Tommy Callahan

If you say so. I still remember every media source and every politician stumping for it. With all kinds of patriotic messages about saving democracy and what not. Then I remember the vote and other votes for un American policies where both sides voted in unison. From the expanded ndaa to the patriot act. Yes bush was fully involved and was the president. I don't disagree But both houses voted for all the bs across the board with a full media propaganda blitz. The Senate and house intelligence were filled with people from both parties and vetted and supported all the yellow cake bs. Then that reminds me of when the Dems pushed revisionist history and ran on an anti war platform. Then went and expanded the war theatre everywhere . Even crafted an illegal drone killing program Good times. But full circle. They all supported it and all the bs laws that went with it. Eff. That one president used those crap laws to easdrop on a CIA agent that was on the opposition parties staff. Based on known opposition research they already knew was bs. Making whitewater look like kids play

So what's the correlation? Just poverty?

Maybe if IRANS terrorist military cells were not attacking boats and using those ships to smuggle arms to the Houthis (Iranian terrorist military group). we wouldn't even be talking about it. and those two American hero's would be alive.

Meh. I just remember that Paul, like Bernie were the two sane voices when both parties were rushing off for war under the pretense of yellow cake. But it was funny how the media went at him from all angles. If we would have listened to old Ron. we would be a lot less broke and non-involved in all these forever wars that we have been in since.

lmao. Wasn't it the Scottish/northern British coast? Lindisfarne and what not?

Dark Davos: Escort Services "Completely Booked" As WEF Begins | ZeroHedge What's on the menu this year? Well, The New York Post described: "Caviar, magic mushrooms, gold-leaf desserts, A-list selfies, $2,500-per-night hookers and secret dinners." In a separate report, the French newspaper "20 minutes" sheds even more light into this years' hooker-fest' at Davos: But anyone who wants to book an escort via matching platform "Titt4Tat" in the Davos region, or even in eastern Switzerland, will be disappointed. "All local service providers are completely booked during the WEF week," confirms owner B. Konrad. The explanation: People kept to themselves in Davos, their partners mostly stayed at home. In addition, alcohol and parties contribute to the high demand for his service, according to the co-founder. "Apart from that, there are many customers in Davos who are not price-sensitive and who value the privacy of our app all the more," explains Konrad. In general, it's less about sex and more about the so-called "girlfriend experience", i.e. the pretense of an intimate relationship. "Depending on the customer, a booking takes between four and twelve hours," sex worker Mia May said, adding the cost of her service is about 2,000 francs ($2,340). Aside from unspoken dark Davos nights, WEF is trying to rebuild trust. This comes after populist movements swept across the Western world following political and corporate elites who mismanaged the Covid crisis and pushed failed social and economic policies that have sparked outrage amongst the majority. A symptom of this failure is President Biden's imploding polling data. "We face a fractured world and growing societal divides, leading to pervasive uncertainty and pessimism. We have to rebuild trust in our future by moving beyond crisis management, looking at the root causes of the present problems, and building together a more promising future," Klaus Schwab, WEF's founder, wrote in a statement. We doubt WEF will be close to rebuilding trust as the majority are catching on to these virtue-signaling elites who roll up in private jets and petrol-guzzling motorcades to discuss climate change

Cruze won the Iowa caucus in 2016. And it wasn't 99 districts, to 1 either.

your stuck on macro. you really should go by county. The truth is in the micro data. narrow it down. like identifying the poorest parts of said states then looking at demos. but that again, would show the racist narrative of this thread that's already been called out.

The left loves the state. the bigger the better. the more involved, the better. Now they seem to have no problem showing their love for the DAVOS folks either. IT really reads like they are just desperate to be in that DAVOS club.

Tibs still chasing the outliers in an attempt to prove the narrative he provided.

People Don't Actually Want Equality. They Want Fairness. - Evonomics Bernie Sanders talks about economic inequality all the time, and it’s a message that resonates. You don’t need to be a socialist to worry about the divide between rich and poor in America. Many Americans across the political spectrum claim to be deeply troubled by economic inequality, and many say they support changes that would yield a more equal distribution of income and wealth. But in his just-published book, On Inequality, the philosopher Harry Frankfurt argues that economic equality has no intrinsic value. This is a moral claim, but it’s also a psychological one: Frankfurt suggests that if people take the time to reflect, they’ll realize that inequality isn’t really what’s bothering them. People might be troubled by what they see as unjust causes of economic inequality, a perfectly reasonable concern given how much your income and wealth are determined by accidents of birth, including how much money your parents had, your sex, and the color of your skin. We are troubled as well by potential consequences of economic inequality. We may think it corrodes democracy, or increases crime, or diminishes overall happiness. Most of all, people worry about poverty—not that some have less, but rather “that those with less have too little.” Frankfurt argues, though, that we aren’t really bothered by inequality for its own sake. He points out that few worry about inequalities between the very rich and the very well off, even though these might be greater, both absolutely and proportionately, than inequalities between the moderately well-off and the poor. A world in which everyone suffered from horrible poverty would be a perfectly equal one, he says, but few would prefer that to the world in which we now live. Therefore, “equality” can’t be what we really value. Some of Frankfurt’s arguments get technical, but it’s not hard to think of cases where a mistaken focus on equality makes the world worse. My favorite example here is from the comedian Louis C.K., where he describes how his five-year-old’s toy broke and she demanded that he break her sister’s toy, which would make things equal. “And I did. I was like crying. And I look at her. She’s got this creepy smile on her face.” Can Frankfurt really be right that people don’t value economic equality for its own sake? Many scholars believe otherwise. The primatologist Frans de Waal sums up a popular view when he writes: “Robin Hood had it right. Humanity’s deepest wish is to spread the wealth.” Fairness People Don’t Actually Want Equality. They Want Fairness. The invisible hand of egalitarianism. By Paul Bloom Bernie Sanders talks about economic inequality all the time, and it’s a message that resonates. You don’t need to be a socialist to worry about the divide between rich and poor in America. Many Americans across the political spectrum claim to be deeply troubled by economic inequality, and many say they support changes that would yield a more equal distribution of income and wealth. But in his just-published book, On Inequality, the philosopher Harry Frankfurt argues that economic equality has no intrinsic value. This is a moral claim, but it’s also a psychological one: Frankfurt suggests that if people take the time to reflect, they’ll realize that inequality isn’t really what’s bothering them. People might be troubled by what they see as unjust causes of economic inequality, a perfectly reasonable concern given how much your income and wealth are determined by accidents of birth, including how much money your parents had, your sex, and the color of your skin. We are troubled as well by potential consequences of economic inequality. We may think it corrodes democracy, or increases crime, or diminishes overall happiness. Most of all, people worry about poverty—not that some have less, but rather “that those with less have too little.” Get Evonomics in your inbox Frankfurt argues, though, that we aren’t really bothered by inequality for its own sake. He points out that few worry about inequalities between the very rich and the very well off, even though these might be greater, both absolutely and proportionately, than inequalities between the moderately well-off and the poor. A world in which everyone suffered from horrible poverty would be a perfectly equal one, he says, but few would prefer that to the world in which we now live. Therefore, “equality” can’t be what we really value. Some of Frankfurt’s arguments get technical, but it’s not hard to think of cases where a mistaken focus on equality makes the world worse. My favorite example here is from the comedian Louis C.K., where he describes how his five-year-old’s toy broke and she demanded that he break her sister’s toy, which would make things equal. “And I did. I was like crying. And I look at her. She’s got this creepy smile on her face.” Can Frankfurt really be right that people don’t value economic equality for its own sake? Many scholars believe otherwise. The primatologist Frans de Waal sums up a popular view when he writes: “Robin Hood had it right. Humanity’s deepest wish is to spread the wealth.” In support of de Waal, researchers have found that if you ask children to distribute items to strangers, they are strongly biased towards equal divisions, even in extreme situations. The psychologists Alex Shaw and Kristina Olson told children between the ages of six and eight about two boys, Dan and Mark, who had cleaned up their room and were to be rewarded with erasers—but there were five of them, so an even split was impossible. Children overwhelmingly reported that the experimenter should throw away the fifth eraser rather than establish an unequal division. They did so even if they could have given the eraser to Dan or Mark without the other one knowing, so they couldn’t have been worrying about eliciting anger or envy. It might seem as though these responses reflect a burning desire for equality, but more likely they reflect a wish for fairness. It is only because Dan and Mark did the same work that they should get the same reward. And so when Shaw and Olson told the children “Dan did more work than Mark,” they were quite comfortable giving three to Dan and two to Mark. In other words, they were fine with inequality, so long as it was fair. Equity is what he has in those mansions he owns.

I don't think they really understand. They started this post as some kind of win to show trumps agenda doesn't have support.

Day in Day out the farmers tell us why the right is bad. but never what the democrats offer that helps or is good for US. Cause that platform is horrific for Americans. So, they gaslight about the right nonstop. The script is boringly predictable.

Tibs focusing on the outlier because he tried to make a "Right bad" profile and actually showed his disdain for the states with the largest minority populations. Remember, working out. Taking care of your health is white supremacy. per lefties

They constantly treat minorities like they can't take care of themselves and need assistance. its an ugly form of racism wrapped in self-absorbed white night narrative. Same thing when you talk ID to vote the actual gun problem the actual crime problem the extreme poverty problem

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/rise-undocumented-indian-immigrants-crossing-us-borders-foot-rcna123874 https://nypost.com/2023/11/04/news/more-than-200k-african-asian-migrants-crossed-us-southern-border-during-ballooning-crisis-data/ you were saying.

you have bad data. in 2016. 180K people voted in the Iowa Caucus. trump came in second in the first round. in 2024, 110K people voted in the Iowa Caucus. Trump came in first. https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/primaries/iowa https://www.politico.com/2024-election/results/iowa/

could you imagine. LMAO

If it was so, why are they rushing to our border to get asylum? Now for this country and what we vote for. you know. for our representative government. OUR. My eyes must be lying when watching the homeless population grow in front of our faces. Most of us never voted for Clouse, the Devos elites or any of the "World order engineers" you're referencing. they have become way too big for their britches. Welp. Him and places like Forbes had him at 10B in 2015, and 2.5B in 2020 What Is Donald Trump's Net Worth and What Are His Assets? (investopedia.com) "As president of the United States, Donald Trump was likely the wealthiest individual ever to inhabit the White House. But his actual net worth remains a matter of debate. In 2015, Trump claimed in a press release that he was worth more than $10 billion.1 In November 2023, the Bloomberg Billionaires Index put his net worth at $3.1 billion, up $500 million since 2021.2 Forbes magazine, however, which has been tracking Trump's wealth for decades, estimated it in September 2023 at $2.6 billion.3"

and still got 51% of the vote.

He said the right things to get a cabinet position. maybe.

MLK. great american with a great message. Current DEMS destroying his message and going back in time to promote race and sex-based hiring and promotion policies. LMAO. First off, you know that pathetic **** doesn't leave the house. Second. You know damn strait if it does, its not leaving its little non diverse enclave. But you nailed it about him being a complete keyboard commando. money says he wouldn't say 90 percent of the BS he posts here, to an actual person.

So he talked Hamas into the terrorist attack on 10-7?

Lashing out like a child. Kinda pathetic. But the norm

English please.