Wow, who could have possibly predicted this spurious outcome?
this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2024
140 points (96.1% liked)
conservative
969 readers
3 users here now
A community to discuss conservative politics and views.
Rules:
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.
-
No spam posting.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
-
No trolling.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 29 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Hey, I thought he's out here to protect us little guys, not some billion dollar corporation. /s
No, he didn't. Here's a full transcript of the interview.
Relevant part:
Question: If the prices of groceries don't come down, will your presidency be a failure?
Answer: I don't think so. Look, they got them up. I'd like to bring them down. It's hard to bring things down once they're up. You know, it's very hard. But I think that they will. I think that energy is going to bring them down. I think a better supply chain is going to bring them down. You know, the supply chain is still broken. It's broken. You see it. You go out to the docks and you see all these containers. And I own property in California, in Palos Verdes. They're very nice. And I passed the docks, and I've been doing it for 20 years. I've never seen anything like it. You know, for 17 years, I saw containers and, you know, they'd come off and they'd be taken away—big areas, you know, you know, in that area, you know, where they have the big, the big ships coming in—big, the port. And I'd see this for years as I was out there inspecting property and things, because they own a lot in California. And I look down and I see containers that are, that are 12, 13, 14 containers. You wouldn't believe they can hold each other. It's like crazy. No, the supply chain is is broken. I think a very bad thing is this, what they're doing with the cars. I think they lost also because of cars. You know, there are a lot of reasons, but the car mandate is a disaster. The electric, the EV mandate.
I mean, the only thing he's proposing will fix the issue is other people's actions. In that statement he isn't suggesting any solutions nor discussing a plan, hes saying if other people fix other problems it may help prices.
That seems like abdicating to me.
It's a far cry from "nevermind, I lied to everyone" like the headline implies.
That’s not what the headline says, it says “Trump isn’t going to do anything about grocery prices” which is exactly what his statement confirms. He said it’s hard and it’ll probably be fixed by things outside his control, which is explicitly saying he won’t do a damn thing.
Part of his platform was lowering energy prices - "Drill, Baby, Drill!" He expects grocery prices to go down as a result.
He had a golden opportunity to make that argument and instead talked about how much property he owned and to talk about a loading dock he drove by.
It was part of his platform and the part I emphasized shows him referencing it. The author of this article is misleading people with his headline.
You agree with the president-elect's assessment that reducing energy costs will result in corporations slashing prices for consumers? Do you just believe him or do you have reason to believe his assessment is accurate
I'm saying that's his argument. I don't know if it'll work out, but this conversation started because the headline is false.
His argument or yours? I want to focus on yours since I'm talking to you :) - I mean, I don't see him claiming anything about headlines which is what you and I are talking about now
So, to reiterate the argument you're making here, you're saying that you believe that when he said he will reduce grocery prices, what he actually meant was that he would reduce energy costs which would then reduce the cost of groceries. The headline suggests he is backtracking but you believe he always intended to use energy prices as the main driver to reduce groceries and that's why the headline is false. Is that right?
I doubt it will be as easy or effortless to lower just about any prices as he tries to make it sound. I hope he manages it, I think most people do. But that isn't my point. I take issue with the way they present the story. With the headline and subtitle, they make it sound like he's given up on lowering prices, which isn't true. Most people only read the headlines of articles - the entire thrust of their argument is in the first four paragraphs, and the rest doesn't have that much to do with it. It wouldn't have been as egregious if the headline simply read "Trump admits it will be 'very hard' to lower prices."
Spoilers: it will not work out that way.
Source: we've already seen energy prices go down drastically, grocery prices have continued to go up in that same time
Why argue with you ? You have changed the subject in bad faith.
My point the whole time has been that the article has a bad headline. If he said something like "We can't lower prices," then it'd make sense.
How can anyone listen to him talk? It's utter nonsense.
It legitimately hurts to listen to
Reading it is even worse
I dunno, I mean I guess with reading you can absorb the full inanity of the thing, but at least you can read it in a less motinic mental voice? …maybe?
Well that clears it right the fuck up
Mr. President goes on a bizarre tangent pretty quickly, but you can stop at my emphasis without missing anything important.
You can probably stop before you even start reading and not miss anything important.
Whenever I listen to him for longer than 10 seconds (or read such a transcript), I literally feel myself becoming more stupid.