Literally what worked and what didn’t. Everything is tainted with putler orange man bad. His coverage is 98% negative. The people dissecting him have an axe to grind and are hard to take seriously.
It is an answer. The legitimate things trump does wrong are drowned in the sea of biased reporting. Even now with the tariff talk. These false stories of companies skipping christmas bonuses and crying wolf. What happens when they really do put a tariff on something they shouldn’t. That’s going to be a blip and not be remembered. What if it does spur domestic manufacturing of something, won’t be covered either. You end up in a situation where people just tune in or tune out based on their bias and end up completely uninformed at both ends.
These false stories of companies skipping christmas bonuses and crying wolf.
Uh…those aren’t false. They’ve been cross checked with AP. Also, look at the trends from his first presidency and they follow. It’s not a surprise, at all.
What if it does spur domestic manufacturing of something
Because no one will notice when all those jobs are minimum wage, no protections, shit jobs. For example…the reason there’s so many Tech layoffs right now isn’t the economy. It’s because they figured out they can fire an FTE and rehire them on contract for 20-50k cheaper due to no benefits. Trump exempted them from overtime. He’s going to do that to factory workers as well.
And you can’t manufacture anything if you don’t have the materials to build. Check out what happened in Michigan with Foxconn.
Trump bankrupted a casino…it’s a business model where people walk in and hand you money. It’s damn near impossible to lose money in that model. But he did it somehow.
I asked what you thought a legitimate criticism (that wasn’t presented enough by media) was of Trump and you essentially just hand waved. If this is such a problem in your eyes surely you wouldn’t need to use Google or soul-seek to find an example.
Do you think him being convicted of sexual abuse was just “noise” that drowned out the actual problems? Is that something not worth informing voters about? I’m confused where you’re trying to draw the line here. Is the character of a candidate not to be scrutinized? Shouldn’t we try to be sure that a candidate will do the right thing even when it isn’t reported on?
Literally what worked and what didn’t. Everything is tainted with putler orange man bad. His coverage is 98% negative. The people dissecting him have an axe to grind and are hard to take seriously.
That’s not an answer at all.
It is an answer. The legitimate things trump does wrong are drowned in the sea of biased reporting. Even now with the tariff talk. These false stories of companies skipping christmas bonuses and crying wolf. What happens when they really do put a tariff on something they shouldn’t. That’s going to be a blip and not be remembered. What if it does spur domestic manufacturing of something, won’t be covered either. You end up in a situation where people just tune in or tune out based on their bias and end up completely uninformed at both ends.
Uh…those aren’t false. They’ve been cross checked with AP. Also, look at the trends from his first presidency and they follow. It’s not a surprise, at all.
Because no one will notice when all those jobs are minimum wage, no protections, shit jobs. For example…the reason there’s so many Tech layoffs right now isn’t the economy. It’s because they figured out they can fire an FTE and rehire them on contract for 20-50k cheaper due to no benefits. Trump exempted them from overtime. He’s going to do that to factory workers as well.
And you can’t manufacture anything if you don’t have the materials to build. Check out what happened in Michigan with Foxconn.
Trump bankrupted a casino…it’s a business model where people walk in and hand you money. It’s damn near impossible to lose money in that model. But he did it somehow.
I asked what you thought a legitimate criticism (that wasn’t presented enough by media) was of Trump and you essentially just hand waved. If this is such a problem in your eyes surely you wouldn’t need to use Google or soul-seek to find an example.
Do you think him being convicted of sexual abuse was just “noise” that drowned out the actual problems? Is that something not worth informing voters about? I’m confused where you’re trying to draw the line here. Is the character of a candidate not to be scrutinized? Shouldn’t we try to be sure that a candidate will do the right thing even when it isn’t reported on?