Trump Question
londonguy
Breathe, breathe in the air
I've read a few times about Trump giving indications that he is going to run for President in 2024. Some questions for you as I don't know how your system works. If he does decide to run does he have to be chosen to run by the Republican Party first? If that is the case is he taking it for granted he will choose him as their candidate? If they don't choose him can he still run as an Independent or something but if he does that would he split the Republican vote down the middle?
92 comments
The last time someone made a statement like that, he won the nomination and the presidency.
No idea if he can actually win the presidency again but he would easily get the nomination. And it wouldn't even be close.
There are two ways for the democrat party candidate to win in 2024
1) Fracture the Republican vote
2) Election fraud
I also agree with skibum’s assessment of the Republican party’s 2024 selections.
Yeah, like Hillary Clinton claiming Trump was an illegitimate president installed by Putin. Or Stacey Abrams denying that Kemp was the rightfully elected governor of Georgia.
FYI london guy… you really should’ve posted this in the political discussion forum.
Does it really matter whether it’s posted in the Front Room or the Political Forum?
All the forums come across on my feed and I don’t see a way to block (or sort) other forums such as Political or TJ
but founder did create the political forum.
Trump is smart enough to realize if he runs and loses his legacy is severely tarnished. He can opt out instead and play kingmaker. R’s do have a legit plan B, the D’s are in a mess because no one is there.
I think after midterms many D’s break rank and guys like Gavin Newsome begin jockeying for position
Most people think he'll run (and likely why the Dems continue to go after him) - but as has been mentioned good-chance he gets kneecapped by the swamp - also; IDK if he and DeSantis want to go head-to-head so part-of-me thinks they may work something out and one may not run - and there can be other variables.
Yes, because then some of us can filter out the entire thing during election time. Or pandemic time. Or attempting to peacefully overrun the US Capitol time. A while back founder asked if the peanut gallery wanted to keep separate forums, and nearly everyone around at the time agreed with keeping a separate forum for politics.
I agree with that. I was playing around and I guess you can filter out the unwanted ones, but hiding would be a nice option
That said, if he doesn't officially declare before the end of 2022, the odds are much lower he's going to make a serious run. He does NOT want to lose.
Trump would likely have a higher-net-worth if he would've never gotten into politics - the same cannot be said for career-grifter Biden.
LOL
But he ultimately won't run. I could be wrong, but I don't believe he wants the constraints and the added scrutiny of being President when he can leverage being a former President at a fraction of the effort.
I also think that the Republican Party is done with the turmoil that comes with Trump as President. No one wants to have their name in the credits for "January 6 II: Electric Boogaloo".
Depending on what happens on Tuesday, then in 2024, something similar could happen on a national level. the power may shift to Congress, making who wins the Presidency far less important.
In 2024, the Dems will defend 23 vs the GOP's 10. Several of those Dems (Tester in MT and Manchin in WV) are running in deep red states.
It's an outside shot in this polarized age, but strong GOP 2022 and 2024 could set up a filibuster-proof majority for President DeSantis.
I will play along and comment on your discussion.
Everyone in the world knows the undeniable reality that economic elites run the show in the United States, but many inside the USA live in denial.
The economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have but absolute control on U.S. government policy, while average citizens have little to no independent influence
America is not a Democracy, but an Oligarchy of wealthy individuals, an undeniable reality.
So it Doesn’t Mater what happens with Trump, because it’s never been about left vs right or Democrats vs Republicans, or the North vs the South, etc etc etc.
“More like 0.1% of regular ass humans (the oligarchs, the so called founding fathers, the politicians, the religious leaders, the puppet presidents, the rich and powerful, etc etc) tricking the rest of us into fighting among ourselves while they rob us blind.”
~ SanchoRG, Texas
~ Joined Aug, 2017 Last Seen Nov, 2021
This thread is a perfect example.
You are welcome.
Per the article-below; the last filibuster-proof majority was in 1979 when the Dems had 62 Senate-seats:
https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20…
GOP could have one in 24. Need to be prepared for all the dirty tricks in the books for as long as it lasts.
But you are correct a divided government will be the result. And Republicans will be able to breathe a sigh of relief that they stopped the imaginary monster.
The "inflation reduction act" (never typed without quotes) was a mini version of Build Back Better, which is itself a mini version of the Green New Deal. Want more of that? Want more releases from the SPR and less energy exploration in America? Vote Democrat. It's a straight line. We vote for that, we get it.
Speaking of imaginary monsters, I'm hearing a lot of crap about the "end of democracy if you don't vote for us." I'm suffocating on the irony. That an ex-president with no power and little platform is going to rise from the dead, like a zombie, and consume America.
Right now, the main thing a Republican Congress can do is _stop_ the Biden agenda. And that's an awesome idea.
Soo...yea he says he is going to run to ship $$$. This is his last hurrah
No need for more right now. We now have the Inflation Reduction Act signed into law. It's a great piece of legislation including the following:
- controls costs for drugs covered under Medicare (addresses inflation)
- progressive taxation
- deficit reduction
- tax credits for renewable energy
- re-staff the IRS properly after being gutted by Trump
If I thought any of these were "eh" I'd say so. But they're all good.
Outside research shows no significant impact on inflation. Drug cost controls are already resulting in clinical trials not being performed and won't have a significant impact on overall drug spending. Look at pharma stocks since then.
Love how you say tax credits and deficit reduction in the same sentence. And look forward to your tone after you get audited. There aren't enough rich people to go after.
How's inflation looking these days anyways? Oops.
Yeah... that's half true.
Merck is at an all-time high. Oops
Those poor billionaires and mega corporations... trust me they'll be fine. But if you'd rather scrap cost controls on drugs that benefit millions of Americans, many on fixed incomes, in favor of protecting the profits of the top 0.1%, go ahead. It will be an uphill battle repealing that one.
I've wondered sometimes if I should file a gift tax return (below the per-recipient deductable amount) for a few of my longer-term OTC favs. So they could buy a car or something, without potentially getting mar-a-lagoed by federal agents. Anyone ever done that?
You're showing an impressive ability not to get it. If that bill reduced drug spend, pharma stocks would have dived, not hit all time highs. Especially with Merck's Keytruda at the top of the list. Thanks for making my point.
When bills have actually cut spending, like PAMA for labs, their stocks dove 20% in a day.
In fact, by repealing the Trump rebate law, the "inflation reduction act" takes those small savings and funnels them right to PBMs and insurers. Bra fucking vo.
This is what I study for a living. Come back better prepared than democratic talking points
Your point was, and is, incoherent.
The IRA has been advertised and is expected to provide financial benefits to millions of seniors who have difficulty affording their medications. Do you refute this or not? Don't deflect to some other tangential point, just answer the question.
If a company's revenues are expected to decrease, their stock falls. That did not happen. We've seen stock price dives happen in direct response to government regulations. Hence the lab industry precedent that I mentioned.
Can you understand how outside news affects a stock price?
You yourself pointed out Merck's share price hit a record--if the "inflation reduction act" was expected to decrease their revenues, this would not have happened.
If you can't comprehend this, I give up, since I can't reduce it to grunts.
"The IRA has been advertised and is expected to provide financial benefits to millions of seniors who have difficulty affording their medications. Do you refute this or not? Don't deflect to some other tangential point, just answer the question."
It provides subsidies for seniors. Subsidies cost money. This is guaranteed spending. Drug price "negotiation" (which is actually price fixing) will decrease spending by not even 3%. There's your "savings," not enough to even be a speedbump in their stock prices.
I could get into where the price of insulin comes from (not pharma, but PBMs and insurers), but when presented info contrary to White House sound bites, you're sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalaIcanthearyou"
It’s no wonder Trump put a shot across the bow. He’s letting Desantis know he can turn his 70 million followers against Desantis if he runs in 2024. That would permanently end his Presidential prospects.
If he tries to run in 2022, it will be a mistake ( unless Trump dies, shows signs of age, etc ). The smart move would be to focus on Florida for his full term ( like he promised ) then run in 2028.
You were noting that some clinical trials were being cancelled, which implies some belt-tightening by big pharma. When you pointed to the stock price, it seemed logical that you were implying an unfavorable impact of IRA on pharma, which would align with big pharma CEOs having been against the bill. This has certainly been written about.
https://www.kiplinger.com/investing/6050…
This article states: "Overall, according to UBS estimates, the impact equates to less than 3% of global biopharma industry earnings over a 10-year time frame."
So I think we agree the IRA won't have a major impact on big pharma profits.
However, that 3% could be huge for helping subsidize drug costs for American seniors. While you acknowledged the benefit to seniors, you seem to be largely deflecting by wading into the sausage making. For average Americans it's not complicated, this component of the IRA is highly welcome news.
If it doesn't materially reduce revenues, it isn't going to materially save the consumer dollars. The difference has to be made up by the government, i.e spending which means inflation.
As a matter of fact, the rebate rule rewards PBMs and insurers who literally add nothing to the process. Both parties need to look at removing their influence in the system.
55
Don't assign a clinical diagnosis to something that can be more easily explained by being a giant asshole. It's an insult to those who are actually autistic.* Trump said worse things about Tex Cruz (and his wife) and Cruz happily forgot it all to stay on the good side of Trump's voting base. Trump can and likely does expect DeSantis to behave exactly the same way.
====
* Thank God a certain someone appears to be AWOL or else mentioning the "A" word would earn about 800 posts over the course of a year or two.
Teasing his candidacy is better for "ratings," even if it does inject turmoil into the Republican Party. It's also a better negotiating position for him to extract favors from the GOP.
@mike710 - No the 3% is the impact on big pharma companies. The impact on seniors will potentially be far greater, due to provisions such as the $2000 cap on out-of-pocket expenses. For example, some seniors are paying more than 4K out-of-pocket a year on certain drugs. With the 2K cap that's a savings of 2K or 100%.
I'd love Trump to disappear but know it won't happen except for health reasons.
Translation: Republicans want to require voter ID.
Sure but you can when it comes to trump campaign desantis
Electing Dolly Parton to the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame just further shows what a sham organization it is.
Sure, she is a very accomplished singer, songwriter, author, actress, business woman. And has h If the Democrats want to nominate someone who'll be over 75, they should nominate Dolly Parton. She e ad hits of many genres - country, gospel, country-pop, bluegrass
She’s funny and a super talented multi instrumentalist - but she ain’t Rock & Roll