Presidents are often blindly praised (or claim credit for themselves) when good things happen during their terms. They’re also often blindly criticized by their opponents and the public when things go wrong. Presidents do have a big impact, of course, and it’s fair to credit or blame them for the things they actually do. However, it’s perverse to blame or credit them for things they had little or no influence over.
Trump is a severe case, but other presidents aren’t immune. The general public and even the pundit class also fall prey to this kind of thinking. The classic campaign question is “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” Voting based on the answer to that question is irrational because it doesn’t take into account what is and isn’t under the president’s control.
A recent example is Trump’s boast about egg prices during his State of the Union address. He claimed that they’re down 60%, which is false, and the fact that they’re down at all has nothing to do with him or his policies. It’s just because bird flu cases dropped dramatically and egg production recovered.
Another example is Pam Bondi’s bizarre deflection while testifying before Congress. Jerry Nadler asked her a question about Epstein:
Nadler:
How many of Epstein’s co-conspirators have you indicted? How many perpetrators are you even investigating?
Bondi blathers for a while, then says:
And none of them, none of them asked Merrick Garland over the last four years one word about Jeffrey Epstein. How ironic is that? You know why? Because Donald Trump — the Dow — the Dow right now is over — the Dow is over $50,000. [laughter erupts] I don’t know why you’re laughing. You’re a great stock trader as I hear, Raskin. The Dow is over 50,000 right now. The S&P at almost 7,000. And the NASDAQ smashing records. Americans 401ks and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.
It was a nonsequitur, but the point here is that she’s acting as if Trump is responsible for stock market gains, when in fact the market responds negatively when he imposes tariffs and positively when he TACOs (or gets defeated in court). He’s a brake on stocks, not a booster.
What is this war/strike all about? Really? Can you tell? I give you 10 options…
I don’t think it’s as irrational as you imply, because you are focusing only on direct control, and most of a President’s influence is indirect. Does the market have confidence in him? Do consumers expect prices to rise or fall? Can they rely on policies and policy positions going forward? Reagan was (and still is) considered a great leader by many because he was inspirational (and a competent actor). Toward the end, it was clear that Reagan was seriously senile, but his administration still inspired confidence. People are STILL waiting for wealth to trickle down. Trump’s administration is unpredictable, and requires Congressional somnolence.
So while Trump has no direct control over the economy (despite the TACO tariffs), the public perception of whether his administration knows what they’re doing has real world effect. Perhaps Bondi genuinely believes that nobody watching that exchange knows the answer is “none” and she has to change the subject. But considered more broadly, the fact that Trump was careful not to nominate a single competent soul to his cabinet has downstream effects.
Uh, you do? Where are they?
J-mac specialises in the gnomic. The margin is rarely big enough to convey an actual thought.
keiths:
Flint:
It’s true that presidents have indirect influence, but that still leaves an enormous amount that they can’t control or influence. The pandemic is a prime example. Both Biden and Trump can be judged on their responses to the crisis, but neither caused it and neither can be fully faulted for the pandemic’s downstream effects.
MAGA’s focus on the high Biden-era inflation is an example of the irrationality. Inflation was high internationally as well as domestically, primarily due to supply chain disruptions over which Biden had no control. Even if you partly blame the stimulus checks during the pandemic, it doesn’t follow that the stimulus was a bad idea — without the stimulus, the economic situation might have been worse. Inflation might be the lesser of two evils, one of them unknown.
I sent this to a friend back in 2022:
The way I see it, more good things than bad things tend to happen when leadership is competent and respected.
I don’t think this is completely true. It’s often possible to predict downstream effects more or less accurately, and take steps to ameliorate those effects even before they happen. If we consider a million deaths a downstream effect, I think there’s no question an ounce of prevention would have been richly rewarded. You know, if the President regarded covid as a bad disease, rather than as bad PR.
Flint,
Even if that were so, it would remain true that lots of things can’t be controlled or influenced by presidents.
keiths:
Flint:
Like I said, it’s fine to judge presidents by how they respond to crises. What’s irrational is blaming or crediting them for things they couldn’t control or influence, which is why the “Are you better off than you were four years ago” question is a poor basis for voting decisions.
For instance, the high inflation during Biden’s term was largely caused by global supply chain disruptions, and those in turn were caused by the pandemic. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was another disruptor.There was nothing Biden could have done to keep inflation in the normal range given those economic pressures. Inflation was a worldwide problem, so it’s irrational to pin the blame on Biden. Yet Trump did so (and continues to do so), and many people have bought it, including some who should know better.
As with blame, so with credit. As mentioned in the OP, Trump is trying to take credit for the decline in egg prices when he did nothing to bring them down. Too many people, including media figures, unthinkingly credit him for the decrease.
Trump botched the response to Covid, no doubt, and he should be faulted for The response was within his control, and he blew it. His failure caused many deaths. Many, but not all. Some deaths would have happened anyway, and neither he nor Biden are responsible for those.
I’m not sure if we disagree, or if we’re not communicating. Your notion of influence is much more restrictive than mine. The bully pulpit’s influence stretches a long way, to the point where it’s near impossible to tell whether something the President did way back when has changed what exists today, for better or worse. In my view, the President may have NO IDEA what the downstream effects might be, and neither might anyone else, but that doesn’t mean those effects don’t exist.
George Washington refused a third term because he feared that a president-for-life would corrupt the system. And this precedent held for over 150 years. Do you really think Washington’s decision had no influence on those many 2-term presidents?
OK, then we disagree. Good leadership has ripple effects far beyond what anyone might intend, or even connect with the initial impetus. A great many aspects of life thrive under good leadership and suffer under bad leadership, often for generations, without any specific intent, other than to do the right things.
Very little of peoples’ voting decisions are based on anything but political party right or wrong. But swings of only a couple percent make all the difference. The question “are you better off than you were 4 years ago” has nothing to do with whether people are actually better off. Polls say Republicans think we’re worse off after Biden, Democrats say we’re better off. Perception is reality. Many if not most Republican voters say we’ll be better off in 4 years even if Trump becomes absolute dictator!
People feel better or worse off depending on whether their party was in power, so this question is an appeal to partisan loyalty, not to any credit or blame for anything in particular.
Flint:
The bully pulpit is influential and there are things that are beyond a president’s control and influence. Those statements aren’t contradictory.
Yes, but that doesn’t change my point, which is that it’s irrational to blame a president for things that are clearly out of their control. Neither Trump nor Biden could have prevented the mutations leading to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, for instance. The presidency is powerful, but it isn’t magic. The laws of nature still apply.
The laws of economics also still apply. Supply chain disruptions lead to inflation. Biden wasn’t responsible for the disruptions that occurred during his term, so he isn’t responsible for the consequent inflation. You can debate whether he made it worse or better than it otherwise would have been, but there is no question that he didn’t cause it. It was a worldwide phenomenon caused by factors outside of anyone’s control, so simplistically blaming Biden for the spike, as Trump does, is irrational.
Sure. The world is a complicated place, and like the rest of us, presidents have limited information and finite cognitive resources. That’s what’s behind my point #3 above:
Sometimes good decisions have unexpected negative consequences, and sometimes poor decisions have unexpected positive consequences. Luck is also a factor. To automatically credit or blame a president for something that happens during their term is therefore irrational. We want presidents who make good decisions, not ones who have gotten lucky. Wisdom is more reliable than luck in dealing with future challenges.
i have no idea where you’re getting this. When have I said that presidents can’t influence future events?
keiths:
Flint:
Surely you don’t think that a president is responsible for everything that happens during their term. Biden didn’t cause the pandemic, he didn’t cause the supply chain disruptions, and he didn’t cause the spike in inflation.
There are far more independents in the US than either Democrats or Republicans, so party affiliation doesn’t dictate their votes. Plus, there are Democrats and Republicans who are willing to vote across party lines.
Automatically voting for your party’s candidate is just one additional type of irrationality in voting behavior. There are many others, including basing your vote naively on the “am I better off” question.
Many people think it does, and some of them credit or blame the president accordingly and base their votes on it. It’s irrational. Hence my criticism.
We don’t quite disagree. Yes, anyone can point to particular trends or events and say “there is nothing the President could do about this” or “this happened even though the President tried to prevent it”, etc., and tick off one thing after another. But it should be clear even to you that BAD leadership matters.
And I guess I need to repeat: the “are you better off” question is a way to politicize events that are beyond anyone’s control, because the answers people give don’t relate to their actual circumstances. It’s basically an applause line deployed in front of a partisan crowd.
You’ve probably seen interviews with farmers, say, complaining that Trump is wrecking their livelihoods, but they feel better off anyway knowing the President is on their side! The “better off” question is intended to provoke an irrational response, and that farmer will say yes if Trump asks, and no if a Democrat is President.
I think the propensity to find someone to credit or blame for one’s perception of how “things” are going, is human nature – someone must have caused this. Still, I feel the President leads the nation in a more influential sense than the figurehead leads the ship. This especially shows up in his response to events he can’t control but must deal with. An old proverb tells us “distress in misfortune is another misfortune.”
Nobody knows what this “war” is all about… because nobody understands not who was elected to the office- it doesn’t matter, does it?
1. Who are the largest contributors to Trumpet’s political campaigns…. and why…? Why would anybody contribute $250 million plus to his campaign?
Flint:
As I keep saying, it’s fine to judge presidents based on how they respond to crises. We want capable presidents and we learn about their capability by watching what they do and how they perform. That’s rational. What isn’t rational is blaming presidents for things that are out of their control.
Some Covid deaths were inevitable. Trump isn’t to blame for those because they were going to happen regardless of what he did. The deaths he’s responsible for are the additional deaths that occurred due to his mishandling of the crisis. We agree that he should be judged for those.
Likewise, Biden isn’t to blame for the supply chain-related inflation that occurred on his watch. It was going to happen regardless of what he did. He didn’t cause the disruptions. It’s fine to judge him based on how he responded to the economic turmoil, but blaming him for the inflation spike, as Trump does, is irrational.
Not so. For instance, ask people who are struggling financially due to higher prices and they will tell you that they’re worse off than they were a year ago. It’s staring them in the face. Yes, there are some partisan people who will do the cultish thing and deny reality, but that isn’t everybody.
It’s also an argument used by candidates and campaigns to sway persuadable voters who aren’t hyperpartisan. The faulty logic is clear: if you’re better off, it’s because of the president. If you’re worse off, it’s because of the president. Vote accordingly. It’s simplistic and irrational.
They may continue to support Trump, but that doesn’t mean they’ll claim to be better off than they were a year ago. They may like Trump for other reasons, or have faith that Trump will make their situation better in the long run, or think that Trump is the lesser of two evils and that a Harris presidency would be even worse, but someone who’s losing money, struggling to pay off loans, or is in danger of losing their farm due to the tariffs is unlikely to say that they’re better off than they were a year ago.
Trump says:
That’s laughable. They aren’t happy and they aren’t getting rich. If it were a purely partisan thing, divorced from reality, then Republican farmers would be in agreement with Trump. They aren’t. They think they’re worse off, and they say so in those interviews. It’s based on their actual situation.
Yes. A president is responsible for how he responds to crises that he couldn’t have prevented, but he is not responsible for the crises themselves. That’s why the “are you better off” question is irrational.
I would be willing to “bet” some substantial money for you or your company to prove that “gene” (s) regulate things as predicted since we already have a wild claim what a “gene is” vs what it is suppose be…
I’m sorry to tell you this but my layman psychology of orange juice face Trump made me few dollars… This is insane…
keiths,
Who in the right frame of mine would give a mentally unstable “human being” 280, 250 million dollars? And why?
Let’s not forget, American corporations gave Hitler a lot money to gain and stay in power…
Why? It is obvious… because it is always the same reason…
You are becoming a rather repetitious and tedious individual. You never respond to points made, and don’t seem to possess the discipline to keep comments relevant to the thread you put them in. So what would possess me to engage in a debate on gene regulation? You’d disappear, as usual, points unaddressed.
As I say, I don’t need your money, so wrapping it up in financial incentives is rather foolish, and a diagnostic trait of the crackpot.
You don’t have an answer? Are you pretending to be a Jew?
If you can prove by the scientific method that SARS-CoV-2 is a real virus, I will accept. Unfortunately, I don’t think you can do it. I know you can’t do it.
And here is the best part: YOU. WILL NEVER DO IT
You are inconsistent. People can be (and feel) better off if the President does a good job of responding to crises he couldn’t have prevented. Much of what a President does is reactive in this way. And it makes a difference, even in the short term.
Who? Elon Musk. Why? In exchange for multiple multi-billion no-bid contracts.
I was pretending you knew what you were talking about.
Of course, if you do not (and cannot) specify what you consider proof (or even what you consider the scientific method), you can’t lose. Fortunately, actual scientists have what they consider actual proof. Who needs you?
“If you can prove it I will accept it but I WILL NEVER ACCEPT IT”. Virus deniers are a special kind of stupid. I might as well try and teach genetics to a rock.
Flint,
“The scientific method” is a particular calling card of the virus denial crowd. They parrot a few pet phrases. It’a biological flat earth. One is hard pressed to find a single instance of them actually applying it themselves.
I always have to laugh. The scientific method, to the cranks, is “I’m a scientist and I say vaccines cause autism.”
Flint:
My position has been consistent throughout the thread. In the OP, I said:
That’s still my position, and I can’t figure out why you disagree.
The problem with the “are you better off” question is that it fails to take into account what’s under a president’s control and what isn’t.
A capable president might get unlucky and face difficult problems not of his own making. He might deal with them competently, yet the people could be worse off at the end of his term than they were before he took office. Not because of his shortcomings, but because of the difficulty of the problems that occurred, through no fault of his own. Voters asking themselves the “are you better off” question might reject a competent president on that basis. It’s poor reasoning.
The same problem holds in reverse. An incompetent president might get lucky and benefit from fortuitous events over which he had no control. People might be better off than they were before he took office, not because of his competence or skill, but through pure luck. Voters asking themselves the “are you better off” question might vote for an incompetent president on that basis. It’s irrational.
We don’t want to reject competent presidents, and we don’t want to keep incompetent ones. Thus we should avoid the “are you better off” question and stick to judgments of a president’s actual competence, regardless of good or bad luck.
It is good to have examples. I think the handling of the Covid pandemic is a good recent example. The pandemic started under Trump and he botched it. His first term ended in a socioeconomic catastrophe. Biden recovered from it and ended his term very well considering where he started.
In America there is this saying, “It’s the economy, stupid!” which is supposed to explain how presidents are viewed in hindsight. However, this does not explain at all how Trump (first term) and Biden are viewed. Trump is viewed as a god, prices were allegedly low and everybody was allegedly better off. Biden is viewed as a disaster, even though he very concretely by every measure brought the country out of disaster.
Similarly, nobody in USA remembers that the Great Depression began under Herbert Hoover. They think Roosevelt did it and that’s why it was also Roosevelt’s job to get USA out of the crisis. Nobody remembers that the Great Recession began under W.Bush. They think Obama did it. And they think Biden is guilty of Covid.
The real saying should be, “It’s the propaganda, stupid!” Repubs do propaganda decisively better than Dems. Americans remember the past strictly as per propaganda and vote accordingly. ETA: The propaganda is “Repubs are good for the economy!”
The problem with your position is, it assumes we can specify in some detail exactly what is or is not under his control, even indirect ripple effects. I don’t believe we can do that. Historians commonly disagree, even with long hindsight, about how things would have been different if the President had done X instead of Y (or done nothing). The implication of this disagreement is that the President’s actions, decisions, influences, etc. are enough under his control to make a substantive difference. And this is true even if, at the time, observers regard the affected circumstances as beyond his control.
Consider: the pandemic was “beyond anyone’s control”, yet even today most historians argue that Trump’s positions and policies added at least a million unnecessary deaths. I know, I know, you will argue that there are two separate, almost unrelated factors: the pandemic itself (not under his control) and his response (under his control). This black-and-white thinking tends to ignore the fact that the pandemic continued for over a year, during which many relevant decisions were made. But by drawing such bright lines, we’re envisioning reality as a broad, powerful river flowing through time, over which even Presidents are nearly helpless. In this view, the “are you better off” question can only be meaningless; circumstances are almost entirely fate and luck.
But nearly every initiative a President takes is in response to something he couldn’t control – the economy, international tensions, bad weather, whatever. The line between controllable and uncontrollable, I think, is wide and hazy, a spectrum. Good leadership consists of anticipating and managing circumstances beyond control – which then ends up being nearly everything or nearly nothing if we insist on drawing lines in the fog.
Flint:
No, my position merely requires that we apply our best judgment in the face of incomplete information, as we do in most areas of life. Sometimes it’s clear whether a particular thing is under the president’s control, and sometimes it isn’t. We should adjust our reasoning accordingly. Trump and Biden didn’t cause the pandemic. Biden didn’t cause the subsequent inflation. Those are clear examples of things that weren’t under presidential control, and neither president deserves to be blamed for them.
Of course presidents can make a difference. I’m not sure why you keep bringing that up — it’s a given.
They’re clearly related, because the pandemic is what necessitated the responses. However, the existence of the pandemic was not under either president’s control. Their responses were. It therefore makes sense to judge them by their responses and not by the mere fact that a pandemic occurred.
An analogy: you are the CEO of a small manufacturing firm. You have two plant managers who alternate every month. One manager runs the plant in July; the second manager steps in to run it in August, and so on.
In July, a tornado hits the factory and causes massive damage. The CEO is upset and says to himself “I’m worse off than I was a month ago, when the other manager was running the plant. Therefore I’m going to fire the current manager and keep the other one.”
That would be stupid. The current manager didn’t cause the tornado. He isn’t responsible for the fact that the CEO is worse off than he was a month ago. Blaming him for that makes no sense. Judging him based on his response to the tornado, on the other hand, would be both fair and rational.
As with plant managers, so with presidents. It’s irrational to judge them based on things that are out of their control, like that tornado. It’s why Kristi Noem’s joke to Donald Trump, when she credited him for the fact that no hurricanes had occurred during hurricane season, was a joke: it was obvious that Trump doesn’t control the weather and that he shouldn’t be credited for the lack of hurricanes. Hurricanes are out of his control.
I’m not ignoring that at all. As I keep saying, it matters how a president responds to crises, including those he didn’t cause. He should earn credit or blame for his reponse to a crisis, but not for the crisis itself, assuming it was out of his control, like the plant manager’s tornado.
Not at all. Presidents have enormous power and influence, and their actions have massive consequences. Trump started a war. He wasn’t helpless, unable to influence the course of events: he caused the war, and the consequences are massive and global. That isn’t helplessness. Starting the war was his doing; the existence of the pandemic was not. It’s rational to blame him for the war and for his response to the pandemic, since both of those were under his control. It’s irrational to blame him for the pandemic itself.
The circumstances that are beyond control are, obviously, beyond control — like the plant manager’s tornado. Presidents shouldn’t be blamed or credited for those. They should be judged on their performance, not on their luck.
If you want a capable president, you should look for things that are actually indicative of his capability. Things that are out of his control aren’t indicative of that. For instance, judging Biden based on the inflation caused by global supply chain disruption, as Trump does, makes no sense. It wasn’t in Biden’s control. If someone wants to criticize Biden, it should be based on his response to the crisis, not to the existence of the crisis itself.
The question “Am I better off than I was four years ago?” is the wrong question to ask, because it doesn’t take into account that not everything is under the president’s control. That kind of thinking is irrational.
keiths,
Hi Keiths
Regarding inflation:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNQ_895af572-5b22-4122-af93-ac02d9831fab
colewd:
Thanks, I guess. Grok’s response agrees with what I’ve been saying throughout the thread. For example:
And:
Here’s a sampling of peak inflation rates during that period:
It was obviously a global problem, not a Biden problem. Whether Trump is being dishonest here versus stupid is debatable, but either way he’s wrong, and so are all the uninformed voters who mindlessly blamed Biden (and still do).
OK, I give up. You say “Presidents’ actions have massive consequences”, but somehow these consequences don’t apply to peoples’ lives, so the question as to whether they are better off is irrational! Even if they are “massively” better off because the President’s actions have “massive consequences”, these consequences don’t count so asking if they DO count is irrational somehow.
So I’m going to continue to believe that massive consequences affect peoples’ lives, and you just go ahead and believe that this thinking is irrational. I guess because you are assuming that massive consequences are not consequential! Here we simply must agree to disagree.
I think of it like competitive bridge. All teams play the same identical hands, but some teams win tournaments consistently and some never win. The hands themselves are beyond the control of the players. The RESULTS are not. People are better off, or worse off, after four years because of the results, not because of luck and fate alone.
Flint:
The imaginary keiths in your head is derailing you again. If you want to understand my position, please ignore him and read what I write instead. I’ve made my thinking explicit, but that’s for nought if you won’t read and understand my words. Of course presidential actions affect people’s lives, for good and for ill, and I have never stated otherwise.
What’s irrational is blindly using that question as the basis for voting decisions. As I said earlier:
Flint:
What’s irrational is assuming that if you’re better off, it’s because of the president, and if you’re worse off, it’s because of the president. It might or might not be because of the president. The “are you better off” question is too simplistic.
What’s irrational is thinking that if you’re better off, it’s because of the president, and if you’re worse off, it’s because of the president. It might or might not be because of the president. The “are you better off” question is too simplistic. (I’m hoping that repetition might penetrate.)
Your assumption about my assumption is incorrect.
The results depend on both luck and competence. The “are you better off” question fails to distinguish the two, making it problematic as a basis for voting decisions.
In my vignette, the plant manager didn’t cause the tornado. Humans don’t control the weather. The tornado was due to bad luck, not to incompetence. If the CEO asks the “am I better off than I was a month ago?” question, he’ll say that no, he’s worse off, because there was massive damage to his manufacturing plant. But if he concludes on that basis that the manager is incompetent, then he’s making a stupid mistake. The tornado was beyond the plant manager’s control, and he is not to blame for it. “Am I better off” is the wrong question for the CEO to ask. The right question is “Has the manager done a good job?” Judging by results alone is a mistake, both for the CEO and for voters, because results depend on both luck and competence.
Presidents decide stuff. When the president hides away from decisions or the decision works out not as intended, the president is said to be weak. Trump appears to be so strong on the decision front that he is well on his way to third term
https://iran-cost-ticker.com/
Ain’t it nice to be the wealthiest nation on earth? You can afford so many good things.
keiths,
Biden had supply limiting policies like limiting drilling and other supply limiting regulations. He also provided huge stimulus both adding to global inflation. Trump is right on this one.
Under Biden oil production was record high from Trump’s earlier record. You are always wrong on everything, as usual. You are all lies, no facts. You are lying on purpose, knowingly spreading false propaganda.
Trump lies about easily observable gas prices. Consider it a possibility that he is a liar.
colewd:
As Erik points out, oil production hit record highs under Biden.
Yellow is Trump, green is Biden.
ETA: Ironic that you mention oil, considering that Trump massively jacked up the price of both oil and gasoline in one week by starting the Iran war.
Gasoline was $2.98 a week ago. Now it’s\ $3.41. Crude oil is up 35%, which is the biggest increase in history. All of this in one week.
colewd:
You’re providing more examples of poor reasoning leading to bad voting choices (and cult membership), which I guess is good for the thread. It helps me make my point.
Besides getting the oil wrong, your thinking on the stimulus is also faulty. First, the stimulus only added to inflation. It didn’t create it. The main culprits were external, as I’ve already explained. If you’re going to judge Biden, it should be on the basis of his response to the economic crisis, not on the existence of the crisis itself, which Biden didn’t create. Trump, meanwhile, has been yammering about how inflation under Biden was the highest in history (which is already a lie), blaming him for all of the inflation and not taking external factors into account. He’s way off base, though whether that’s due to Trump’s dishonesty vs his economic illiteracy is debatable.
Second, it’s ludicrous to blame global inflation on Biden, given that everyone was subject to the same external factors: supply chain disruptions and energy price increases due to the Russia-Ukraine war. Also, economic stimulus was implemented across the world, not just in the US.
Third, economic stimulus stimulates the economy. That’s what it’s for. Inflationary pressure is an automatic side effect. The economy was in major trouble — high unemployment and low GDP growth — so stimulus was desirable, which is why countries around the world implemented it. If you want to judge Biden, it should be based on the question of whether the stimulus achieved the right balance of employment and GDP growth vs inflation, and whether Biden’s decisions made sense given the information available to him.
Fourth, there is zero evidence that Trump would have handled the crisis better than Biden, especially when you consider Trump’s economic illiteracy and the abject failure of his economic policies this term. For example, the economy was projected to add 57,000 jobs in February. Instead, it lost 92,000 — an underperformance of almost 150,000. Since April of 2025, when the tariffs were implemented, the economy hasn’t gained a single job. It’s lost 19,000. That’s pitiful but not unexpected, given Trump’s foolish policies.
All of which goes to show that anyone who thought “inflation was high under Biden, therefore I should vote for Trump” was making a stupid mistake. Ditto for the “am I better off than I was four years ago?” question.
keiths,
I love your rhetoric 🙂 You cannot have credibility without taking facts seriously.
You love Trump the liar, especially when he lies about gas prices and everything else in the economy. You hate facts.
colewd:
Write that on a Post-It note and stick it on your monitor.
colewd,
Here’s a fact for you to take seriously: oil hit $100 per barrel today. That’s entirely Trump-caused, due to his war.