean-hannity-1952112
|
On September 12 2024 13:29 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2024 04:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 12 2024 03:56 FlaShFTW wrote:On September 12 2024 03:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 12 2024 02:57 BisuDagger wrote:On September 12 2024 01:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 12 2024 01:05 FlaShFTW wrote:On September 11 2024 21:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 11 2024 20:55 Magic Powers wrote:
Trump lost this debate, not so much because Kamala necessarily gained further ground, but because he failed to give hope to his supporters. All of his talking points are tired. The Republican successes came from SCOTUS - which was just a lucky coincidence, it cannot be repeated. He failed to give women hope, so they won't vote for him any more now than they did before. If anything they're rapidly turning against him as reality sinks in after years of oppression. Trump has no grand plan for women other than to oppress them further, and they're feeling it. No better future, no better life. And - political differences aside - husbands tend to side with their wives, because why wouldn't they? Marriage lasts forever, but political ideology can be discarded almost at a whim. Trump is losing on that front. He also lost more of the black vote. The white male demographic? They're undecided.
This is why this debate favored Kamala. She's rising in the polls, and Trump completely failed to change anything about his own trajectory.
I'm now firmly predicting a landslide victory for Kamala. Trump is dunzo. Do you think Harris will earn more electoral votes than Biden did in 2020 (he received 306)? What number do you think Harris will reach? Hi, election guy back again. The real answer to this is, well it depends. Harris has actually shown some ground gained in North Carolina (and winning NC would spell disaster for the other states on the board like the Sun Belt). In reality, at the moment it's a coin flip on whether Harris will win the Sun Belt like Biden did. I have her favored in the Rust Belt. I think we're probably looking around the same electoral votes honestly. She might lose Georgia for North Carolina if anything, but I think with abortion being such a hot issue in Arizona, she's like to hold that state along with Nevada will still holding the Rust Belt. But that's just my inclinations right now. With regards to polls, it's not that Trump isn't performing well in them, in fact, he hasn't really LOST ground in the polls, but Harris has continued to eat into the undecided voters. For example, earlier in the race between Trump and Biden/Harris, he was around 47/48% while Biden/Harris were sort of stuck at the 44/45% in a lot of key states. Now, Harris has pulled ahead and polls are looking more like 48% Trump, 49% Harris. So Trump's support in independents and swing voters hasn't really improved, he's locked his base up, while Harris and the Dems have been going hard to fight for those middle voters who play the most crucial role in the election. I like that analysis, and I think it makes a lot of sense. There aren't many Republicans who have supported Trump for a decade and are now, suddenly, switching to Harris between August 2024 and September 2024 (why would they? because of Dick Cheney? lol). Trump's not really losing ground, but Harris is slightly gaining ground, because there is still a little more ground up for grabs. Hopefully, Trump doesn't gain the remainder of the up-for-grabs ground. You are wrong about this though. In the Jacksonville, Fl area which I reside, we are a purple area. Lots of conservatives I know would outright refuse to vote for Biden no matter what are now willing to vote for Kamala. We voted for a dem mayor after having a fantastic republican mayor that ran out of terms he can run, because the new republican candidate was a terrible human being. There seem to be a lot of open minded people in this region of the state. That's interesting! Florida doesn't seem to be particularly close ( https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/florida/trump-vs-harris ) but it would be pretty sweet if Harris somehow won your state anyway. Florida is for sure still in lean/likely R territory (I'd guess around 5-6 points at the moment) but it's not entirely out of play just yet. I'm honestly very curious how the whole illegal immigrants eating pets line is going to go down with a lot of the hispanic immigrant population in Florida considering that Trump and Republicans were targetting the Haitians (I know there's not entirely overlap between Haitians and Cubans for example but it'll be interesting to see if there's any backlash to those comments). I'm skeptical that there would be a lot of new backlash, given that Trump has been calling all Hispanic immigrants rapists and murderers and criminals for at least 8 years already, but maybe something has changed. You have personally called Trump a rapist and criminal over the past 8 years infinitely times more times than he has ever called all Hispanic immigrants rapists and murderers and criminals.
"You have said infinitely more truths than Trump has untruths, therefore you are.... bad?"
|
On September 12 2024 20:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Harris and her team have stated that they're happy to have more debates against Trump. After the debate, Trump seemed uncertain as to whether he wanted to debate again. Trump was also asked by Fox News if Trump would be willing to debate Harris again on Fox News - where the deck would clearly be stacked in Trump's favor - and he said he wouldn't do it unless he got to specifically pick which Fox News people would moderate the debate. He's that desperate. Show nested quote +Former President Donald Trump shot down the idea of Fox News anchors Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum moderating a presidential debate on the network, offering suggestions for three people he'd like to see instead.
"Well, I wouldn't want to have Martha and Bret; I would love to have somebody else other than Martha and Bret," Trump said on Fox & Friends the morning after his first debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, naming Sean Hannity, Jesse Watters and Laura Ingraham as moderators he'd prefer. https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-next-debate-moderators-fox-sean-hannity-1952112
Interesting to note that there is no objective reason why Trump wouldn't want another debate. He got 14% more speak time in the recent debate because he kept interrupting and raising his voice to get more time. So it's very clear that he always finds a way to outmuscle his opponent, but that's still not enough of an advantage for him. He wants the whole world.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/09/11/kamala-harris-and-trump-debate-time/75143033007
|
On September 12 2024 20:51 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2024 20:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Harris and her team have stated that they're happy to have more debates against Trump. After the debate, Trump seemed uncertain as to whether he wanted to debate again. Trump was also asked by Fox News if Trump would be willing to debate Harris again on Fox News - where the deck would clearly be stacked in Trump's favor - and he said he wouldn't do it unless he got to specifically pick which Fox News people would moderate the debate. He's that desperate. Former President Donald Trump shot down the idea of Fox News anchors Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum moderating a presidential debate on the network, offering suggestions for three people he'd like to see instead.
"Well, I wouldn't want to have Martha and Bret; I would love to have somebody else other than Martha and Bret," Trump said on Fox & Friends the morning after his first debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, naming Sean Hannity, Jesse Watters and Laura Ingraham as moderators he'd prefer. https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-next-debate-moderators-fox-sean-hannity-1952112 Interesting to note that there is no objective reason why Trump wouldn't want another debate. He got 14% more speak time in the recent debate because he kept interrupting and raising his voice to get more time. So it's very clear that he always finds a way to outmuscle his opponent, but that's still not enough of an advantage for him. He wants the whole world. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/09/11/kamala-harris-and-trump-debate-time/75143033007
The argument he made (on Fox News? I don't remember where) after the debate was that a winner doesn't need a rematch to prove themselves, and that Harris wants another debate because she's desperate to make up for her bad debate performance against him. Obviously, Trump lost the debate, but I could see certain scenarios where the winner of a competition might be happy to retire at the peak of their game before they start losing and getting old (or whatever).
|
On September 12 2024 13:29 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2024 04:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 12 2024 03:56 FlaShFTW wrote:On September 12 2024 03:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 12 2024 02:57 BisuDagger wrote:On September 12 2024 01:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 12 2024 01:05 FlaShFTW wrote:On September 11 2024 21:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 11 2024 20:55 Magic Powers wrote:
Trump lost this debate, not so much because Kamala necessarily gained further ground, but because he failed to give hope to his supporters. All of his talking points are tired. The Republican successes came from SCOTUS - which was just a lucky coincidence, it cannot be repeated. He failed to give women hope, so they won't vote for him any more now than they did before. If anything they're rapidly turning against him as reality sinks in after years of oppression. Trump has no grand plan for women other than to oppress them further, and they're feeling it. No better future, no better life. And - political differences aside - husbands tend to side with their wives, because why wouldn't they? Marriage lasts forever, but political ideology can be discarded almost at a whim. Trump is losing on that front. He also lost more of the black vote. The white male demographic? They're undecided.
This is why this debate favored Kamala. She's rising in the polls, and Trump completely failed to change anything about his own trajectory.
I'm now firmly predicting a landslide victory for Kamala. Trump is dunzo. Do you think Harris will earn more electoral votes than Biden did in 2020 (he received 306)? What number do you think Harris will reach? Hi, election guy back again. The real answer to this is, well it depends. Harris has actually shown some ground gained in North Carolina (and winning NC would spell disaster for the other states on the board like the Sun Belt). In reality, at the moment it's a coin flip on whether Harris will win the Sun Belt like Biden did. I have her favored in the Rust Belt. I think we're probably looking around the same electoral votes honestly. She might lose Georgia for North Carolina if anything, but I think with abortion being such a hot issue in Arizona, she's like to hold that state along with Nevada will still holding the Rust Belt. But that's just my inclinations right now. With regards to polls, it's not that Trump isn't performing well in them, in fact, he hasn't really LOST ground in the polls, but Harris has continued to eat into the undecided voters. For example, earlier in the race between Trump and Biden/Harris, he was around 47/48% while Biden/Harris were sort of stuck at the 44/45% in a lot of key states. Now, Harris has pulled ahead and polls are looking more like 48% Trump, 49% Harris. So Trump's support in independents and swing voters hasn't really improved, he's locked his base up, while Harris and the Dems have been going hard to fight for those middle voters who play the most crucial role in the election. I like that analysis, and I think it makes a lot of sense. There aren't many Republicans who have supported Trump for a decade and are now, suddenly, switching to Harris between August 2024 and September 2024 (why would they? because of Dick Cheney? lol). Trump's not really losing ground, but Harris is slightly gaining ground, because there is still a little more ground up for grabs. Hopefully, Trump doesn't gain the remainder of the up-for-grabs ground. You are wrong about this though. In the Jacksonville, Fl area which I reside, we are a purple area. Lots of conservatives I know would outright refuse to vote for Biden no matter what are now willing to vote for Kamala. We voted for a dem mayor after having a fantastic republican mayor that ran out of terms he can run, because the new republican candidate was a terrible human being. There seem to be a lot of open minded people in this region of the state. That's interesting! Florida doesn't seem to be particularly close ( https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/florida/trump-vs-harris ) but it would be pretty sweet if Harris somehow won your state anyway. Florida is for sure still in lean/likely R territory (I'd guess around 5-6 points at the moment) but it's not entirely out of play just yet. I'm honestly very curious how the whole illegal immigrants eating pets line is going to go down with a lot of the hispanic immigrant population in Florida considering that Trump and Republicans were targetting the Haitians (I know there's not entirely overlap between Haitians and Cubans for example but it'll be interesting to see if there's any backlash to those comments). I'm skeptical that there would be a lot of new backlash, given that Trump has been calling all Hispanic immigrants rapists and murderers and criminals for at least 8 years already, but maybe something has changed. You have personally called Trump a rapist and criminal over the past 8 years infinitely times more times than he has ever called all Hispanic immigrants rapists and murderers and criminals.
And if we were just talking about pure vibes, then this is a valid whataboutism. However, the simple truth remains, if you don't want to be called a rapist and a criminal, then being found liable for sexual assault and guilty of criminal felonies doesn't help. As they say, facts don't care about your feelings.
If you're upset that Trump is being correctly identified for what he is, your problem is with Trump for being a shit human being, not with the people pointing out how he's a shit human being. Take it out on Trump, he lied to you for years and let you down.
|
Its really werid to try and "um actually" greedflation not being a real thing and a campaign prop when you have one of the candidates screaming that black people are eating dogs and cats. A bunch of the scaremongering about legal immigrants coming into Springfield is about the increased strain on public resources and housing when the population of the town hasn't increased that significantly. A larger workforce of young poor people will increase public revenue far more than the older aging population that consumes significantly more public resources.
Corporations going after perpetual growth is a real thing, greedflation is the buzzword to turn it into a campaign issue. I don't see the value in trying to scaremonger one candidate wanting to lower costs when they're both claiming that they're going to do things to lower costs. Trying to conflate that with repackaging the same racist lies people have been using against asian people in order to fear monger against black and brown people just speaks to how you value rich people vs regular human beings.
|
On September 12 2024 20:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Harris and her team have stated that they're happy to have more debates against Trump. After the debate, Trump seemed uncertain as to whether he wanted to debate again. Trump was also asked by Fox News if Trump would be willing to debate Harris again on Fox News - where the deck would clearly be stacked in Trump's favor - and he said he wouldn't do it unless he got to specifically pick which Fox News people would moderate the debate. He's that desperate. Show nested quote +Former President Donald Trump shot down the idea of Fox News anchors Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum moderating a presidential debate on the network, offering suggestions for three people he'd like to see instead.
"Well, I wouldn't want to have Martha and Bret; I would love to have somebody else other than Martha and Bret," Trump said on Fox & Friends the morning after his first debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, naming Sean Hannity, Jesse Watters and Laura Ingraham as moderators he'd prefer. https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-next-debate-moderators-fox-sean-hannity-1952112
The ever-wandering goalposts of Drumpf "desperation" - immediately after a debate that we were told wouldn't happen because Trump was too scared - which happened after another debate we were told Drumpf was too scared of, even though he accepted almost all the terms the other side proposed - Drumpf is still scared because he *checks notes* said he'd debate on Fox and NBC next too.
Like for people who pay attention to politics, to whom it's common knowledge that Republicans have their own disagreements, it isn't a surprise that the blood between Bret Baier and Drumpf hasn't healed. Similarly Drumpf doesn't like George Stephanopoulos, for obvious reasons, which is what happens when you're an actual public figure with a history of talking to people and relationships with media. That doesn't mean he... "specifically picked" ABC's moderators, does it? Working or even broadcasting for Fox doesn't automatically make you a MAGA plant as anyone who's heard of Chris Wallace shouldn't need to be told. Which makes the assumption that Fox is somehow stacked for Drumpf anything but certain. However, even if for the sake of argument it were, it seems fair enough to throw at least one Fox debate in after CNN, ABC, and NBC debates. CNN goes without saying, and ABC even to the left of Snopes by wasting the American people's valuable primetime with 8 year old quote mined hoaxes. Maybe Kamala can become confident enough to appear on stage with a moderator outside her sorority too.
Things are picking up though as in addition to the endorsements from Kennedy and Gabbard, he's also picked up another Democrat in the wake of the debate, with Biden distancing himself from Kamala's campaign by putting on a MAGA hat in Pennsylvania. Perhaps he realized that since he isn't getting a 2nd term, his best chance to keep himself and his son out of jail is to endear himself to Drumpf's campaign to curry some favor. Awfully shrewd move if you ask me.
|
Norway28792 Posts
Tbh a fox hosted debate with Bret Baier seems fine, or even ideal, to me. Wallace was a solid host.
|
On September 13 2024 01:56 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2024 20:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Harris and her team have stated that they're happy to have more debates against Trump. After the debate, Trump seemed uncertain as to whether he wanted to debate again. Trump was also asked by Fox News if Trump would be willing to debate Harris again on Fox News - where the deck would clearly be stacked in Trump's favor - and he said he wouldn't do it unless he got to specifically pick which Fox News people would moderate the debate. He's that desperate. Former President Donald Trump shot down the idea of Fox News anchors Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum moderating a presidential debate on the network, offering suggestions for three people he'd like to see instead.
"Well, I wouldn't want to have Martha and Bret; I would love to have somebody else other than Martha and Bret," Trump said on Fox & Friends the morning after his first debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, naming Sean Hannity, Jesse Watters and Laura Ingraham as moderators he'd prefer. https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-next-debate-moderators-fox-sean-hannity-1952112 The ever-wandering goalposts of Drumpf "desperation" - immediately after a debate that we were told wouldn't happen because Trump was too scared - which happened after another debate we were told Drumpf was too scared of, even though he accepted almost all the terms the other side proposed - Drumpf is still scared because he *checks notes* said he'd debate on Fox and NBC next too. Like for people who pay attention to politics, to whom it's common knowledge that Republicans have their own disagreements, it isn't a surprise that the blood between Bret Baier and Drumpf hasn't healed. Similarly Drumpf doesn't like George Stephanopoulos, for obvious reasons, which is what happens when you're an actual public figure with a history of talking to people and relationships with media. That doesn't mean he... "specifically picked" ABC's moderators, does it? Working or even broadcasting for Fox doesn't automatically make you a MAGA plant as anyone who's heard of Chris Wallace shouldn't need to be told. Which makes the assumption that Fox is somehow stacked for Drumpf anything but certain. However, even if for the sake of argument it were, it seems fair enough to throw at least one Fox debate in after CNN, ABC, and NBC debates. CNN goes without saying, and ABC even to the left of Snopes by wasting the American people's valuable primetime with 8 year old quote mined hoaxes. Maybe Kamala can become confident enough to appear on stage with a moderator outside her sorority too. Things are picking up though as in addition to the endorsements from Kennedy and Gabbard, he's also picked up another Democrat in the wake of the debate, with Biden distancing himself from Kamala's campaign by putting on a MAGA hat in Pennsylvania. Perhaps he realized that since he isn't getting a 2nd term, his best chance to keep himself and his son out of jail is to endear himself to Drumpf's campaign to curry some favor. Awfully shrewd move if you ask me.
You need to take shit less seriously my dude. If your conclusion from seeing a picture of Biden with a MAGA hat is "OMERGOURD, BIDEN IS STUMPING FOR TRUMP" rather than "hmm, wonder what happened there... read full post... oh, exactly nothing at all" you are doing your brain a disservice.
|
United States10393 Posts
On September 13 2024 01:56 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2024 20:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Harris and her team have stated that they're happy to have more debates against Trump. After the debate, Trump seemed uncertain as to whether he wanted to debate again. Trump was also asked by Fox News if Trump would be willing to debate Harris again on Fox News - where the deck would clearly be stacked in Trump's favor - and he said he wouldn't do it unless he got to specifically pick which Fox News people would moderate the debate. He's that desperate. Former President Donald Trump shot down the idea of Fox News anchors Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum moderating a presidential debate on the network, offering suggestions for three people he'd like to see instead.
"Well, I wouldn't want to have Martha and Bret; I would love to have somebody else other than Martha and Bret," Trump said on Fox & Friends the morning after his first debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, naming Sean Hannity, Jesse Watters and Laura Ingraham as moderators he'd prefer. https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-next-debate-moderators-fox-sean-hannity-1952112 The ever-wandering goalposts of Drumpf "desperation" - immediately after a debate that we were told wouldn't happen because Trump was too scared - which happened after another debate we were told Drumpf was too scared of, even though he accepted almost all the terms the other side proposed - Drumpf is still scared because he *checks notes* said he'd debate on Fox and NBC next too. Like for people who pay attention to politics, to whom it's common knowledge that Republicans have their own disagreements, it isn't a surprise that the blood between Bret Baier and Drumpf hasn't healed. Similarly Drumpf doesn't like George Stephanopoulos, for obvious reasons, which is what happens when you're an actual public figure with a history of talking to people and relationships with media. That doesn't mean he... "specifically picked" ABC's moderators, does it? Working or even broadcasting for Fox doesn't automatically make you a MAGA plant as anyone who's heard of Chris Wallace shouldn't need to be told. Which makes the assumption that Fox is somehow stacked for Drumpf anything but certain. However, even if for the sake of argument it were, it seems fair enough to throw at least one Fox debate in after CNN, ABC, and NBC debates. CNN goes without saying, and ABC even to the left of Snopes by wasting the American people's valuable primetime with 8 year old quote mined hoaxes. Maybe Kamala can become confident enough to appear on stage with a moderator outside her sorority too. Things are picking up though as in addition to the endorsements from Kennedy and Gabbard, he's also picked up another Democrat in the wake of the debate, with Biden distancing himself from Kamala's campaign by putting on a MAGA hat in Pennsylvania. Perhaps he realized that since he isn't getting a 2nd term, his best chance to keep himself and his son out of jail is to endear himself to Drumpf's campaign to curry some favor. Awfully shrewd move if you ask me.
I legitimately cannot distinguish this post from something I'd read on the Onion as pure satire, or if this is legitimately how Trump fans think and talk... what a scary world we live in when life imitates parody.
|
On September 13 2024 02:31 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2024 01:56 oBlade wrote:On September 12 2024 20:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Harris and her team have stated that they're happy to have more debates against Trump. After the debate, Trump seemed uncertain as to whether he wanted to debate again. Trump was also asked by Fox News if Trump would be willing to debate Harris again on Fox News - where the deck would clearly be stacked in Trump's favor - and he said he wouldn't do it unless he got to specifically pick which Fox News people would moderate the debate. He's that desperate. Former President Donald Trump shot down the idea of Fox News anchors Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum moderating a presidential debate on the network, offering suggestions for three people he'd like to see instead.
"Well, I wouldn't want to have Martha and Bret; I would love to have somebody else other than Martha and Bret," Trump said on Fox & Friends the morning after his first debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, naming Sean Hannity, Jesse Watters and Laura Ingraham as moderators he'd prefer. https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-next-debate-moderators-fox-sean-hannity-1952112 The ever-wandering goalposts of Drumpf "desperation" - immediately after a debate that we were told wouldn't happen because Trump was too scared - which happened after another debate we were told Drumpf was too scared of, even though he accepted almost all the terms the other side proposed - Drumpf is still scared because he *checks notes* said he'd debate on Fox and NBC next too. Like for people who pay attention to politics, to whom it's common knowledge that Republicans have their own disagreements, it isn't a surprise that the blood between Bret Baier and Drumpf hasn't healed. Similarly Drumpf doesn't like George Stephanopoulos, for obvious reasons, which is what happens when you're an actual public figure with a history of talking to people and relationships with media. That doesn't mean he... "specifically picked" ABC's moderators, does it? Working or even broadcasting for Fox doesn't automatically make you a MAGA plant as anyone who's heard of Chris Wallace shouldn't need to be told. Which makes the assumption that Fox is somehow stacked for Drumpf anything but certain. However, even if for the sake of argument it were, it seems fair enough to throw at least one Fox debate in after CNN, ABC, and NBC debates. CNN goes without saying, and ABC even to the left of Snopes by wasting the American people's valuable primetime with 8 year old quote mined hoaxes. Maybe Kamala can become confident enough to appear on stage with a moderator outside her sorority too. Things are picking up though as in addition to the endorsements from Kennedy and Gabbard, he's also picked up another Democrat in the wake of the debate, with Biden distancing himself from Kamala's campaign by putting on a MAGA hat in Pennsylvania. Perhaps he realized that since he isn't getting a 2nd term, his best chance to keep himself and his son out of jail is to endear himself to Drumpf's campaign to curry some favor. Awfully shrewd move if you ask me. I legitimately cannot distinguish this post from something I'd read on the Onion as pure satire, or if this is legitimately how Trump fans think and talk... what a scary world we live in when life imitates parody.
I think oBlade is serious, maybe even about Biden's sudden "support" for Trump >.>
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
