Hodad

As usual, just petty nonsense and inane bluster from you. And, once again, you've inserted yourself into a conversation not to bring facts or evidence, but just to indulge in your endless circle-jerk about "the left." You're useless.

The great thing about free speech is that nobody can force you to deal in facts and truths. BUT, the trade-off is that we'll laugh at you for shouting out counterfactual opinions, the same way the world laughed at Trump. If you want to be taken seriously, don't say crazy shit.

Sorry, but Trump was the laughingstock. The United Nations assembly literally laughed at him while he was driving our international reputation to all-time lows. ^^ those are facts, not simply my opinion. It's also a fact that we're up significantly under Biden. It will take a while to fully wash off the Trump-stank, but we can do it if we recommit to living our values.

Trump would be very disappointed in these companies. They only managed to swindle his supporters out of tens of thousands of dollars. Pshaw. Amateurs.

1. YOU claimed that I "kind of proved his point." If you don't "give a shit" about his claim, then don't bring it up and don't make arguments about it. Duh. 2. You're continuing in ^^this post to try to defend his point, despite pretending not to care about his point. Lol 3. You are very bad at facts and math. 52% approve. 36% disapprove. 12% were not sure. One would have to be quite a dishonest twat to claim that people answering "not sure" had "a complete loss of respect" for the FBI. And even if one were that dishonest, they would have to be pretty dumb to think that 36%+12% is "more than half." Remarkable that you managed to do both at once. And lying about addressing his point? Well, that's a hat trick of crappiness. ?

Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. His claim was twofold: 1. "the FBI has completely lost the respect more than 50% of Americans" 2. The loss of respect was due to the actions related to Trump and Biden. I definitely disproved point 1 with quality data that shows only 36% of Americans disapprove of the FBI's performance, let alone "completely lost respect." And to point two, again, these numbers have been in the same range for more than 20 years. So there has been no dramatic repudiation of the the FBI. And again, the numbers were UP last year. (The longstanding general ambivalence toward the FBI likely has far more to do with their function as law enforcement than the whining of the MAGA cult.) That you imagined that I "kind of proved his point" by thoroughly disproving his point represents your usual grasp of the facts.

Nope. Not everyone lives in conspiracy land. Favorability of the FBI has hovered in about the same 10 point range for the last 20 years or more. There has been no mass rejection. In fact, favorability was up last year. And here's where it sits most recently. +16 is not too shabby. Trump would have killed for those numbers, but never came even close. lol It's particularly telling, after the crooks and liars spent the last few years waging a negative campaign against the FBI, because the FBI was investigating them. Turns out they aren't fans of accountability after all. Who knew?

Rather than cuisine and shopping, Ellensburg is most notable for the pervasive smell of cow shit. Lol

Yep, CRT is not "taught" in any schools until college, at a minimum, and it's typically graduate-level work. Rather, exactly as you describe, any mention of the historical oppression of Black Americans is categorized by the ignorant as CRT. CRT has been an academic subject for decades, but three years ago the conservative culture warriors decided to market it as enemy #1 and now the Fox News crowd is up in arms. But if you offered most of them $100 on the spot to define it they wouldn't be able to come close.

I'm constantly trying to get some sodomy. I will (and do) definitely celebrate.

And you're a know-nothing fanboy, as demonstrated handily this, your most recent post. Can't excuse your way out of that. ? Nobody "turns off" deficit spending. It's not a faucet. You gradually wind it down to avoid shocking and disrupting the recovery as growth closes the gap from the other side. You have no idea what you're talking about. Congrats. ^^This is now one of the dumbest things on the internet. You may be the only person in the world who believes that massive disruption to productivity, consumer activity, employment and supply chains do not constitute a financial crisis. And what you describe as Biden's overreaction was in fact less action than Trump (hence why the deficits decreased rather than increased) and the inflation is mostly a product of the supply chain disruption and the interest rates are standard remedy to inflation. You clearly do not understand how these things relate to one another in an economy. As who previously noted? Regardless, it's more fanboy crap. The GDP under Trump was not better, let alone "far better." Coming out of the Great Recession while reducing deficits the Obama economy was nearly identical to what Trump managed--except that Trump had no recovery to manage while growing the deficits. WTF is wrong with you? Do you really think the average deficit of an administration recovering from the Great Recession should be compared to the average deficit of a post-recovery administration facing no such challenge? That's asinine. What you should be paying attention to is the direction that the administrations moved--the turning points. No POTUS has control over what they inherit. Instead, fiscal responsibility is graded on what they do with the hands they were dealt. Obama started with a huge recovery deficit and brought it down gradually over his time in office as the recovery allowed. And in contrast, Trump took the progress made reducing deficits and reversed course to drive them back up--for various stupid reasons, but mostly fan service. And again, contrasted with Biden, who inherited a dumpster fire and has been navigating a recovery while still reducing deficits. None of these presidents is going to go down in history as fiscal conservatives, but the contrast between the two who were trying to put out (or at least manage) raging fires of deficit and the one who threw thought it would be fun to throw on more gas.

I'm not "triggered." That was a factual statement. You are woefully ignorant, but still defending Trump out of some misplaced sense of admiration. It is a fact that Obama inherited a financial crisis and massive deficits from the final Bush budget. It's also a fact that those deficits came down steadily over Obama's years in office. It is a fact that Biden inherited a financial crisis and record deficits from Trump's final budget. It's also a fact that the deficits have come down under Biden. It is a fact that Trump inherited a healthy, growing economy and downward-trending deficits and then electively increased the deficits to very high levels even before the pandemic. It is a fact that he squandered the opportunity to reduce deficit and debt as he promised, and instead chose to do the opposite. It is a fact that it left us in a much poorer position to respond economically to the pandemic. It is a fact that he is a record-setting debt monster as befits the self-styled "king of debt." -- “I’m the king of debt. I’m great with debt. Nobody knows debt better than me.” There is nothing good, let alone great about Trump's economic record. It was a healthy-seeming but fragile economy propped up by a lot of borrowing and ill prepared to deal with pandemic response. And as a result we have record deficit and debt that will be a drag on future economies for decades. Or the illustrated version: When you don't know anything "kiddo" just shut up and let the conversation pass by.

No, you know-nothing fanboy. Deficit spending to moderate or reverse recession is sound policy. Obama and Biden both took office during economic crises, inherited huge deficits and reduced those deficits over the course of their terms as the economy improved. Trump inherited a healthy economy and then cut taxes (significantly and electively increasing deficits) in an attempt to chase the unrealistic growth promises he made. Which a) didn't work (duh) and b) left us already overextended when he needed to react to COVID. As usual, he farked us over to feed his ego

The Murdoch family learned from history to avoid repeating past mistakes. After all, if they don't defend the nazis then who will? "First they came for the nazis, and no one spoke out. Then they came for the fascists, and no one spoke out. And when, finally, they came for the propagandists, there was no one left to speak."

Yes, I'm sure, for example, that running huge elective deficits with poor ROI was super helpful when we had to stack COVID deficits on top of them. ?

Nah, he was a victim of bad luck, but not just a victim of bad luck. He recklessly pulled the levers to goose an already healthy economy (to stoke his own ego) and then had nothing left to throw at a real problem when one arose. One of the many instances in which Trump prioritized his own interests above those of the country. To be clear, COVID was going to do serious damage either way, but Trump's earlier actions compounded the harm. He doesn't get a free pass.

I dunno. Was it really over the top, or exactly commensurate with the persistent, chaotic, norm- breaking behavior of the most powerful person on the planet? Whoever sits in the oval office gets that kind of scrutiny. Whenever they say something dumb or crazy or reckless or deplorable they get heavy press. Trump just did those things are an unprecedented level, constantly, from midnight tweets to ego rallies to press events. Frankly, he did it with such volume that a lot of it sailed by. They're is only so much outrage to go around in a 24 hour news cycle. We had to triage.

Eh, it's Florida. They are probably just offended that any poetry is in schools. It is the gayest form of written communication, after all.? But seriously, Republican presidential candidate DeSantis is doing his damnedest to create a state in which ideas outside of white, heteronormative, heterodoxy cannot be spoken in schools. Small government, and all...

Jeebus, you have moved into pole position for the most profoundly dishonest poster. The idea that one can look at *hundreds* of pages of evidence and then say out the other side of their mouth that there is "no evidence" is appalling. You can correctly say that Mueller determined that he couldn't get a conviction with the evidence he had at the time, but to say there is no evidence--particularly as it's been spoon fed to--is a bald faced lie.

No, it's a huge stretch. I'm not sure what you've heard about the Democratic primary that year, but it's nothing to do with voting hanky panky. Everything went down according to the voting rules and processes everyone knew getting into the race. It's okay if you don't like the notion of super delegates, or didn't know about it beforehand, but the candidates all knew what they had to do to win.

You are lying, plain and simple. That's why you can't cite any such finding. The Mueller report DOES NOT say there is no evidence. It literally spends *hundreds* of pages laying out evidence. What Mueller concluded is that due to obstruction, deletion and destruction of evidence, lying, taking the 5th etc., he could not build a legal case beyond a reasonable doubt. In his own words, explicitly, Mueller refused to exonerate Trump Mueller hit a wall in terms of a prosecutable case on any of the collusive activities, but he uncovered a ton of evidence. And the Senate committee added a lot more. And further investigations build on that. At this point it isn't a question if whether there was collusion, but rather if anyone will be held accountable for the shit that has been confirmed. The DOJ policy is not to prosecute sitting presidents. There was really no question of Trump being tried in a regular court. He was impeached and tried, but Republicans choose party over country.

Are you talking about the primaries? I'm not a Democrat, but each party sets the rules for their primaries and there is a lot of stuff that goes on behind the scenes to promote more viable candidates. Welcome to politics.

Yeah, like how there's no evidence that OJ did it! You are simply and shamelessly lying. The FBi, the Mueller investigation, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the follow up from Treasury ALL found significant evidence. It's been presented to you dozens of times. You simply pretend it doesn't exist. It maybe it's hard to see even a mountain of evidence with your head so far up Trump's ass? In either case, you're not fooling anyone. The evidence is there for all to see. He was not tried by his peers, but acquitted as a matter of partisan certainty. And just as certainly, his campaign colluded with Russia in an effort to win the election. That's exactly what Manafort was doing. That's exactly what Stone was doing. And it's exactly why he pardoned them instead of feeling betrayed by the criminals within his organization.

Jeebus, "kid," did you sleep through that election cycle? *Many* things happened in concert. As had been documented and shared here many times. You just don't care. It's yet another deflection. The volume and specificity of the internet influence campaign jumped after Mandatory started sharing Intel. Roger Stone was in regular contact with WikiLeaks about the Russian hack and leak- and the Trump campaign even teased early releases--all while Assange was trying to get Putin to give him asylum. And Trump offered to pardon Assange (as he did Manafort and Stone) if Assange would lie about the fact that the Russian hack and leak was the source. And the FBI did not conclude what you claim. There's a mountain of evidence. But there are certain challenges to closing a case when half of the action is in Russia and presidential pardons are being brokered for silence. If you're even a tiny bit honest with yourself and imagine that even a fraction of this shit happened in a democratic campaign you'd be appalled. I mean, FFS, Hillary's contracted law firm hired a standard research agency, who hired a retired British spy, who interviewed sources in Russia about things that allegedly happened in/with Russia, and the wingnuts here are concocting fantasies about collusion.

A. They were right. B. Trump, the the only twice-impeached president and the only president to attempt a coup to remain in power, is an historically awful president, and is already being recorded as such. That will be his legacy. The only positive thing about his single term in office was the economy, which managed for some while not to fark up--until he did.