Oh, for goodness sakes.
You didn't read much of my post, but were quick to try to find something that helps you to believe that Trump isn't working hard?
Do you have any idea how often Trump works late? How many things he's already accomplished that he said he was going to accomplish? Or even how much he's travelled and worked over the last three weeks? I'm younger than Trump and I couldn't remotely keep up his pace.
But, in any event, do you know how often Biden took off from the White House? You might check. Perhaps you'll be surprised.
However, I don't begrudge Biden, or any other president, time away. The colossal stress of that office -- which essentially puts a president "on call" 24-hours a day -- even visibly aged the young and fit former president Obama.
Trump has sometimes gotten done, and in short order, what the prior administration claimed could not be done. I'm not going to worry about Trump doing a bit of golfing. And I am skeptical that that percentage figure you quote takes into account all of the hours that Trump actually works. Trump is well known to call people and be working into the wee hours. Even if some news sources don't seem to highlight that.
Please just think about how much access to the president this administration has given to the press, compared to the former administration. Trump appears before the press very frequently and answers questions at length and for minutes on end. He even appeared at length, and cordially, with Mayor Mamdani. Trump doesn't just appear once in a blue moon, with carefully scripted remarks. It's a nice change, I think.
Contrast how hard Trump works compared to our former "border czar." Trump actually did something about an insecure border! And, in the long run, that should take away some upward pressure on rent prices. And that's not really too debatable if we understand the relationships between demand, supply and price.
**"You didn't read much of my post**"
Yet I still found something incorrect.
**"but were quick to try to find something that helps you to believe that Trump isn't working hard?"**
Dude. It was it the fourth sentence.
**"Do you have any idea how often Trump works late?**"
Do you know? I think not.
**"How many things he's accomplished that he said he was going to accomplish?**"
Many things. Just because he said he was going to accomplish them doesn't necessarily mean they were good.
Accomplishing much doesn't suggest a lazy lack of effort. That's the point.
Thanks for helping to clarify your attitude toward Trump. You are, of course, free to believe what you wish. That will be facilitated, I suppose, if you don't read much written by those who have a different opinion. And if you carefully limit your choice of sources.
Indeed, it long remained possible to believe, quite firmly, that they were witnessing the "best Biden ever" ! I'd be surprised if there aren't many who are STILL sure of that!
Thanks for admitting you didn't read much of what I wrote. I'm sure you're not alone in that.
"Accomplishing much doesn't suggest a lazy lack of effort. That's the point."
It depends on how you accomplish it. Whether someone puts effort in to all the details, and whether they thought about all the possibilities.
Thanks for helping to clarify your attitude toward Trump. You are, of course, free to believe what you wish. That will be facilitated, I suppose, if you don't read much written by those who have a different opinion. And if you carefully limit your choice of sources.
*(If you couldn't tell already, I copy-pasted this right back to you because it applies to you too)*
It does indeed apply to me, too.
I respect the man, and value the many things he's accomplished, while not agreeing with everything he says or does (as I've previously stated, and given specific examples). I rarely agree with ANYBODY completely -- or even disagree with everything somebody says or does.
Correspondingly, can you share with us what, if anything, you agree with that Trump has managed to get done? Or is that a bridge too far ....
@Noflaps At what point are you going to put your "Inflation's not that bad, because Biden had high inflation" argument to bed? It makes no sense, and there have been at least 4 different users who pointed this out to you in the past week. It fails both because inflation isn't under control at the moment, and because it shows an inaccurate impression of the concept of inflation.
Like, let's put politics aside for a sec. You have to be aware of how inflation works as a mathematical concept, right? I'm pretty sure I've seen you correctly reference some sort of CPI numbers in the past.
But if you actually do know how inflation works (as I am reasonably certain is the case), that leads us to the big question. I cannot fathom why you would be dying on the hill of "inflation is manageable right now", when it's clearly an issue that spans the aisle at this point in time. It makes you seem like both an idiot (which I'm pretty sure you aren't) or a completely brainwashed zombie (and, although I've made my thoughts on that pretty well known over the past few months, I'm pretty sure you retain enough awareness to realize that continually bringing up inflation isn't exactly the best strategy of Trump apologism). If you've got some pathological aversion to criticizing the Trump administration on certain topics, why not just stick with praising the immigration/woke-busting/lower taxes stuff? You can at least work those into somewhat compelling arguments. Hell, @m011235 just lobbed you the prescription drug prices.
Think of it this way. A lot of people think FDR was among the greatest presidents in US history. If I were to discuss why he is so highly esteemed, I wouldn't lead with "FDR was the president who threw a bunch of Japanese people into concentration camps!" Hell, you yourself said *"I don't agree with everything Trump does. I sincerely don't."* So why would you keep bringing up inflation as a relative strength? It's baffling to me. The only way it works is if you're arguing that Biden was a great president, and Trump is doing an even better job. I'm pretty sure that no human on earth has that mindset.
It's especially baffling in the context of this topic-- the major reason Republicans are distancing themselves from Trump isn't the wild shit he says (he's done that forever), nor the horrible cabinet, nor the foreign policy, nor the immigration crackdowns (also a major selling point to the GOP). It's because prices are high. I don't know if you're arguing that Republicans actually aren't trying to minimize Trump's influence (despite evidence in the original post) or if you're arguing that they shouldn't be minimizing Trump's influence (in which case I'd refer you to the poll numbers)-- honestly, it seems to me at this point that you just post the same stuff any time you see an opportunity to talk about Trump-- but whatever the reason, you need to put the "inflation" argument to bed. It's just sad and a little worrying at this point.
@clousems: let me quote Ai for you, which appears to be relying on a quite recent October 24 report:
"The latest official U.S. core inflation rate is 2.6% year‐over‐year for the 12 months ending September 2026, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics"
Of course, AI can make errors -- so nobody should rely upon what I write but should, instead, diligently research the facts for themselves.
But getting back to the point: do you consider 2.6 percent, year over year, to be out of control? I certainly do not. Especially compared to some of the inflation of recent years. Needless to say, America isn't Iran.
However, you're welcome to your opinion. I'm sure we'd both agree that two percent would be better.
Furthermore, I certainly do understand how inflation "works."
What I hope most others understand is the following:
Current prices reflect the ACCUMLATED effect of all past inflation. So MUCH of current high pricing -- which is what ACTUALLY stings people -- is the result of MUCH HIGHER inflation in the past and for a longer period than Trump's so-far brief second term in office.
Please don't put words in my mouth, or try to paraphrase my arguments. Please consider just what I actually write.
Since it's obvious fact, I'm sure that you agree that much of the high prices of today are NOT the result of inflation during Trump's brief term so far. They instead largely reflect the very large inflation we endured under the past administration and for a longer time of accumulated effect.
Of course -- and please notice I'm admitting it -- SOME of today's prices are due to inflation during Trump's term so far.
But -- as you'll note if you read what I just quoted above -- it would be too easy to EXAGGERATE the contribution to current prices of Trump-term inflation compared to previous higher inflation which occurred over an even longer period.
And it appears that many DO wish to exaggerate the extent to which today's prices are Trump's fault. Such exaggeration may be due to a regrettably incomplete understanding, or to reflexive politics, or, perhaps in a few cases, even to prove that Trump's tariffs were the end-of-the world disaster some were just SURE they would be.
But they weren't. Check the quote above, for perspective. Check, also, the massive -- and I mean massive -- recent investment within America. Consider, also, the effect upon rent prices of a protracted, unnecessary and unexpected increase in housing demand resulting from essentially open borders for years on end.
By writing what I wrote about the accumulated effect of inflation, I'm writing nothing remotely illogical or stubborn or uneducated, even if it makes some unhappy to hear it. I'm simply acknowledging how mathematics works.
I've written pertinent graduate-level papers, by the way, that were well received by scholarly professionals. And I'm no stranger to the practical use of inflation measures. To say the least.
I prefer to say the least, because my private life is my own. But it tires me to be mistaken for, or portrayed as, a tyro or somebody in need of basic tuition. I respect you, noble @clousems, and I hope the feeling will eventually, even if not now, be reciprocated.
I am not a callow undergraduate entranced by propaganda, in need of rescue or reeducation by the routinely aggrieved on the Left.
> I'm saying nothing remotely illogical or stubborn
Lolwut?
Re your inflation argument: Please use the relevant numbers to the president's popularity-- Inflation is at 3.7% CPI and 3.4% PCE, as of latest recording for each.
Do you really think *core* prices are what people are talking about? I mean, yeah, we've got high core inflation, too (we're running 50% over the Fed target for core PCE alone), but I'm pretty sure that people aren't thinking to themselves "well, this inflation is out of control, especially when we ignore the energy and food costs."
Re: "Current prices reflect the ACCUMLATED [sic] effect of all past inflation. So MUCH of current high pricing -- which is what ACTUALLY stings people -- is the result of MUCH HIGHER inflation in the past and for a longer period than Trump's so-far brief second term in office."
This does indeed indicate a lack of understanding, especially taken with past statements of yours stating, verbatim, that inflation "is actually not very high in the US right now." By your logic, you could excuse any price level by attributing it to past presidents. You can't arbitrarily complain about certain presidents having high inflation rates while excusing others. It is completely illogical.
You caught me with a typo, @clousems. Good catch! I'm a pretty good proofreader, but I miss missing letters sometimes. Thanks for taking care!
But moving on: you might declare over and over again that it's illogical to believe that past, higher (and longer) inflation isn't an important contributor to the current level of prices, but that would simply be wrong and would make no sense mathematically.
Trump's term has seen some price increase too, and I haven't said otherwise. But high current prices are not generally and mostly the result of Trump's brief (so far) second term, no matter how some might wish to pretend that they are, or claim that it's just illogical and unknowing for any to disagree.
By way of analogy, the reinvested earnings made on an investment during Biden's four-year term are important (although, of course, not exclusively important) when explaining the value of the investment position now, NOT just the earnings made during Trump's shorter second term so far.
Obviously.
And argue as you will, Biden's term brought us higher inflation for longer -- contributing to, and therefore partially (but not completely) explaining current prices. Yet many Democrats want to exaggerate Trump's role in current prices, and act as if Trump is solely responsible for higher prices, without regard to a history of quickly rising prices under Biden.
Many also don't seem to address the effects on rent of the unsecured borders (for years). Did more than 10 million new arrivals not require habitation?
But, in any event, here's yet more copy-and-paste quotation --this time from an apparently legitimate online fact-finder site. I can hardly wait to see the following be minimized and discounted by those who hope to pretend that all this is terribly complicated and beyond my humble ken:
"CPI — The Consumer Price Index rose 21.5% under Biden — ending a long period of low inflation. Prices rose only 7.8% during the previous four years, for comparison."
During Biden's term "Inflation roared back, shrinking the value of workers’ paychecks. Consumer prices rose 21.5%. Gasoline alone rose 31%. After adjusting for inflation, private-sector average weekly earnings shrank 4%."
During Biden's term "Home prices rose 37.4%"
By all means, as I traditionally and carefully write, don't blindly accept any of this. Do your own research. But not just to confirm preconception or win an argument. I could have gone into greater detail and retraced my previous careful steps when I first reflected upon and researched the matter. But I don't want to spend hours on this post.
If any think that nothing quoted above is important to help us at least partially understand current high prices, well they can believe what they wish. But it is not remotely "illogical" or an indication of ignorance to think it is, if reasonably accurate.
I'm not claiming that Biden must be blamed exclusively for current prices. I'm simply pointing out that which should be obvious: neither should we blame Trump exclusively or even mostly. Trump hasn't even served two years of his first term yet, and inflation isn't close to the high reached under Biden. And in some important ways, America's economy has improved under Trump.
There's nothing illogical or unknowing in those statements. Let's not pretend otherwise or kid ourselves.
@Noflaps said [^](/forum/redirect/post/yRAzjOZX)
> I prefer to say the least, because my private life is my own.
You call THIS your least?? Your maximum would probably crash the lichess servers lmao jkjk