Hodad

Jeebus, apparently you are just plain dumb. Jack Smith didn't "give up," he charged Trump with multiple felonies. That's what the trial--one of many--will be for. And Trump absolutely did the things he's accused of doing. The only question is whether a jury will be convinced of the criminality of those actions and hold him accountable.

Laffer is largely discredited at this point. His theories were questionable to begin with, but when put into practice the experiment was objectively a failure. It failed again when W tried it. Like most religions, faith in the universal goodness of tax cuts went unrewarded. Reagan didn't grow revenues with tax cuts, as Laffer proposed. Taxes were cut dramatically and net revenue fell. And the economic growth came from both natural recovery and from massive deficit spending and debt accumulation. But, yes, GDP was up. And yes, there were new jobs--which is important, since now every family needs two of them to make ends meet. The "middle class" isn't a naturally occurring phenomenon. For the vast majority of history there was a small aristocracy, a slightly larger merchant/professional class, and everyone else peasants, paupers and serfs. America was the "land of opportunity" because it was untouched by European hands, a nation overflowing with land and resources. But in a property ownership society, how do you build and maintain a middle class after all the land and resources have been claimed? It doesn't take much--just some modest worker protections, a mildly defensive trade policy and a serious progressive tax scale. In the generation after the New Deal they had a good recipe to grow the middle class. The social policy sucked, but economically, that was the heyday of the white picket fence American dream. Reaganomics was a massive positive for China, but here at home income inequality has exploded and the middle class has become grist in the mill of economic pressures. Even the rise of the "knowledge worker" hasn't been enough to offset those changes (though it's critical to international competitiveness). Anyway, if you want a home for every family and a chicken in every pot, the 80s aren't your economic model. If you want a massive working class--struggling class--and a big lottery in which some will become unfathomably wealthy, Reagan's your guy.

Of course they did. That's not really debatable, even. They shifted favor to capital over labor, dramatically cutting taxes on the rich while busting unions, deregulating, unwinding the "New Deal" and eliminating economic protections--again, to benefit the wealthy. All of this was done based on the argument they the wealth would "trickle down" from the wealthy to everyone else. Of course, that was always a bogus idea. GHWB called it "Voodoo economics" and he was right. What actually-and predictably-happened is that the wealth did not "trickle down." Instead, income inequality exploded as we turned millionaires into billionaires and the middle class into the working poor. Literally everything you complain about economically is traced back to those policy shifts. Instead of making things here, capital sought cheap labor abroad. Instead of building things, we consume things others built. Instead of one person being able to support a family with a manufacturing job, out takes two adults working at Wal Mart. That's the weirdest thing about modern conservativism. It's a near-religious belief in the Reagan dogma. Rather than looking at the actual effects of the supply-side experiment, they complain about the outcomes and propose to"fix" them by doing even more of the same things that caused them.

Hey look. The guy who continually spams threads repeating himself is literally just repeating himself. I am shocked! And, FYI, you changed the numbering.

Do you mean before Reagan and the supply-siders gutted unions and dismantled the middle class?

2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 are entirely false, partially false or wildly misleading. Which, given your track record, counts as progress!

In an absolute sense, you're right, but we're not an absolute democracy. The Constitution exists to provide guardrails that protect and preserve the nation, even from the excesses of the population. It prohibits the election of a foreign citizen as President to prevent giving that power to someone loyal to another county. It prevents the election of someone who has engaged in insurrection because that person has already demonstrated that they are not loyal to the country, but to some other interest. It's unfathomable that people would want vote for someone who has already betrayed a constitutional oath and attempted to steal power and subvert the will of the people, but if people were inclined to do so (and apparently many are) the 14th amendment is the guardrail meant to prevent bad judgement from becoming a fatal mistake. A vote to end democracy is anti-democratic. Funny, but serious.

Jeebus, you're still climbing to a conspiracy theory that never made sense and was been thoroughly debunked years ago. And debunked on this forum multiple times, spoon feeding you. You're like one of the Q fools still waiting in Dallas for JFK to show up.

Jack Smith also didn't charge Trump with fraud. ?‍♂️ Nevertheless, both are true and the former is the cited reason of the Colorado courts.

Nah, Nordstrom is a victim of being squeezed between surging fast fashion and true luxury retail. The Ukrainians are innocent.

Yes, you all know what went down. You're just keeping the evidence safe in the super secret vault alongside the evidence of widespread election fraud in 2020 and the address of JFK's weekly poker game with Elvis and D.B. Cooper.?

Colorado Supreme Court has the backbone to enforce the law. I'm skeptical that the Trump-packed SCOTUS will have the same integrity, but these are thinking people rather than politicians and perhaps they've had enough of his destructive anti-democratic nonsense.

Fourth point: Bog stupid buffoons in North America--including those on this board--will immediately and nonsensically blame Joe Biden (and record domestic production) for any price increase at the pump. Because they don't even know enough to be embarrassed by that claim.

Well, it started out as just tawdry and trivial. Then you stated that a sex tape scandal more vile than a rape scandal. That's something that's hard to sweep under the rug. Good luck.

WTF does being gay have to do with it? A couple of people make a sex tape in the workplace. It's definitely inappropriate and a fireable offense, but office sex is pretty common and ultimately harmless. Aside from your delicate feelings, nobody actually got hurt. The fact that you think that's worse than rape speaks to the depth of your misogyny, and little else.

It's like you picked up a megaphone here and started shouting about your ignorance. If you don't know what Trump has been charged with--as detailed in some remarkably through indictments--then you are part of an extreme minority in the English speaking world. Everybody knows. There's no mystery about what Trump has done or the charges made against him. The only question is whether the juries will hold him accountable.

You're a shameless liar. As has been pointed out to you many times, Chauvin was not following protocol or training. He admitted that plainly in his own words in court. Your parents obviously did not raise you right. If you can't have the decency not to lie about everything, at least don't lie about the obvious and incontrovertible.

Your orange Messiah tried to stage a coup and you're shouting about how a bi-partisan bill represents Democrats approaching the Rubicon? Lol. Pipe down, lunatic. The grown ups are just trying to make sure they if Trump wins up in the white house instead of prison that he won't set the stage for WWII during a late nite poop-and-tweet. He's that petty and reckless.

It's one thing to be an lying, spiteful, a-hole I'm the political arena, but another level entirely for powerful people to attack and destroy the lives of innocent, regular citizens. The scumbag deserves this judgment richly. I wish he weren't already broke so that these poor women could get some actual compensation.

Oh no, the poor daft fool if telling us about his magic TV that shows the future again. Facts: Brown was killed on August 9. The video of his alleged robbery was released for the first time ever on August 15. It was covered as breaking news by FOX and CNN the same day. There is zero possibility that you saw that video on day 1. I've told you this many times. I've showed you the time-stamped screenshots. Either your conspiracy brain has rotted to the point at which it can no longer accept new information, or you're actively and deliberately lying again. I suspect the latter. CNN didn't lie about Michael Brown. They reported. As a FOX bobblehead you're probably unfamiliar with how that works, but the gist of it is that they hire reporters who talk to people with knowledge of the people and events being covered and then relay the gathered perspectives to the audience. CNN, reported that one of Michael Brown's family members described him as a gentle giant. They also reported the robbery as soon as the police released that information. Yes, they covered both stories and perspectives. It's called journalism, you dolt.

That incorrect. What Trumpco explicitly asked Zelensky to do was to publicly announce an investigation of the Bidens. That's why it was an illegal quid pro quo. If Zelensky would publicly cast shade on the Bidens, then Trump would release the already-approved military aid and set up and oval office visit. Trump didn't need Zelensky to actually find anything. He just needed the campaign fodder.

Let's not get bogged down in the details. If it feels good, do it.

? Jeebus, dude, are you trying to break everyone's irony detector? The guy literally got fired (and cost his company $800M) for selling you a "big lie." Not something wrong. Not a mistake. Not a different perspective. But a massive lie with massive implications that he knew all along was a lie. And, amazingly, even after the liars have admitted to lying to you, you STILL believe and repeat the lies. It's not just stupid. It's pitiful. Like, honestly deserving of pity. I want to give you a cookie and a stuffed animal.

FOX never had credibility. But you don't really need it with an audience so credulous. That's why they don't hire journalists, don't break news and don't win awards. But that's a double-edged sword. During the "big lie" you can see from the behind-the-scenes communications that they realized they had gone too far, but were afraid of the mob of rotten-brained sheep that they had both courted and created. They were so afraid of their own audience they just kept going--and paid the price.

Wrong thread? The topic here was, to paraphrase slightly, "Islam is an evil, violent religion because look at all the terrorists who are Muslim." And I made the point that Christians should probably not pull at that thread. Christians have killed vastly greater numbers of Muslims than Muslims have killed Christians. Again, the point being that if we're "judging" faiths according to body count, I don't think Christians are going to look very good.