Hodad

You are embarrassingly dishonest . This is a direct quote: "This day of prayer was to remember the proclamation in May 1776 when George Washington made the proclamation of a national day of prayer as the founding fathers drafted the declaration of independence." You claimed that Washington made a "proclamation" of a "national" day of prayer. Which individual is empowered to proclaim a national day of anything? That's right, the POTUS. Was Washington POTUS in May of 1776? No, he wasn't. Was there a nation at that time? No, there wasn't. So just STFU about it. Jeebus.

Trump sued the Trump administration for $10B --and then agreed with himself to settle the suit with a $1.7B slush fund to dole out to his cronies and allies. No congressional approval. No judicial vetting. Just unregulated self dealing with taxpayer money. His biggest grift yet. And you cheer it on. Gross.

Well, that's a weird take. In the post to which you are replying I rather definitively refuted your comically absurd claim that (non-president) Washington issued a proclamation for a national day of prayer (before there was a nation) in May of 1776. I'm glad you've caught up to the correct decade for a Washington proclamation (you're welcome) but you'd have to actually make a cogent point to expect a refutation. WTF is your point? That the US is a Christian nation? It isn't, and was rendered deliberately so in the language of the constitution. Virtually every other government up to that point been predicated on divine right to rule. This was a government by and for the people. Yes, some of the founders were religious. But they deliberately restrained themselves from creating a religious government, because the endorsement of one is the exclusion of the others. It's secular for a reason, and to the benefit of every free person under the flag.

Are you just repeating stuff you found on Facebook or something? George Washington didn't "proclaim" a national anything in May of 1776. There was no nation! He didn't even become president until 1789. At that time he would have been a general in a militia in a British colony. You clearly have no knowledge of this period of history--the basic facts, let alone the philosophical underpinnings. I didn't say that the political figures were non-religious--though many key players were deistic rather than religious. I said that they were experienced enough to to understand that religious government is a terrible idea, and wise enough to write it out of our national foundation. It's not an accident. It was very deliberate.

I'm not. The people were largely Christians of various sects. The government was not. Very much by design. Remember that the colonists fled persecution at the hands of government-imposed religion. They undertook harrowing voyages across uncertain seas just to escape religious government and to live and worship freely. As products of that migration, the founders understood the the danger--the evil--of religious government. That's why they designed a government that was deliberately and explicitly not tied to religion. They understood that a secular government is the only way to guarantee religious freedom--including freedom from religion. So stop trying to fark it up with your nonsense. Believe whatever weird shit you want. Just leave it out of the law--as the founders did.

You're just flailing now. Again, "under god" was added in 1954. Learn and move on. We don't need 4 pages of back and forth trying to distract from your fumble. It's not a matter of me leaving god out. It's a matter of the founders leaving god out. A non-biblical, deistic "nature's god" appears in the declaration, but the constitution itself deliberately omits it, for the reasons mentioned above.

🙄I'm super worried about a history lesson from the guy who thinks the founders wrote the pledge of allegiance.

"One nation under god" has nothing at all to do with the founders. The pledge of allegiance didn't come around until the 1950s. The founders--quite intentionally-did NOT include any mentions of god/Jesus etc. in our constitution. It was omitted because the idea of a government of, by and for the people was a dramatic departure from the "divine rights" from which more primitive governments claimed to derive power. If you want to know about our government, don't read the bible. Has nothing to do with it.

You have no idea what the science is. You are just a braindead Trump parrot, repeating whatever his latest nonsense is without question. Let’s translate this from caps-lock into reality: Trump is throwing a victory party because climate scientists looked at global data and said, 'Hey, because the world actually started adopting renewable energy and cutting back on coal over the last decade, our absolute worst-case, apocalypse-tomorrow scenario is now less likely.' It's sort of like crashing your car into a guardrail, walking away with a broken leg instead of being dead, and screaming, 'HA! The doctors said I was gonna die! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! Broken legs are a scam!' That is the exact level of logic we are dealing with here. The UN didn't 'admit' climate change isn't real. They pointed out that RCP8.5—a model that assumed humanity would actively try to burn five times more coal by 2100—is no longer our baseline because green tech actually worked. The planet is still warming, the data is still real, and the transition to clean energy is literally the reason the worst-case scenario was avoided. But please, tell us more about how the administration that suggested injecting bleach to fight COVID and altered a hurricane map with a Sharpie is the true bastion of 'TRUTH, SCIENCE, and FACT.'"

Lol. I (correctly) accuse you of confusing Trump's Twitter ramblings for science. Your response? Re-posting Trump's Twitter ramblings and literally calling it science. All-time great...

"Follow the science!" And by "science,"you mean whatever your ignorant, orange Jesus posts on Twitter. 🙄

You could just not reply. Save the electrons if you don't have anything to say. But it doesn't seem like you can stop yourself. Are you as starved for attention as Spencer Pratt? And equally useless? Consider running for public office.

If Rubio and Vance were Dems? That's like Trump talking about how he'd like to bang his daughter--if she weren't his daughter. In both cases, you want what you want. Vance is not an impressive person outside of the MAGA ball fondlers. Rubio is a significantly more qualified and polished candidate, but it will be hard for Americans to forgive his capitulation to MAGA and his enabling of Trump.

Usurp? Again, the Democratic party has been the Democratic party since it's inception. Your lunatic ideas about a "name change" are just that: the musings of a gullible ignoramus. It is really no surprise that you don't understand how adjectives and nouns function. What is surprising, always, is that you just double down on whatever stupid and demonstrably incorrect thing you have said. Ignorance is fixable: one learns and moves on. You, on the other hand, are terminally stupid, seemingly incapable of learning, even when spoon fed.

Not only is it not settled, the natural origin is still the dominant scientific theory based on the evidence. A lab leak isn't impossible, the biological evidence just doesn't point that way.

Why don't you buy some of his hippy dippy crystals and make your wishes for a favorable election? He has no skills or experience and he's squandered all his reality TV money. Help a guy out!

WTF are you talking about? The Democratic party has been the Democratic party for over 200 years-- since it's inception. Get off the internet. You are too gullible.

42 years old and has never done anything--or even tried to do anything with his life--except seek attention. You call it "drive." lol

You have no idea what's happening in Los Angeles. Keep pretending though. Meanwhile, maybe you can find a washed up reality TV star to be your doctor or lawyer. They need jobs, and you're eager to hire people with no qualifications. Brilliant

Lol. Messaging is a function of the messenger. There are credible messengers, and messengers with no credibility. And spoken like a true partisan hack: "I will take a drugged out homeless guy if he wants to clean up the city over a lwnj." Do you even hear/read yourself?

They say, "Talk about what you know." Mission accomplished! He has experience with drugs, crime and homelessness. Tell me, had Rudy ever held any other real jobs before becoming mayor? Some basis for an expectation of competence? Oh, he did? Then maybe that's not a comparable scenario. Why do you people keep rewarding these desperate narcissists with the attention they crave?

I love the logic here. "If a person with a robust resume and 15 years experience in government can become a governor, then a has-been reality TV pseudo star with no experience in, well, anything, can be mayor." On a human level, I feel bad for anyone going through hard times--even if they brought it on themselves. But on a judgement level, someone living in a house they can't afford with no insurance should be a red flag or judgement and leadership. Now he "lives" in a trailer. With no real job or skills, I can can see why the Getty House would be appealing. lol But the people of Los Angeles would be fools to cast a vote for someone with no track record or reasonable expectation of qualification.

"The rent is too damn high!"

Absolutely I do. I think this is another case of just about any serious person could do the job better than a washed up reality TV villain who has never held any kind of real job in his life. Who has only ever made money through the "look at me" TV has-been circuit. I take this candidacy exactly as seriously as the guy from the "The Rent is Too Damn High" party. What is it with you people wanting to hire TV "personalities" with zero qualifications? This one is functionally a blank resume. You must really think he deserves another 15 minutes of fame. 🙄

If you dealt in reality, you'd stop trying to conflate socialism and communism. 🙄 There's a broad spectrum of socialism. There are social programs in the US. A few more in Canada. A few more in the Nordic countries. None of them are close to being communist. You may know now that nonprofits can generate excess revenue and grow their endowments, but you clearly didn't when you started this thread. You're welcome. They're not just allowed to do it. They're encouraged to do it. And yes, they are "real" nonprofits. Nonprofits, rather than existing for personal profit, exist to support the mission. When they're not taking private profits out of the organization. all of the money goes back into the mission. That's the difference between nonprofit and for-profit entities. The idea that "shit" made by a nonprofit is somehow worthless or a grift of some kind is just a tantrum trying to cover up the earlier knowledge gap. Nobody is buying Newman's Own salad dressing because the business rolls up to a nonprofit. They're buying it because they like the product. Its sitting on the shelf next to Kraft and Hidden Valley and is competing on taste and quality--what is the shopper going to put on the family table at dinnertime. They're not eating gross food to feel better about themselves. They just like the product. And making "stuff" is only one aspect of commerce. The giant nonprofits I mentioned before are service providers. You're overreaching. That article is missing some key information, and even with that, you aren't on the right takeaway. Ask yourself, what else changed between then and now? Revenue (as % GDP) isn't slightly higher now because income tax rates are lower. It's slightly higher because we've dramatically increased payroll taxes. Lower income tax (and corporate tax) rates are generating less revenue. We're just taxing in other ways to make up the difference. That matters because, again, because we're shifting more of the tax burden from capital to labor. Also, in many ways, it's more regressive. Social security, for example, is capped at something like $160K (I think) so every dollar of lower income workers is taxed to create that , but only that tiny fraction of higher earner income is subject to that tax. Again, this is not meant to be a definitive statement on optimal tax policy for growth and prosperity, but rather to point out that implying that lowering the tax rates is revenue neutral or positive is not true. You article addresses that up front: tax cuts don't pay for themselves. Yeah, if a significant percentage of the market couldn't afford to buy food and shelter they'd die off and there would be less demand for those things, causes prices to fall. Brilliant! Down with subsidies! Up with death! You've convinced me.