All_Pro_Bills
-
Posts
6,598 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by All_Pro_Bills
-
-
19 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:
It is urgent but nobody in Washington on either side of the isle is going to do anything about it because its political suicide to cut off all the goodies and pork the Federal government hands out funding big social programs and income transfer schemes, funneling money to big NGO's motivated by political and social issues, and perks to large corporations and major donors to political parties. All done through massive amounts of debt. Interest on the national debt is about to become the single biggest item in the fiscal budget. They'll be a lot of talk but no major action.
What can be done about this? Nothing other than protecting yourself from the coming financial Armageddon. I've moved a much of my meager investment funds out of the over-valued and hyped up tech and S&P 500 stocks into resource stocks like oil producers and gold miners. When the economy tanks, the Fed lowers rates, then runs massive QE programs to support more and bigger Federal debt offerings in an attempt to keep the party going which leads to higher inflation and a devaluation of the dollar as confidence is lost in the US dollar. Everybody's standard of living falls. Let's say gold 5000, oil 200.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Tiberius said:
Israel murdering aid workers now. There are a lot of very, very good people in Israel, but the bad people are in charge there now
Sounds like Netanyahu is a war criminal and the Biden administration is complicit in protecting him by blocking and abstaining from votes at the UN condemning his actions.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Justice said:
lol
Not to worry. Biden is going to issue a harshly worded statement expressing his objections and promises to ask them pretty, please, reconsider while not interrupting the flow of billions in weapons and aid to Israel.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:
I hope you had a happy Easter, Muppy, and I’m glad you were able to spend it with your new granddaughter!
The black velvet maxi turned out to be a little too risque for the speaker event LOLOL! In an auditorium with about 60-70 other chicas, my outfit was easily showing the most skin. I was so self-conscious about it that I ended up wearing my outdoor jacket for the entirety of the indoor event. But the auditorium was refrigerator-level cold, so it was no big deal. Live and learn!
On the bright side, I missed that Sabres game because of this speaker event…ugh…Lindy Ruff for coach??
Okay okay, time to return this thread to the proper subject at hand. I can sense the PPP denizens getting restless…see ya around, Muppy, both here and at BillsFans.com!
Yes, indeed! It is quite odd, in the year 2024, to be having a debate on the scientific merit of anthropogenic climate change. And yet here we are…
So my brief review of “Climate: The Movie,” in outline form:
1. A barrage of scientific truths that were presented in non-sequitur form: climate is always changing, Earth’s atmosphere has had much higher levels of carbon dioxide during its history, Earth has had much warmer epochs throughout its history, Earth has experienced much greater climate temperature variations in its past, plants have a Brawndo-like craving for carbon dioxide, blah blah blah.
2. Examples of garbled scientific logic and cherry-picked data: the part on the temperature vs. carbon dioxide relationship was completely incoherent and included chicken/egg causality sleights of hand. The part on extreme weather events was consistently (and deliberately) unclear on the details of factors like geographical locations of inquiry, timeframes, number of events, and severity of events.
3. Examples of scientific lies by omission: the infamous urban heat island effect was presented, but the film neglected to mention that this well-known effect has already been quantified and universally accounted for in the climate data. The cosmic ray theory was cute, too: as solar magnetic field activity increases, more cosmic rays are deflected as they approach Earth, cloud formation (due to the ionizing effect from the cosmic rays in the atmosphere) decreases, less incoming solar energy is then reflected due to the decrease in cloud coverage, and so the planet surface warms. What the film conveniently didn’t mention is that none of the aforementioned (besides the warming planet) have been measured to have occurred at any appreciable extent over the past several decades! Moreover, this theory is undermined by observations of both comparatively greater nighttime warming as well as stratosphere cooling (FYI: this stratosphere cooling is essentially the smoking gun of anthropogenic warming causality…as opposed to a natural solar warming causal explanation…but of course that still won’t stop the right-wing skeptics…).
4. Social commentary on climate change: oh em gee…so much movie time was spent covering all possible groups of people who may stand to benefit from the climate change emergency. Ironically enough, there was no mention of the people who are funding the people funding this right-wing propaganda film.
5. Polemical libertarianism: fearmongering of Marxists, communists, socialists, big government, any critics of laissez-faire capitalism, etc…the movie clearly has a predetermined economics conclusion and works backward to make the scientific narrative fit. This Ayn Rand-inspired economics conclusion is that curmudgeonly misanthropes who hate the social contract and hate paying taxes don’t want to be held accountable for their negative externalities.
A problem with determining the temperature of the Earth is that at any point in time the actual temperature varies from point to point. It can be -50 at the poles and 100 degrees at the equator at the exact same time. So what's the temperature of the Earth?
The temperature needs to be derived through employment of a method or process. And unless you understand the method or process used, validate it, and use it consistently you can't conclude with any confidence the results are accurate or a true representation of what is actually happening.
-
10 hours ago, Big Blitz said:
Kind loving and welcoming libs in Denver upon hearing more illegals will be coming in
Issues like the border invasion have certainly evolved and not exactly in the direction the people advocating for and encouraging the import of more people might have thought it would go. But ask yourself, didn't you see this coming? Of course you did.
Our political and social debates are no longer framed by arguments of Left vs. Right, Democrat vs. Republican, Liberal vs. Conservative.
What we now have is a war between the sane and rational against the insane and irrational. Yet, even the insane and irrational are still capable of seeing what a total disaster the idea they supported has become. Commentary on this chaos has become an echo chamber of opinion among those who thought it was a terrible idea from the start and almost everyone advocating and supporting the idea has disappeared from view. its can't be anymore obvious what a Clusterscrewup this thing was from day one. Yet this administration won't relent. How insane are they?
More to the point how insane is anyone contemplating casting a vote for the President overseeing this disaster that will surely continue this madness for another 4 years. I don't care how bad anyone thinks Trump 2.0 would be. How could it be worse than Biden? At a minimum the nuts and psychos would be sent back to the funny farm.
-
7 minutes ago, BillStime said:
Case study on how cults use psychological tactics to brainwash their simps:
Yikes
Inclusion, diversity, equity, safe spaces, triggered. Those terms sound awful culty! But they belong to you guys. Which by extension makes you a cult member. You may start chanting your daily morning ritual, one hundred times. Trump is evil, Trump is evil. 🤣
-
11 minutes ago, Doc said:
He's waiting for Congress to act...
Word is Biden is part of the initial test group of subjects for the Russian brain damage weapon. Based on his current condition the weapon is working as designed.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, ChiGoose said:
It is weird that Clinton got slapped by the FEC while they let Trump do the same thing with no consequences.
But the FEC is a hopelessly broken organization.
Maybe he could have gotten away with paying out of the campaign funds and didn’t need to expose himself to NYS liability.
What troubles me still is these prosecutors and officials have designed and created a customized and unique interpretation of the law to enforce it against the one-time circumstances of one specific individual and its likely no other person on Earth could be prosecuted using the same interpretation. Like they reverse engineered the legal system to go after that one guy. I think that's what it means to "weaponize" the law or what some call waging "lawfare".
More troubling is the before mentioned Clinton campaign payment to Steele for the Russia dossier. That had to be far and away the biggest and most effective election interference effort in the history of US elections and all the people howling and screaming about threats to election integrity ignore the worst offense ever. It goes unpunished, and is celebrated by certain people, years later. They got away with political "murder" because the entire legal system turned their backs and looked the other way and no custom engineered legal interpretation was required.
-
3 hours ago, ChiGoose said:
That's a valid criticism and the reason why this is generally considered the weakest case against Trump.
The nuance here is that Trump is being charged for misappropriating company funds, which is a misdemeanor, but the DA is arguing that he did so in an effort to violate campaign finance law, which escalates the original charge to a felony. It is my understanding that he is not being charged for the campaign violation itself (I don't believe Bragg could even bring that charge if he wanted to).
As I mentioned before, people who are more used to federal criminal practice are generally quite skeptical of this case. Which is why I thought the explainer from Just Security was helpful because it illustrated that this has actually been successfully prosecuted against politicians in Manhattan before.
Had Trump paid the money out of the campaign funds and mislabeled it to hide the origin, he'd probably face the same slap on the wrist that Clinton did. By intermingling with the Trump Org's funds, he exposed himself to liability under NYS law.
I can't argue with your assessment of the nuances as I claim no expert status on the subject but said another way it might boil down to there's a right way to cheat which Clinton used and a wrong way to cheat which Trump used. Even though both are guilty of the same end result of attempting to hide the true nature of payments.
-
1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:
If the payments were made by Trump in order to benefit the campaign but were not reported as campaign expenses, then that constitutes a campaign violation even (and especially) if the funds did not come from the campaign.
The argument being presented is that the arrangement to pay Stormy Daniels came on the heels of the Access Hollywood tape. Since the tape was very damaging to Trump, the possibility of Daniels’ going public with him cheating on his wife right after their son was born would likely be viewed as a problem for the campaign.
So Trump arranged to pay for something that benefited his campaign in a manner that concealed it from campaign finance reporting requirements.
It’s a bit complicated if you’re not familiar with the issues here, so I’ll give a hypo:
Let’s say that in addition to Bill being on the Epstein flight logs, Hillary herself was on them a bunch. During the 2016 election with all of the Pizzagate stuff, Hillary realized that her name on the logs would be a problem if it were made public. But if she arranged to pay off Epstein / Maxwell with campaign funds, she’d have to report it to the FEC. So instead, she used Clinton Foundation money to pay Epstein / Maxwell to keep the logs secret during the campaign.
That would be a campaign finance violation because the money was spent to benefit the campaign but wasn’t properly done under campaign finance laws.
Typically, such campaign issues involving improper accounting are subject to fines. Not felony jail time. Not public show trials and media frenzies.
For example, the Clinton campaign funneled a payment through their law firm that was washed through the law firm to pay FusionGPS to pay Christopher Steele for the Russia dossier. The campaign booked the payment as "legal expenses", which is was not. The election commission issued a fine and closed the matter. Which was the customary action.
Clearly, the information in the dossier was intended to be used for the campaign or distributed to others with the motive of "influencing" the election.
But this payment with Trump is a big deal.
-
2
-
-
On 3/27/2024 at 9:53 AM, ChiGoose said:
If anyone is looking for a comprehensive overview of the case from a legal perspective, Just Security has put together a very detailed guide.
They are more bullish on this case than I am, but something I've noticed is that the more familiar people are with NYS law and the regular practice of the Manhattan DA's office, the stronger they believe this case is.
In regards to proving the elements of the case, they note:
"Despite early and ongoing skepticism of DANY’s case, we view it as strong because prosecutors will likely establish with relative ease three of the four corners of the alleged crimes: the “catch and kill” scheme, the payment to Daniels to bury the story of the affair, and the paper trail of reimbursements and records that mischaracterized and concealed the nature of the hush payment. As one commentator wrote, “the spine of the case is the paper trail of the money, [and] Bragg will be bringing the receipts to trial.”
The fourth corner of the scheme is Trump’s intent to commit or conceal another crime, as the law requires to be elevated to the felony first-degree falsification of business records. DANY will have to prove that Trump intended to commit or conceal campaign finance violations (state or federal) or tax violations. Proving this intent will be more difficult than proving the objective facts (as it almost always is), but as discussed in more detail below, DANY appears to have the upper hand." (emphasis mine)
As for how these types of charges have been used in the past, they provide some examples:
"When Bragg first charged Trump in April 2023, he stated that in his 14 months in office he had already prosecuted 117 felony counts of falsifying business records against 29 individuals and companies. During the ten years from March 2013 to March 2023, the office prosecuted 437 such cases. Moreover, DAs across the state of New York frequently charge defendants with felony falsification of business records. Reports in April 2023 stated, “Data shows 9,794 cases involving state penal law 175.10, or falsifying business records in the first degree, have been arraigned in both local and superior New York state courts since 2015.”" (emphasis mine)
They also note that these charges have been used in the context of campaign finance violations in the past:
- Former NYS Assemblyman Clarence Norman was convicted in 2005 of falsifying business records in connection with campaign finance violations
- Richard Brega pleaded guilty to one count of felony falsifying business records for misrepresenting the source of funds he funneled into a county executive campaign
- Richard Luthmann was arraigned for multiple felony charges including falsifying business records and election law violations and subsequently pleaded guilty.
Thanks for posting.
But what isn't clear to me is what is specific name of the business entity where false business records were created? Is it the 2016 Trump campaign? I don't understand the source of funds to be campaign funds. So I don't think so. That takes a campaign financing violations off the table. That's the nature of the example violations cited in the article.
So is this "crime" putting an accounting transaction which was a hush money payment in the wrong account of one of Trump's private businesses? And not to be flippant, but under GAAP what is the correct ledger account or sub-account to book "hush money payments"? I don't think there is one. So unless there was avoidance of taxes or the transaction was treated materially different from other accounting transactions what's the interest of The State in determining where it should be booked? It's a private company. Who is Trump intending to deceive? Regulators, shareholders, the voters?
As far as disclosing the payment or the timing of the disclosure, why make a hush money payment if there's some legal requirement to disclose it? By definition that takes the "hush" off the table. So why do it, period?
My problem with this and the other Trump prosecutions is they all seem custom manufactured specifically to target and prosecute Trump tailored to the specific circumstances of his situation and bending and molding legal interpretations to use againt him and no one else.
I think that summarizes the gripe most have here rather than being comitted to the defense of Trump because of some ideological devotion to the scoundrel.
-
1
-
7 hours ago, BillStime said:
🎯
What's not said is the committee called few to no witnesses nor included any evidence that didn't support their preconceived conclusions. Some of what was testified to was perjury and false that went unchallenged by a one-sided committe roster.
Like the Trump tried to take the steering wheel where a simple photo or examination of the layout of the vehicle would have discredited and rendered that story false.
The committe was like court case where the prosecutors present their case and the defense has no opportunity to present any counter arguments or evidence.
I think that's called Kangaroo court justice
So FU to Liz.
-
3
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, sherpa said:
No I'm not saying it's a socialist system.
It's supposed to be like an IRA as you and your employer contribute to it based on your income up to a certain level, and then when you decide to draw benefits, those benefits are based on your career earnings. All designed to prevent people who don't save from becoming indigent in their old age.
The fact is that if the gov was held to the same accounting principles that corporations are, they'd be shut down and arrested in a minute.
They do this with scores of tax revenue.
Remember a couple months ago when the guy in the White House was whining about airline baggage fees and other expenses for air travelers?
The single biggest charge on tickets by far is taxes, and they tax everything; fuel, cargo, route segments, arrival and departure taxes, with additional fees for international ops, frequent flyer fees and others.
This was to fund the "Aviation Trust Fund," now called the "Airport and Airway Trust Fund," which handles facilities and operations among other things for the nation's airspace system. They show a balance, but that is nowhere near the amount of money they collect. Guess where that other money goes? Into the general fund.
That's the way the system "works."
Without somw drastic changes like reining in government spending and getting control of debt we're all screwed. But things are headed in the wrong direction at a faster rate. Neither major party is going to lead the necessary changes.
The economy no longer supports the programs and cost structure of the past. Its time for a complete new vision. That vision needs to drive much smaller and more localized government.
But I fear nothing will change and nothing is going to stop the mother of all financial and social disasters from happening. Maybe in a few months, maybe a few years. Changes will be forced by circumstances and necessity, not by choice. For now it's spend, spend, spend, until the party ends and the bill comes due. The road here leads to a more modest standard of living and lifestyle for most and will drive even nmore social and political unrest.
I get the sense much of the youngest generation is already aware of this and already living this new reality while their elders have yet to catch on to the coming trainwreck.
-
29 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said:
I think much of this is incorrect. A socialist is simply someone who advocates for an economic system in which the workers own the means of production through mandated worker cooperatives, with the implication here being it to be true for a large majority of industries, if not the entirety of them. A democratic socialist is a specific type of socialist who wants to achieve this type of economic system peacefully, often gradually, and from the bottom up…i.e. via democracy. Under this definition, we don’t see a single socialist in the U.S. government at the national level. Bernie and The Squad are social democrats who occasionally use democratic socialist rhetoric for strategic reasons. Liz Warren is a liberal, not a progressive…let alone a socialist.
Hmmm…perhaps I should go over a few more definitions?? A liberal is someone who believes in the necessity of wealth redistribution under the auspices of the social contract, but that this redistribution should come via taxation and free market-based solutions. A social democrat differs from a liberal in that more aggressive and direct intrusions into free market capitalism (and its guiding political system) are argued to be necessary so to achieve this wealth redistribution. A social democrat will therefore advocate for full nationalization and/or forced market interventions into industries related to the welfare state (health care, housing, education, etc.). The two main features distinguishing a social democrat from a liberal are probably advocacy for universal health care and not accepting corporate/big-money campaign donations.
In terms of the political spectrum line: you can think of social democracy as the extreme right-wing limit of socialism, but it is not traditionally considered socialism unless industries beyond the social safety net are to be nationalized (such as energy industries). Social democracy, democratic socialism, all other types of socialism, and communism (so basically everything to the left of liberalism) are all technically subsumed into progressivism even though progressivism is considered synonymous with social democracy in the United States vernacular. Social democracy politics are considered far-left in the United States but center-right in many European countries.
All of the aforementioned differ from American right-wingers (classical liberals, libertarians, laissez-faire capitalists, anarcho-capitalists, etc.) in their belief that, at least in some very general sense, Marx’s labor theory of value has merit. That is to say: capitalists inherently steal labor-based wealth from their workers in order to turn a profit, as the theory goes, and so at least some degree of wealth redistribution is needed to return at least some of that wealth. Glaring example: any successful CEO with his or her low-wage employees subsisting below the poverty threshold.
Colloquially speaking, I guess you could say many of these dividing lines are arbitrary. All nations in the West have embraced mixed economies of some varying form. Moreover, nearly all right-wingers believe in nationalizing service industries like a national defense, police protection, fire protection, a postal service, and civil infrastructure usage.
As others have already mentioned, by the way: Social Security is not an example of socialism. There really isn’t even a wealth redistribution element to it…it’s more like a specific kind of government-mandated wealth management.
I think a lot of those definitions regarding socialism are theoretical.
The major distinction between economic systems boils down to whether you advocate government driven or mandated solutions or free market or private enterprise solutions.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, B-Man said:
We could clear the bridge in weeks IF
1) our federal maritime agencies @DOTMARAD & @USCG were fully funded and functional
2) we had heavylift, salvage and offshore construction ships on hand. We don’t The Navy sold off almost its entire fleet of salvage ships. We don’t even have a single fireboat in the Navy’s most important port.
3) The Navy hadn’t outsourced the majority of its salvage operations to a European company Sailing assets from Europe would take weeks and would anger certain powerful lobbyists
4) The Army didn’t sell off the majority of it’s watercraft fleet and deprioritize the Corps of Engineers maritime missions
5) If our DOT Ready Reserve fleet was fully functional and not a half a century old
6) if the balance sheets of our US shipping companies, tugboat operators, construction companies encouraged growth
7) if silicon valley investors didn’t have a revulsion to investing in maritime startups with revolutionary new ideas
😎 if the media understood ships and focused on the right stories and pushed DC in the right directions
9) if environmental regulations were not onerous
10) local port politics
The schmucks in charge for the past 30+ years have slowly dis-assembled a functional economy and society and left us more or less with our pants down when something like this happens.
-
1
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:
They are pulling out every star and old politician. its funny how the media kept implying the Rally in NYC tickets were 250 each. when the majority of the cash came from the 550K per person after party that included Clinton, Obama, Lizzo?
but the useful idiots will keep stumping for them.
$550K! But the regressive progressives delude themselves into believing the Democratic leadership is working for the little guy. Not big powerful interests with well-funded lobbyists and multi-billionaire donors. What a hoot! All these rich people so concerned about helping Democrats defend and support the poor workers they under-pay and work 24/7 to replace with cheaper immigrant labor and automation.
-
2
-
-
19 minutes ago, T master said:
To me if you take the capital building out of the mix this just looks like another peaceful protest like the ones that happened in Portland, Seattle, Nashville, & the many other cities around the country right ?
I'm not sure if the Capitol, being the seat of the legislature in Washington DC, is granted specific protections higher than other Federal facilities but if that's not the case then under the law an attack on the Capitol is no more of a "crime" than an attack on say, the Federal Courthouse in Portland that was attacked every night for a couple months. Did I miss the House Committer investigation with Schiff and Chaney on the riots and looting during the Summer of 2020? Who was behind them, who funded them, who should be held accountable? In what Federal facility all the Antifa and BLM members doing time for firebombing the building and attacking Federal officers, looting business and injuring citizens in various cities across the country? Anybody?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, 4th&long said:
Did you look it up? What laws apply to this and why they were written? Or are you one of those people that doesn’t understand something and just ***** about it and tries to say the doj has been weaponized?
I understand clearly. Maybe you don't. There is no victim. The State of New York was not defrauded. They lost nothing. They weren't even a party to the arrangement and I'd argue in a civil case the State doesn't even have legal standing to bring the case as a plaintiff. The banks holding the loans were not defrauded. In fact, they provided testimony FOR the defense. They lost nothing. But the Judge would have none of that. In civil cases plaintiffs are compensated for damages along with penalty judgments. The banks claim no harm so does the State get the money? For what?
Seriously, on appeal this case is going to get thrown out. For the rationale I say and then some. I wouldn't surprised if the Judge and Prosecutor get censured by the court on top of it. And then Trump is going to sue the Judge, the Prosecutor, and the State of NY and those idiots are going to cost the taxpayers millions in judgments. What do they care? Its not Leticia's money. If you're a resident of NYS its coming out of your pocket.
Otherwise, in the future, if mis-representing the value of your property on business records, in this case a loan application is a crime, then everybody that fills out and signs a home equity loan application that estimates the value of their home is more than the bank's appraiser says its worth is committing a "crime" in the State of NY.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said:
Yeah you're lost, you fell for bs. Name some Socialists in power. There are none. Name someone pushing socialist policies, there's nobody.
I could make a good argument Liz Warren is a socialist. Members of "The Squad" in the House. Bernie Sanders.
And without making a judgment about whether its good or bad policy, I could name policies such as wealth confiscation and income re-distribution as socialist dogma. Whether its of good value to society, Social Security Medicare, and Medicaid taxes force workers to pay a tax that redistributes funds to retirees and low income people. Or for that matter, any government interference in the lives of private citizens that legalizes the transfer of benefits without cost to one group at the expense or at consequence to another group that derives no benefit. While I don't want to do the homework necessary to identify the specific people responsible for those things, those are socialist and therefore they could be considered socialists.
-
1
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:
Too bad... Boo hoo.
How long has this case dragged on. They they ruled in before October he defrauded NYS... The recent ruling was just the penalty stage. He had years.
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
I am just a simple dick. I can access, or someone will bond me for 1/12 of my net worth.
125 dolla ain't much! LoL...
I'm still confused by this entire case. What loss did NYS incur as a result of being "defrauded"? This appears to be a crime without a victim.
-
40 minutes ago, 4th&long said:
You got it. I have lots of opinions about both sides. Some of the Democratic stuff I won’t even get in a conversation about. So you won’t see me comment on it but I would never support abortion. And someone telling me I would have to support lgbtq or gay rights and marriage? Don’t ever tell me that. Nothing would piss me of more!! I don’t care what they do just don’t do it around me or try to tell me I have to accept it. Cancel me, I don’t care. But this is the only time I will comment on it so remember it because I could and would never support the left. Not too mention all the burning of police cars and buildings during protests which I just remembered.
But do I have opinions? Yes, I like to call out the bull *****. And if you noticed (if I remember correctly) the only thing I comment on is stuff surrounding trump. I just hate all the lies and stuff surrounding him. And some other stuff with Biden, I’m not trying to defend him, he has enough crap Of hits own, I just don’t care for the revisionist history.
It was a ***** show when he left office if you don’t want to see it that’s fine by me
I'm still curious what you, or anyone for that matter, believes are the accomplishments of this administration. I say nothing of any significance. I'm also curious how anyone can make a case advocating another 4 years of this malicious and destructive administration beyond them concluding Trump would be worse.
What I find interesting, given what I believe is Biden's dismal record is that Donald Trump appears to be the worst possible candidate when it comes to beating Joe Biden. Even Nicki Haley, who Trump trounced in the primaries, polled better in a general election contest than Trump did against Biden. Its almost like they want to lose!
-
20 minutes ago, 4th&long said:
“Completely ruined our country”? LOL. The drama. I love how people try to rewrite history.
I’m sure the last trump ***** store has nothing to do with what Biden inherited.
I’m sure I it’s a conversation that is way above peoples heads. But there is a thing called supply and demand not to mention how the supply chain was thrown out of wack when the pandemic started. That was all started when trump was president. Try to deny it.
” but gas was cheap under trump “ I hear a lot. That’s because no one was driving anywhere. But that is above peoples heads.
“The country is completely ruined” as he eats his 5 th meal of the day and is 40 I’ve overweight, after he drives him to his $500,000 house in a BMW.
Well, I'd be interested in a list of actual positive accomplishments of this administration. I can't think of anything. So help me please. And blaming the previous guy? What major mess did he leave?
As for supply chain, you might want to consider the impacts of sanctions on the flow of material and funds around the world. And the inflation caused. That was self-inflicted.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Tiberius said:
This election boils down to your choice of who you think is the cleanest pig in the mud hole. The problem Liz will have is convincing them to vote for an incumbent candidate that has completely ruined our country.
-
23 hours ago, Doc said:
I was surprised the NYP framed it that way. "It was just trying to steal her car..."
The most likely proposed solution from social justice activists will be to give immigrants "free" cars so they don't have to steal them and kill people in the process.
Biden creates an economic crisis--Unemployment, Inflation, risk of STAGLFATION increasing
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
The White House is proclaiming April 15th, previously known as Tax Filing Deadline Day, as the "I don't have enough savings to retire because Joe Biden's inflation screwed me peoples day of visibility".