this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2024
81 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10181 readers
190 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Archived version

Yesterday, at the Economic Club of New York, one member asked Donald Trump a very specific question about his policy priorities:

“If you win in November, can you commit to prioritizing legislation to make child care affordable, and if so, what specific piece of legislation will you advance?”

Trump’s reply was not only not specific; it was incoherent. After a little throat-clearing about how “important” an issue child care is, he seemed to turn to a discussion of his nebulous idea to increase tariffs on foreign imports, although even that is hard to ascertain.

Trump said:

But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about, that—because, look, child care is child care. It’s, couldn’t—you know, there’s something … You have to have it. In this country, you have to have it.

But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to, but they’ll get used to it very quickly. And it’s not going to stop them from doing business with us, but they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country.

Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care, that it’s gonna take care. We’re gonna have—I, I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with, uh, the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country—because I have to stay with child care. I want to stay with child care, but those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I’m talking about, including growth.

But growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just, uh, that I just told you about. We’re gonna be taking in trillions of dollars, and as much as child care is talked about as being expensive, it’s, relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we’ll be taking in.

We’re going to make this into an incredible country that can afford to take care of its people, and then we’ll worry about the rest of the world. Let’s help other people. But we’re gonna take care of our country first. This is about America first. It’s about: Make America great again. We have to do it, because right now we’re a failing nation. So we’ll take care of it. Thank you. Very good question.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 42 points 2 months ago (3 children)

This is no different than he has been since he came down that escalator, this is how all his answers sound when they're about things he is ignorant of. Have we forgotten "look having nuclear" or countless other examples?

[–] scytale@lemm.ee 29 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, this is isn’t a “new level” of incoherence, it’s always been like that. It’s just being amplified more now that his opponent isn’t having age-related issues.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 19 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It is a new level of a news organization directly acknowledging how much word salad he spews instead of treating it as normal.

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Or filtering, paraphrasing and interpreting his rambling to the point that people watching at home think he is actually knowledgeable about these topics.