Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Free speech is the bedrock of Democracy. That`s why we have the first amendment, and the second amendment is there to make sure we have the first amendment

Donald Trump had a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania this weekend, and he surprised the audience with Elon Musk on the stage. Musk made a strong endorsement of Donald Trump, casting the 2024 election as a pivotal moment for the future of American democracy.

Musk claimed that if Trump does not win, this could be «the last election,» positioning the election as a dire turning point for the country.

He also introduced himself humorously as «Dark MAGA,» suggesting an even more intense version of Trump`s «Make America Great Again» slogan.

As you may know, Elon Musk acquired Twitter and changed the name to X. Some people liked that, but others hated him for that. But why? Who are these people?

Musk`s speech focused on concerns about freedom of speech, the right to vote, and the Second Amendment, criticizing Democrats for attempting to curb these rights.

We now know that they are both working hard to try to Make America Great Again. Trump is fighting against the rotten system at the top of the pyramid. It`s about 10 percent, and many of them are unelected bureaucrats and leaders.

This is why we often hear Trump say: «Drain the Swamp.» And Elon Musk is joining Trump in the same boat. They both fight for freedom. And this is why Elon Musk spent a lot of money to acquire Twitter.

“Drain the swamp” is a political slogan popularized by Donald Trump during his 2016 presidential campaign. It refers to the idea of eliminating corruption, inefficiency, and special interests in Washington, D.C. The phrase implies that the federal government is like a swamp, filled with entrenched political elites, bureaucrats, and lobbyists, and that by “draining” it, the system can be cleaned up and made more accountable to the American people. It has since been used by various political movements to advocate for reform and transparency.

Free speech is the bedrock of Democracy. That`s why we have the first amendment, And the second amendment is there to make sure we have the first amendment, Trump must win to preserve the Constitution. He must win to preserve the democracy in America, This is a must-win situation, Musk said.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects several fundamental rights. It prohibits Congress from making laws that infringe on the freedoms of religion, speech, the press, assembly, and petition. This means individuals have the right to express themselves freely, practice their religion, and gather peacefully, as well as to criticize the government without fear of retaliation. The amendment is a cornerstone of American democracy and plays a crucial role in protecting civil liberties.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Ratified in 1791, its full text states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The amendment has been the subject of extensive legal and political debate, particularly concerning gun control and individual rights versus collective security.

The idea is that the people have the right to protect themselves from tyranny.

For example, the Nazis implemented gun control measures that disarmed many groups in Germany. After coming to power in 1933, the regime imposed strict regulations on firearm ownership. Laws were enacted that restricted access to guns, particularly targeting Jews and political opponents.

The Nazis believed that disarming these groups would reduce resistance to their regime. These measures were part of a broader strategy to consolidate power and eliminate dissent, which ultimately contributed to the regime’s oppressive policies.

They probably knew it was coming when they made the U.S. Constitution.

The United States Constitution was drafted in 1787 during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. It was signed on September 17, 1787, and ratified by the states in 1788, officially going into effect on March 4, 1789. The Constitution established the framework for the U.S. government and remains the supreme law of the land.

The United States Constitution is the world’s longest-surviving written charter of government. Its first three words – “We The People” – affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens.

The supremacy of the people through their elected representatives is recognized in Article I, which creates a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives. The positioning of Congress at the beginning of the Constitution affirms its status as the “First Branch” of the federal government.

For over two centuries, the Constitution has remained in force because its framers successfully separated and balanced governmental powers to safeguard the interests of majority rule and minority rights, liberty and equality, and of the federal and state governments.

More a concise statement of national principles than a detailed plan of governmental operation, the Constitution has evolved to meet the changing needs of a modern society profoundly different from the eighteenth-century world in which its creators lived. To date, the Constitution has been amended 27 times, most recently in 1992. The first ten amendments constitute the Bill of Rights.

After Musk`s takeover of Twitter (now X) in October 2022, he revealed many bad issues and made significant changes. One of the most important things he did was to look at the Twitter files.

Musk allowed journalists to access internal documents, referred to as the «Twitter Files,» which revealed how the company had handled certain high-profile controversies, including political censorship, content moderation, and decisions to suppress certain news stories. These revelations stirred debates about free speech and platform bias.

The revelations and subsequent changes Musk made have had a lasting impact on the platform`s functionality, user engagement, and its broader role in public discourse.

This is the most important election of our lifetime, Musk said. This is no ordinary election, he said. The other side wants to take away your freedom of speech. They will take away your right to have guns. They will also take away your right to vote, he said.

Elon Musk emphasized the importance of voter turnout, urging the crowd to vote. They have only 48 hours to register to vote in Georgia and Arizona. Two weeks for Pennsylvania. Elon Musk predicted that this would be the last election if people didn`t vote.

People on the other side hate Donald Trump and Elon Musk, and legacy media are telling you all that they are both a threat to Democracy. So, who do you want to vote for? Swamp or Trump?

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

While Oprah didn`t explicitly express shock, her surprise was evident in her body language and responses, particularly when Harris spoke about small business tax deductions

Donald Trump is warning all the American citizens about the Democrats and Kamala Harris. Trump played a clip from Kamala Harris` Oprah interview at a North Carolina rally. During Kamala Harris` recent interview with Oprah, a few moments stood out for their controversial nature.

One of the most notable comments was Harris admitting that she owns a gun and saying; «If somebody breaks into my house, they`re getting shot.» This blunt statement surprised Oprah and many viewers.

Some also criticized Harris for appearing out of touch when she discussed a $50,000 tax deduction for small businesses, which Oprah jokingly dismissed as «a tiny business,» further stirring online debates.

Oprah`s reaction to Kamala Harris during her interview seemed mixed, especially when Harris made some blunt remarks, like discussing her gun ownership and self-defense.

While Oprah didn`t explicitly express shock, her surprise was evident in her body language and responses, particularly when Harris spoke about small business tax deductions and made more direct comments on abortion and self-defense. Oprah`s lighthearted pushback, like calling a $50,000 tax deduction «tiny,» reflected moments where she seemed taken aback by Harris` statements.

Kamala Harris has faced criticism from various political commentators and the public, with some labeling her as «childish» or «empty» in terms of substance. These critiques often stem from her public speaking style, where her remarks can sometimes appear overly simplistic or filled with awkward laughter.

For example, her tendency to repeat basic talking points in interviews and speeches has led some to feel that she lacks depth on complex issues.

Opinions on her leadership vary widely, and while some view her as progressive and compassionate, others perceive her as lacking the gravitas expected of a vice president. Her approach to policy and communication is ineffective, and she`s too weak for a role as a representative of the U.S. This is not how a cheerleader acts. This is absolutely embarrassing. For the U.S., and for the free world.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Kamala Harris has proposed a federal ban on «price gouging» during times of crisis

Kamala Harris has been advocating for measures that some describe as attempts to control prices, particularly in response to inflation and rising costs of living. Specifically, she has proposed a federal ban on «price gouging,» which is intended to prevent companies from excessively raising prices on essential goods, such as groceries, during times of crisis.

Capitalists do not like this idea and claim that Harris and the Democrats are Communists. So, why did we spend so much time and money to end the Cold War if we want to control the prices like a Communist country?

During the Cold War, price gouging was a phenomenon that was observed primarily in capitalist countries, particularly during times of crisis, but the context in which it occurred and how it was addressed varied significantly between capitalist and communist states.

In communist countries (Eastern Bloc), price gouging as understood in capitalist terms was less common due to the centrally planned economies. Prices were typically set by the state, not by market forces, and essential goods were often heavily subsidized to ensure affordability for all citizens.

However, this system led to other problems, such as shortages and black markets, where goods could be sold at much higher prices than the official state prices.

In the Soviet Union, for example, shortages of consumer goods often led to long queues and the emergence of black markets where items were sold at inflated prices. While this wasn`t «price gouging» in the traditional capitalist sense (since it was not sanctioned by the market but rather occured outside the official economy) it was a response to the inefficiencies of the planned economy.

In these countries, the official rhetoric condemned profiteering and exploitation, which were seen as capitalist vices. However, the reality of scarcity and black markets meant that some forms of price manipulation and gouging did occur, though they were illegal and contrary to the ideals of the communist system.

In capitalist countries (Western Bloc), price gouging was most notable during economic crisis or emergencies. For example, during the oil crisis of the 1970s, gasoline prices in the United States surged dramatically, leading to accusations of price gouging by oil companies.

Similarly, during natural disasters or periods of scarcity, prices for essential goods could skyrocket. These instances were often met with public outcry and, in some cases, government intervention to cap prices or punish those who were seen as taking advantage of the situation.

The U.S government occasionally imposed price controls to prevent gouging, such as during World War II, and in the 1970s during the Nixon administration, which introduced price freezes and controls to combat inflation and prevent excessive profiteering.

The Cold War era thus illustrates the challenges both systems faced in managing the distribution and pricing of essential goods under different economic models.

But the Cold War is history. So, why are we talking about price gouging now?

It all started in 2018 in France. The Yellow Vest protesters were primarily protesting against the rising cost of living. The movement began in November 2018 as a grassroots protest against a proposed fuel tax hike, which many people felt disproportonately affected low-income and rural citizens who rely on cars for transportation.

The protest quickly grew into a broader movement against economic inequality, high taxes, and the perception that the government was out of touch with ordinary people. They shouted at Trump and his policy; lower taxes, peace, prosperity and freedom.

Legacy Media thought that the protesters were Right-Wing Extremists, but they were ordinary people in all ages. Legacy Media very often turned the picture up-side-down.

The initial trigger for the protests was the announcement of an increase in fuel taxes, which the government justified as part of its environmental policy to reduce carbon emissions. However, many protesters viewed this as an unfair burden on working-class people, particularly those living in rural areas who had few alternatives to driving. In addition, they also increased the cost on toll stations.

Protesters were angry about the difficulty of making ends meet, especially as wages had stagnated while the cost of essentials, including housing and energy, had continued to rise.

So, what is happening in a society when gasolin prices increase? Price on toll stations increase? Energy prices increse? Taxes increase?

The food prices increase.

A study from 2024 showed that oftentimes when allegations of «price gouging» are made, the profit margins of sellers and vendors is substantially lower than critics believe, such as in the case of grocers recently accused of «price gouging» who actually had a 1,2% profit margin after expenses, with Kroger having their highest profits in the previous 15 years occuring in 2018 at 3%.

In March 2024, the Federal Trade Commission accused grocery chains in the U.S. of price gouging. The Commission also sued to block the proposed acquisition of Albertsons by Kroger citing the need for more competition to keep prices down.

In Australia in 2023 and 2024, major supermarket chains Coles and Woolworths received criticism as price gouging, especially in less competitive markets. Coles and Woolworths control 65% of Australia`s grocery market.

A 2022 Working Paper by the International Monetary Fund explores the implementation of windfall profit taxes (higher tax rate on profits), which have gained renewed interest following the COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and subsequent surges in energy and food prices.

The paper discusses the potential of such taxes as a tool for efficently taxing economic rents, which are often a result of monopolistic power or unexpected events like pandemics, war, or natural disasters, and contribute to windfall profits. Such profits have raised public and policy concerns about price gouging, where firms are perceived to be profiting excessively from unforseen circumstances.

Price gouging is a pejorative term used to refer to the practice of increasing the prices of goods, services, or commodities to a level much higher than is considered reasonable or fair by some. This commonly applies to price increases of basic necessities after natural disasters.

Usually, this event occurs after a demand or supply shock. The term can also be used to refer to profits obtained by practices inconsistent with a competitive free market, or to windfall profits.

In some jurisdictions of the United States during civil emergencies, price gouging is a specific crime.

Price gouging is considered by some to be exploitative and unethical and by others to be a simple result of supply and demand.

Price gouging is similar to profiteering (unethical) but can be distinguished by being short-term and localized and by being restricted to essentials such as food, clothing, shelter, medicine, and equipment needed to preserve life and property.

In jurisdictions where there is no such crime, the term may still be used to pressure firms to refrain from such behavior. The term is used directly in laws and regulations in the United States and Canada, but legislation exists internationally with similar regulatory purpose under existing competition laws.

It is sometimes used to refer to practices of a coercive monopoly that raises prices above the market rate by deliberately curtailing production. Alternatively, it may refer to suppliers’ benefiting to excess from a short-term change in the demand curve.

Price gouging became highly prevalent in news media in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, when state price gouging regulations went into effect due to the national emergency. The rise in public discourse was associated with increased shortages related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The resulting inflation after the pandemic has also been blamed, at least in part by some on price gouging. During the pandemic, the idea of «Greedflation» or seller’s inflation also moved out of the progressive economics fringe by 2023 to be embraced by some mainstream economists, policymakers and business press.

There is some price gouging-related lawsuits during the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to the issuance of emergency price gouging regulations, multiple state attorneys general and federal agencies have investigated potential cases of price gouging impacting consumers and agencies. Since regulatory measures vary in states, there is no uniform interpretation of price gouging violations, and it is left to state courts to decide.

On August 11, 2020, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued Hillandale Farms, one of the largest U.S egg producers, for allegedly price gouging more than four million cartons of eggs by increasing prices by almost five times during the pandemic.

The lawsuit alleges that the price increases were an effort to profit off of higher consumer demand during the pandemic. To Settle the lawsuit, Hillandale Farms agreed to donate 1,2 million eggs to New York food banks.

As of March 2021, Proskauer Rose counted 42 states that have emergency regulations or price-gouging statutes. Price-gouging is often defined in terms of the three criteria listed below:

  1. Period of emergency: The majority of laws apply only to price shifts during a declared state of emergency or disaster.
  2. Necessary items: Most laws apply exclusively to items essential to servival, such as food, water, and housing.
  3. Price ceilings: Laws limit the maximum price that can be charged for given goods.

Washington state does not have a specific statue addressing price gouging, can nevertheless have sought to apply its consumer protection act to argue that high prices during COVID-19 for PPE was an «unfair» or «deceptive» practice.

Statutory prohibitions on price gouging become effective once a state of emergency has been declared. States have legislated different requirements for who must declare a statae of emergency for the law to go into effect.

Some state statues that prohibit price gouging, including those of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and Ohio, prohibit price increases only once the President of the United States or the state`s governor has declared a state of emergency in the impacted region.

The EU does not include «price gouging» explicitly in regulation. Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is «aimed at preventing undertakings who hold a dominant position in a market from abusing that position.»

As stated, «such abuse may, in particular, consist in: a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase of selling prices or other unfair trading conditions….»

In 2016, the EU Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager stated that the EU Commission will «intervene directly to correct excessively high prices» specifically within the gas industry, pharmaceutical industry and in cases of abuse of standard-essential patents.

They attack grocery stores with 1,6% profit margin. But what about the oil industry with their profit margin of 30 percent? The Pharmaceutical companies also have up to 30 percent profit margins.

The profit margin in the pharmaceutical industry can vary widely depending on factors such as the type of company (e.g., big pharma, biotech, generic manufacturers), the specific market, and the company’s business model. However, in general, the pharmaceutical industry is known for having relatively high profit margins compared to many other sectors.

For major pharmaceutical companies, profit margins can often be quite high. Net profit margins for large pharmaceutical companies typically range from 15% to 30%. This is due to a combination of high revenue from patented drugs, substantial investment in research and development, and significant pricing power in many markets.

A few large multinational corporations dominate the global oil market, which is characteristic of an oligopoly. This market structure means that while no single company controls the entire market, a small group of powerful companies can influence supply, pricing, and market conditions.

OPEC, made up of major oil-exporting countries, acts like a cartel by coordinating production levels among its members to influence global oil prices. While not a monopoly, OPEC wields significant power over global oil supply and prices by adjusting output based on market conditions.

Allocative efficiency holds that when prices function properly, markets tend to allocate resources to their most valued uses. In turn, those who value the good the most and are able to afford it will pay a higher price than those who do not value the good as much or who are unable to afford it.

According to Friedrich Hayek in «The use of Knowledge in Society» (1945), prices can act to coordinate the separate actions of different people as they seek to satisfy their desires.

Economist Thomas Sowell argue that laws prohibiting price gouging worsens emergencies for both buyers and sellers.

So, let`s hope for a free market unless a crisis occurs.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Kamala Harris lied and said Trump will hike the taxes

Vice President Kamala Harris said in a speech at the DNC convention, that Donald Trump doesn`t fight for the middle class people. She said he is fighting for himself, and his rich friends. Instead of a Trump tax hike, we will pass a middle-class tax cut, she said.

When did Trump say he is planning a tax hike? Never. Trump and the Republicans stand for the opposite. They want to cut taxes and it is their core values. It is the Democrats that want to increase the taxes.

Harris’ economic proposal is 28% corporate tax. 44,6% capital gains tax. 25% tax on unrealized gains. Price controls. No tax on tips, and up to $6K Child tax credit.

Many people do not understand politics, and they don`t know the difference between left and right. They don`t understand the difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

The Democrats on the left side want to steal as much money as they can from people. Republicans do the opposite, and tax cuts are very important to Republicans.

Tax cuts are a significant priority for Republicans in the U.S. Tax policy has been a central issue for the Republican Party for many decades, with tax cuts often being at the forefront of their economic agenda. Here are a few key reasons why tax cuts are important to Republicans:

LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Tax cuts are seen as a way to limit the size and scoop of government. By reducing the amount of revenue the government collects, Republicans aim to curb government spending and encourage more efficient use of resources.

SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS: This economic theory, often associated with Republican policy, suggests that lower taxes lead to increased production, investment, and innovation, which in turn can boost overall economic activity and eventually increase government revenue despite the lower tax rates.

INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM: Many Republicans believe that individuals should have the freedom to spend and invest their money as they see fit, rather than having the government take a larger share through taxation. Tax cuts are seen as a way to enhance personal liberty by reducing government intervention in people`s financial lives.

POLITICAL IDENTITY: Tax cuts have become a core part of the Republican Party`s identity. Prominent Republican leaders, such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, have implemented significant tax cuts during their administrations, reinforcing the party`s commitment to this issue.

Harris said she want to cut taxes, and you can see thousands of people at the DNC convention agree with her, but this is a Republican policy. Saying that Trump will hike taxes is a BIG LIE.

You can also see that nearly all the Democrats Freedom banners, but this is a Republican agenda. They are stealing everything that Trump and the Republicans stands for. Why? They don`t have their own agenda. They don`t have a clear vision for the future. This is embarrassing.

Tax cuts are a cornerstone of Republican economic philosophy, reflecting their broader goals of promoting economic growth, limiting government, and enhancing individual freedom.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Kamala Harris attacked Donald Trump with lies

Kamala Harris made a speech at the DNC convention party this week, and she warned about the chaos in the White House if Trump is elected. The consequences will be serious, she said. And Michelle Obama mocked Trump`s «black jobs» remark.

What planet are they living on? And who in the world believed all this BS? Trumps Tax cut and Jobs Act of 2017 lowered the corporate tax rate from 35% and stimulated business investments, and economic growth. This also included tax cuts for individuals.

Kamala Harris and Joe Biden did the opposite. They increased the taxes. Increased the cost of living, and the inflation skyrocketed. People today, say they had a better life under Trump than they have under Biden and Harris today.

The tax cuts had a huge impact on the society. The U.S. saw significant job growth, with unemployment reaching a 50-year low of 3,5% in February 2020. This included record-low unemployment rates for African Americans, Hispanics, and women.

As a result of all that Trump has done, the stock market saw substantial gains, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500 reacting record-highs during his term, which benefited investors and retirement accounts.

Trump stands for Peace and Prosperity, and Trump is the only president in many decades that haven`t started a war. The Trump administration brokered the Abraham Accords, which led to normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab nations.

Not only that. Trump is also the man who pushed for NATO allies to increase their defense spending arguing that the U.S was bearing too much of the financial burden. By the end of his term, several NATO countries had increased their contribution.

Not only that. Trump is a businessman, and he knows how things are working in the business-world. He renegotiated NAFTA, leading to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which aimed to create more balanced trade terms for the U.S.

He also implemented tariffs and took a tough stance on China to address trade imbalances and protect American industries. This only a few things Trump did only because he wants to «Make America Great Again».

But Kamala Harris is not a businessman. Nor a businesswoman. She`s a lawyer. And in her speech, she was talking more about Trump than her own policies. Kamala Harris has made statements suggesting that Donald Trump acts primarily in his own self-interest. (Can you believe that?).

During her campaign as Joe Biden`s running mate in 2020, Harris frequently criticized Trump`s leadership and policies. In one of her statements, she said: «Donald Trump has been doing everything to benefit himself and his wealthy friends,» reflecting her view that Trump`s actions as president were motivated by personal gain rather than the broader interest of the American people.

The critique was part of her broader argument that Trump`s administration favored the wealthy and powerful at the expense of working-class Americans and marginalized communities. Harris and Biden both campaigned on the promise of more inclusive and equitable leadership, contrasting their approach with what they described as Trump`s self-serving tendencies.

This is extremely embarrassing because the Democrats have controlled the U.S. in 12 years out of 16. Trump controlled it for 4 years. But what`s strange to me is that Kamala Harris and the Democrats are blaming Trump for all the problems they have in the U.S. This is unbelievable.

As a Vice President, Kamala Harris could have done something about all the problems she is blaming Trump for, but she has been invisible. Most people in the U.S. do not know who she is and what she stands for.

Blaming Trump for all the problems is not a good sign, and the question of whether Kamala Harris would be the right person to serve as President of the United States is subjective and depends on one`s political views, priorities, and perspectives on leadership qualities.

Harris`s approval rating has been mixed, and she has faced criticism from both sides of the political spectrum. Some voters question her effectiveness as Vice President and her ability to lead the nation.

Some critics have pointed out that Harris`s communication style can be perceived as unclear or overly caoutious, leading to questions about her ability to effectively convey her message and rally public support.

Kamala Harris has made statements that have been subject to public scrutiny and criticism. Some of these statements have been characterized by critics as confusing, awkward, or «stupid.» Here is a statement that has been discussed or mocked:

«WE MUST, TOGETHER, WORK TOGETHER TO SEE WHERE WE ARE, WHERE WE ARE HEADED, WHERE WE ARE GOING, AND OUR VISION FOR WHERE WE SHOULD BE, BUT ALSO SEE IT AS A MOMENT, YES, TO TOGETHER ADDRESS THE CHALLENGES AND TO WORK ON THE OPPORTUNITIES.»

This statement, made during a speech in 2022, was criticized for its redundancy and lack of clarity. Here is another one:

«Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia. Russia is a bigger country. Russia is a powerful country. Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine. So, basically, that`s wrong.»

What about this one:

«We are the United States of America because we are united…….because we are states.»

This comment, made during a public appearance, was mocked for stating the obvious in an awkward manner. What about this one:

«I think that there can be no higher priority than what we have been clear is our highest priority.»

Kamala Harris has a huge communication problem as she lacks Obama`s skills. The Democrats have a huge problem if this is an «Operation Female Obama project,»

Joe Biden`s farewell speech at the DNC on August 19, 2024, received mixed reviews as well. Some critics felt the speech lacked a clear vision for the future, especially in comparison to the forward-looking speeches typically expected at such events. This was seen as a missed opportunity to rally the party around a successor or new ideas.

Normally, the polls should make a huge bump by at least 10 points after a meeting with speeches like that, but not this time. Trump is still leading the polls, but Rasmussen Report says it`s going to be a close race.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Uncategorized