Tag Archives: Kamala Harris

Donald J. Trump and Capitalism won BIG

Donald J. Trump is the next U.S. President. However, the election has significant historical elements, given the polarization and the unique political landscape surrounding both candidates. This election marks the first time a former U.S. President has won a non-consecutive second term since Grover Cleveland in 1892.

This is also the first time since 2004 that a Republican has won the popular vote. The GOP nominee`s stunning political comeback came with a high margin of victory. Not only that. At 78, Trump will also become the oldest person elected to the country`s highest office.

The intense division and high voter turnout are also notable, showing a heightened level of public engagement. 63 million voted for Trump in 2016, but this time, as of writing, more than 70 million voted for him.

Trump won more votes in nearly all of the country, and he got support from Hispanic voters, black voters, working-class heroes, and a lot of young people. This is in line with what we also see in Europe. Young voters reject the leftist policy.

Picture: Fighter Donald Trump won big over Kamala Harris, Fight, fight, fight!

On Wednesday, Kamala Harris gave a speech, and she said that many people in the U.S. feel like the U.S. is entering a dark time. I hope that is not the case, Harris said. The media is also telling us that everything is dark now. Young people want to move to another country, legacy media is telling us.

But, wait a minute. What in the world is going on here? People on the left side, including legacy media are negative and live in darkness. It seems like they don`t believe in the future. But what about the next president? He cannot be in the same camp. Can he? No way.

Trump claimed victory at around 2.30 a.m., pledging to usher in a «golden age» for the United States of America, and «Make America Great Again.» (keep in mind that the stock market and the crypto market went straight up on Wednesday. Investors love Trump! A big win for capitalism).

Not only that. Furthermore, Trump said: «This is a movement like nobody`s ever seen before and, frankly, this was, I believe, the greatest political movement of all time. There`s never been anything like this in the history.»

We must remember that millions of people have rejected the leftists, and there must be a reason for that. This is not only happening in the U.S. but also in Europe. Elon Musk is one of them. He used to be on the left side politically, but now, he is a Republican. And he is not alone.

What makes me so angry is all the BS we hear from the leftists and the legacy media. Let`s take a look at Kamala`s speech today. For example, she said:

«A fundamental principle of American democracy is that when we lose an election, we accept the results. That principle, as much as any other, distinguishes democracy from monarchy or tyranny. And anyone who seeks the public trust must honor it.»

Let me remind you all of something nobody is talking about anymore. The Russia collusion. When Donald J. Trump won the election in 2016, the leftists, and the legacy media, claimed Trump and his campaign might have coordinated with Russian efforts to interfere in the U.S. election.

While several individuals associated with Trump`s campaign were investigated for potential ties to Russian operatives, Mueller`s final report did NOT establish sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign knowingly coordinated with Russian interference efforts.

The report did, however, detail numerous contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russian nationals, which raised ethical and legal concerns.

The investigation remains a significant and divisive topic, as its findings impacted U.S. political dynamics, the public’s trust in institutions, and discussions around election security.

We can all see how the leftists and the legacy media are hiding this. They started it all in 2016, and it has had a huge impact on voters. People on the left side are destroying their own party. And this is exactly what we all face now. The Democrats have lost credibility, and need to work hard to come back on track again. Voters can see it, and they are NOT stupid.

On top of that. Many people on the left and certain political figures claimed that Donald J. Trump`s victory in the 2016 election was illegitimate. Can you believe that?

These claims were based primarily on the interference of Russia in the 2016 election, as detailed in the Mueller Report, and the fact that Trump won the Electoral College while losing the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.

But it doesn`t stop here. We can all see how many people on the left side always attack people on the right side. Right after the U.S. election in 2016, the leftists started a campaign called

#NotMyPresident.

Following the election, many of Trump`s opponents used the hashtag #NotMyPresident, especially among liberal and left-wing groups, to express their rejection of his presidency, arguing that he did not win the election fairly.

But this, time Donald J. Trump won BIG! And that makes it difficult to deny the results. Therefore, Kamala Harris said in the speech on Wednesday: «Now, I know folks are feeling and experiencing a range of emotions right now. I get it. But we must accept the results of this election».

Yes, Kamala Harris. That`s right. More than 70 million voted for Trump and they aren`t stupid.

Let me finish this article by telling you what a democracy is:

Democracy is a system of government in which power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives. The core principle is that citizens have the right to participate in decision-making, typically through voting in elections, ensuring that the government reflects the will of the people.

The U.S. is often categorized as a democracy, but the United States is more often accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic. So, the United States is often described as both a democracy and a constitutional federal republic.

The U.S. is a federal republic, which means that it is made up of states that share sovereignty with a central government. The Constitution serves as the foundational legal framework that defines the structure of the government and the rights of the people.

The «Constitutional» part signifies the importance of these legal documents in limiting governmental power and protecting individual rights.

In essence, while the U.S. is a democracy in the sense that people vote and have a role in governance, it is also a constitutional federal republic because of the distribution of power between federal and state governments, and the rule of law established by the Constitution.

Finally, Abraham Lincoln said a democracy is «of the people, by the people, for the people.» The word democracy comes from the Greek words «demos,» meaning people, and «Kratos,» meaning power. So, democracy can be thought of as «the power of the people.»

It is a way of governing that depends on the will of the people. More than 70 million voted for Trump, and this is how a democracy works—it is the will of the people. Congratulations!

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