255

‘He doesn’t give a damn about people:’ Biden campaign hits Trump comments on economy crashing (thehill.com)

submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

President Biden’s reelection campaign bashed former President Trump on Tuesday after he said he hoped the U.S. economy would crash in the next 12 months, arguing he doesn’t care about people.

“Donald Trump should just say he doesn’t give a damn about people, because that’s exactly what he’s telling the American people when he says he hopes the economy crashes. In his relentless pursuit of power and retribution, Donald Trump is rooting for a reality where millions of Americans lose their jobs and live with the crushing anxiety of figuring out how to afford basic needs,” campaign manager Julie Chávez Rodríguez said.

Trump, in an interview with former Fox Business Network host Lou Dobbs on a network launched by MyPillow founder Mike Lindell, called the economy “fragile” and said he is hoping for a crash within the year.

top 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] autotldr 4 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

In his relentless pursuit of power and retribution, Donald Trump is rooting for a reality where millions of Americans lose their jobs and live with the crushing anxiety of figuring out how to afford basic needs,” campaign manager Julie Chávez Rodríguez said.

“And when there’s a crash — I hope it’s going to be during this next 12 months because I don’t want to be Herbert Hoover,” Trump said in the interview that aired Monday night.

Former President Hoover had been in office for just a few months when the stock market crashed in 1929, triggering the Great Depression.

Other Biden aides also bashed the comments, saying they were vile and that those who were hoping the economy failed were “revealing twisted true colors.”

Biden has hit the campaign trail with the message that his economic plan is working, arguing that the decline in inflation and low unemployment are proof of its success.

However, his economic agenda, dubbed Bidenomics, has largely fallen flat with voters, who according to polls do not give Biden credit for the improving economy.

The original article contains 383 words, the summary contains 177 words. Saved 54%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] 800XL@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Haha he doesn't want a crash because then he'd actually have to spend time making it look like he is doing anything for others than himself. Ane he's fucking dumb as rocks. Lol.

[+] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone -35 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Well of course not, he's a US president

[-] aew360@lemm.ee 11 points 10 months ago

Booo

[+] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone -19 points 10 months ago

Hey, don't boo me, if I made the world, they wouldn't all suck ass.

[-] scottywh@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

That's a super childish perspective.

[-] aew360@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

In modern history, I’m pretty big on FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, Carter, Obama, and unironically Biden. I know that he’s lost a lot of support over supporting Israel but Hamas needs to be destroyed. Not attacking them in Gaza is a mistake. What is a mistake is the shitstain Netanyahu and all of his soldiers that aren’t taking necessary precautions to prevent civilian casualties.

[-] Zorque@kbin.social 14 points 10 months ago

The way to destroy Hamas isn't through bombs, it's through peaceful coexistence between Palestinians and Israelis. Proving that you don't want that, by killing Palestinian civilians en masse, just fuels Hamas.

[-] anemoia_one@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 10 months ago

Sure, Israel is pursuing very shitty war crimes in an imperialist push

But

as taken from this comment

It seems that neither side is interested in a true two country solution.

https://feddit.de/comment/3746552

Here is a list of peace offers which would grant the Palestinians a country of their own, they refused all of them

1937 - Peel commission, rejected

1947 - Partition resolution, rejected

2000 - Camp David, rejected

2001 - Taba, rejected. Arafat starts the second intifada and a year later changes his mind.

2008 - Olmert offer, rejected

Hamas have tried to agree to boundaries Despite media attempts to portray it as a new Hamas charter, it is not. The new 'policy document' accepts the creation of a Palestinian state in 1967 borders, but still rejects Israel and claims its territory. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39775103

Here are some other noteworthy peace meeting or proposals from Israel to the rest if the Arab world, which were rejected

1919: Arabs of Palestine refused nominate representatives to the Paris Peace Conference.

1920: San Remo conference decisions, rejected.

1922: League of Nations decisions, rejected.

1937: Peel Commission partition proposal, rejected.

1938: Woodhead partition proposal, rejected

1947: UN General Assembly partition proposal (UNGAR 181), rejected.

1949: Israel's outstretched hand for peace (UNGAR 194), rejected.

1967: Israel's outstretched hand for peace (UNSCR 242), rejected.

1978: Begin/Sa’adat peace proposal, rejected (except for Egypt).

1994: Rabin/Hussein peace agreement, rejected by the rest of the Arab League (except for Egypt).

1995: Rabin's Contour-for-Peace, rejected.

2000: Barak/Clinton peace offer, rejected.

2001: Barak’s offer at Taba, rejected.

2005: Sharon's peace gesture, withdrawal from Gaza, rejected.

2008: Olmert/Bush peace offer, rejected.

2009 to 2021: Netanyahu's repeated invitations to peace talks, rejected.

2014: Kerry's Contour-for-Peace, rejected.

Not gonna link Trump's imbecilic peace plan as an example.

Here is a list of peace offers the Palestinians offered to Israel -

None

[-] aew360@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago

Bruh they literally just want to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth. Clinton came so fucking close to getting it done and Arafat shit on it. Fun fact, Netanyahu had just lost the election right before they came close to agreeing on a deal

[-] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 4 points 10 months ago

Or, is it possible that, under pressure from Clinton, Barak made an intentionally shitty offer that Arafat could not accept? In any case, there's the Arab Peace Initiative that put on the table several times a peace settlement based on the 1967 borders, which Israel never considered. Another fun fact: Israel facilitated the creation of Hamas as a way to counter Fatah and the PA, which were becoming too moderate, and too open to a deal.

In sum, the parent commenter has it right. Israel has had plenty of opportunities for peace, but has chosen to treat Palestinians like dirt with a brutal and grinding occupation. It's human nature that some would fight back.

[-] aew360@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

I was aware of the second fun fact. Netanyahu needed Hamas because he never wanted a deal. But I don’t think the deal was near as shitty as we think. That would have been a hell of a lot better than whatever the fuck is happening now.

It’s only human nature that they gang rape women until their genitals aren’t recognizable? What Hamas did was pure terrorism and in no way a natural human reaction. Much of their motivation came from wanting to destroy Israel, not wanting to live side-by-side with it

[-] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 1 points 10 months ago

And so does that justify Israel behaving just as badly? And Arafat should have taken Barak's shitty deal because of the atrocities that Israel is capable of unleashing? Brutalizing and killing a civilian population in order to achieve a political goal? That sounds a lot like the t word, too.

[-] Alto@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago

At what point does it stop being "aren't taking necessary precautions to prevent" and start becoming "active negligence to encourage"

[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Bibi allowed tons of funding to pass thru to Gaza. He knows what he did, is doing, and how that will play out favorably for his traitorous ass

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee -1 points 10 months ago

Is that just limited to the ones in office or are you counting the last one too?

this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024

255 points (96.4% liked)

politics

19104 readers

3570 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News