Wonderful life! Joe Blow is in the White House, and his son, Hunt-a-Blow is there, too!
70-79, F
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
LeopoldBloom · M
I assume you have proof that the coke was theirs? Of course, it’s inconceivable that a visitor left it.
What’s hilarious is that Trump admitted to using coke in the 80s, and Trump Jr. looks coked out of his skull most of the time.
Every accusation from a conservative is an admission.
What’s hilarious is that Trump admitted to using coke in the 80s, and Trump Jr. looks coked out of his skull most of the time.
Every accusation from a conservative is an admission.
View 54 more replies »
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@MarthannBann888 Please provide a link to the "actual tapes of the nazi high command meetings". I would love to listen to them even though they would be populated mostly by Trump Cultists and other racist anti-Americans. I will wait until you can find the links.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
ElwoodBlues · M
@MarthannBann888 [quote] I was investigating what happened,[/quote] Actually, you made a hypothesis about what happened. [quote]I made no HYPOTHESIS![/quote] Your hypothesis is that cheating happened in four states to steal the election. That hypothesis required that the cheaters have near perfect knowledge of the outcome PRIOR TO the election. Your hypothesis is plain as day; throwing insults at me won't change that fact.
BTW, good job ignoring the down-ballot races; that's where the cognitive dissonance comes in. If someone is cheating ballots, are they really gonna forget to cheat for House of Representatives??
In Arizona, democratic House candidates got 33,000 fewer votes than the democratic presidential candidate. In Georgia, the differential was 81,000 fewer. Mich: 115,000 fewer, Penn, 113,000 fewer; Wisc 43,000 fewer. Do you really think these wily perfect cheaters are gonna forget the downballot races? Your hypothesis can't explain this data, so you ignore it, [b]LOL!!![/b]
[quote]1. Hugh amounts, records amounts of money were donated to the liberal judges running in those precincts.[/quote] Evidence, please? In many states, judges are appointed not elected, so judicial campaign donations don't exist. To back up this claim, you'd need evidence about the politics of the judges and details about their election campaigns. You don't have any of that, just another silly unsupported hypothesis.
[quote]3. In the year prior to the election every judge, in violation of the law, had the election laws changed in their precincts, claiming covid as the reason.[/quote]
Legislatures often confer powers upon individuals to make on-the-spot decisions in response to changing conditions. Legislatures don't need to micro-manage every detail of voting locations, hours, etc. Whether it's a hurricane or a flood or a pandemic, there are officials empowered to adjust voting details. Every state held legal elections and Trump lost. Trump sued and appealed about some of these hours changes, and lost 60 out of 61 cases.
[quote]5. On the night following the election, Republican poll workers were sometimes by force.[/quote] An evidence-free right-wing myth!
[quote]6. Demons covered the windows so nothing could be seen of the inside.[/quote] Demons, huh? Now you're getting totally mythological! Poll workers from both parties were present during all counting periods.
[quote]7. During the early part of the evening the vote count went heavily for Trump. In the deep of the night, this began to change. [/quote] FALSE!! The reverse happened in Florida. BTW, in many of those states, the rules required in-person ballots to be counted first, and absentee ballots [i]afterwards.[/i] That simple fact explains why the numbers changed the way they did.
[quote]8. By early morning, when the vote was already tabulated in almost all of the states, THESE FOUR STATES WERE "STILL COUNTING".[/quote] FALSE. DEAD WRONG. Absolutely silly!!!
Prior to Covid, most elections had only a small fraction of absentee ballots. If the election wasn't close, they could announce a winner based on a preliminary count of in-person ballots. The absentee ballots would be counted days or weeks later and their totals added, but since the absentees weren't numerous enough to change the outcome, preliminary totals could be announced early.
Covid changed all that. Lemme repeat: Covid changed all that. As noted above, in many of states, the rules required in-person ballots to be counted first, and absentee ballots [i]afterwards.[/i] For a number of reasons, absentee ballots need more verification before counting so they are slower to count. Prior to Covid, absentee ballots were rarely a factor. Covid changed all that. Lemme repeat: Covid changed all that.
Also, military absentee ballots are allowed to arrive as much as 1 week after the election. In a close election, those military absentee ballots can be enough to swing the outcome. So you have to wait a week for those ballots before you can announce accurate totals.
[quote]11. No ... judge in these contested precincts would hear any case, [/quote] BULLLSHITTT!!! Trump brought 61 cases in all different jurisdictions with all different teams of lawyers. He LOST 60 cases and won a single trivial case that changed nothing. Also, you make an unsupported hypothesis here about the party affiliations of all these judges. What you claim without evidence, I dismiss without evidence.
[quote] Votes were not examined to determine if they were real.[/quote] Obviously you missed EVERYTHING the "Cyber Ninjas" did, including microscopic examinations looking for bamboo fibers in the ballot papers. Obviously you didn't follow my links to the Georgia signature audits.
[quote]12. When the recount took place[/quote] When the many recount took place representatives of both parties were there 100% of the time watching the whole process.
[quote]some mail in ballots were found to have NO FOLDS [/quote] Got a link? There is a process for photocopying damaged ballots to provide a replacement that can be scanned. This photocopying is, of course, done under the eyes of representatives from both parties. Both Arizona and Georgia are RED states; you think all the republicans are incompetent in both those states???
[quote]Country; Venezuela. Dominion was the company. [/quote] Yeah, that claim was debunked when Fox lost that $875 million defamation lawsuit. That was one of the MANY claims Fox knew was false when they made it. Dominion has no particular connection to Venezuela other than Venezuela is one of their customers.
BTW, serious question here: are you aware that the Dominion machines in use here in the US are vote [i]counting[/i] machines? Yep, they are vote [i]counting[/i] machines. How do you check a vote counting machine? You hand count the ballots and compare totals. That's what they did in Georgia and Arizona. [quote]In all, there were 126 counties within 10 votes of their original vote tally, according to the audit data. Of those counties, 54 counties matched their initial results exactly. No county had an error rate higher than 0.73% compared to their original results.[/quote]
[b]https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-georgia-manual-recount-confirms-biden-victory/B7LNNHYZOVGKZBUVAT7NZT3VZE/[/b]
[quote]As you should be able to see there was no hypothesis either before or after what I said.[/quote] As I have pointed out, your claims are FULL of unsupported hypotheses that you try to pass off as fact, [b]LOL!!![/b]
[quote]YOU are not right, YOU are not better than me, YOU are not smarter than me,[/quote] That remains to be seen. What is clear is that I back up my claims with evidence and you don't, [b]LOL!!![/b]
[quote]And before you talk about research for God's sake please take a course.[/quote] I have published my research in peer reviewed journals, and I've peer- reviewed the publications of many others. It's clear you've never worked in a STEM field or you'd be aware of how hypotheses work.
[quote]Think of this as a police case. They investigate AFTER THE EVENT. Jeez![/quote] When investigating an event, police form a variety of hypotheses about what happened before the event, and they look for evidence that might support or eliminate these hypotheses.
BTW, good job ignoring the down-ballot races; that's where the cognitive dissonance comes in. If someone is cheating ballots, are they really gonna forget to cheat for House of Representatives??
In Arizona, democratic House candidates got 33,000 fewer votes than the democratic presidential candidate. In Georgia, the differential was 81,000 fewer. Mich: 115,000 fewer, Penn, 113,000 fewer; Wisc 43,000 fewer. Do you really think these wily perfect cheaters are gonna forget the downballot races? Your hypothesis can't explain this data, so you ignore it, [b]LOL!!![/b]
[quote]1. Hugh amounts, records amounts of money were donated to the liberal judges running in those precincts.[/quote] Evidence, please? In many states, judges are appointed not elected, so judicial campaign donations don't exist. To back up this claim, you'd need evidence about the politics of the judges and details about their election campaigns. You don't have any of that, just another silly unsupported hypothesis.
[quote]3. In the year prior to the election every judge, in violation of the law, had the election laws changed in their precincts, claiming covid as the reason.[/quote]
Legislatures often confer powers upon individuals to make on-the-spot decisions in response to changing conditions. Legislatures don't need to micro-manage every detail of voting locations, hours, etc. Whether it's a hurricane or a flood or a pandemic, there are officials empowered to adjust voting details. Every state held legal elections and Trump lost. Trump sued and appealed about some of these hours changes, and lost 60 out of 61 cases.
[quote]5. On the night following the election, Republican poll workers were sometimes by force.[/quote] An evidence-free right-wing myth!
[quote]6. Demons covered the windows so nothing could be seen of the inside.[/quote] Demons, huh? Now you're getting totally mythological! Poll workers from both parties were present during all counting periods.
[quote]7. During the early part of the evening the vote count went heavily for Trump. In the deep of the night, this began to change. [/quote] FALSE!! The reverse happened in Florida. BTW, in many of those states, the rules required in-person ballots to be counted first, and absentee ballots [i]afterwards.[/i] That simple fact explains why the numbers changed the way they did.
[quote]8. By early morning, when the vote was already tabulated in almost all of the states, THESE FOUR STATES WERE "STILL COUNTING".[/quote] FALSE. DEAD WRONG. Absolutely silly!!!
Prior to Covid, most elections had only a small fraction of absentee ballots. If the election wasn't close, they could announce a winner based on a preliminary count of in-person ballots. The absentee ballots would be counted days or weeks later and their totals added, but since the absentees weren't numerous enough to change the outcome, preliminary totals could be announced early.
Covid changed all that. Lemme repeat: Covid changed all that. As noted above, in many of states, the rules required in-person ballots to be counted first, and absentee ballots [i]afterwards.[/i] For a number of reasons, absentee ballots need more verification before counting so they are slower to count. Prior to Covid, absentee ballots were rarely a factor. Covid changed all that. Lemme repeat: Covid changed all that.
Also, military absentee ballots are allowed to arrive as much as 1 week after the election. In a close election, those military absentee ballots can be enough to swing the outcome. So you have to wait a week for those ballots before you can announce accurate totals.
[quote]11. No ... judge in these contested precincts would hear any case, [/quote] BULLLSHITTT!!! Trump brought 61 cases in all different jurisdictions with all different teams of lawyers. He LOST 60 cases and won a single trivial case that changed nothing. Also, you make an unsupported hypothesis here about the party affiliations of all these judges. What you claim without evidence, I dismiss without evidence.
[quote] Votes were not examined to determine if they were real.[/quote] Obviously you missed EVERYTHING the "Cyber Ninjas" did, including microscopic examinations looking for bamboo fibers in the ballot papers. Obviously you didn't follow my links to the Georgia signature audits.
[quote]12. When the recount took place[/quote] When the many recount took place representatives of both parties were there 100% of the time watching the whole process.
[quote]some mail in ballots were found to have NO FOLDS [/quote] Got a link? There is a process for photocopying damaged ballots to provide a replacement that can be scanned. This photocopying is, of course, done under the eyes of representatives from both parties. Both Arizona and Georgia are RED states; you think all the republicans are incompetent in both those states???
[quote]Country; Venezuela. Dominion was the company. [/quote] Yeah, that claim was debunked when Fox lost that $875 million defamation lawsuit. That was one of the MANY claims Fox knew was false when they made it. Dominion has no particular connection to Venezuela other than Venezuela is one of their customers.
BTW, serious question here: are you aware that the Dominion machines in use here in the US are vote [i]counting[/i] machines? Yep, they are vote [i]counting[/i] machines. How do you check a vote counting machine? You hand count the ballots and compare totals. That's what they did in Georgia and Arizona. [quote]In all, there were 126 counties within 10 votes of their original vote tally, according to the audit data. Of those counties, 54 counties matched their initial results exactly. No county had an error rate higher than 0.73% compared to their original results.[/quote]
[b]https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-georgia-manual-recount-confirms-biden-victory/B7LNNHYZOVGKZBUVAT7NZT3VZE/[/b]
[quote]As you should be able to see there was no hypothesis either before or after what I said.[/quote] As I have pointed out, your claims are FULL of unsupported hypotheses that you try to pass off as fact, [b]LOL!!![/b]
[quote]YOU are not right, YOU are not better than me, YOU are not smarter than me,[/quote] That remains to be seen. What is clear is that I back up my claims with evidence and you don't, [b]LOL!!![/b]
[quote]And before you talk about research for God's sake please take a course.[/quote] I have published my research in peer reviewed journals, and I've peer- reviewed the publications of many others. It's clear you've never worked in a STEM field or you'd be aware of how hypotheses work.
[quote]Think of this as a police case. They investigate AFTER THE EVENT. Jeez![/quote] When investigating an event, police form a variety of hypotheses about what happened before the event, and they look for evidence that might support or eliminate these hypotheses.
ElwoodBlues · M
@MarthannBann888 says [quote]Only the truly ignorant have no idea that the cheating took place in carefully chosen polling sites.[/quote]
[b]LOL!!! [/b] So many errors, so little time!!
Lets begin with your biggest error. No, it wasn't ignoring Arizona, and it wasn't pretending Georgia hadn't done thorough hand recounts and signature audits. No, your biggest error is the one that proves you didn't study a STEM field. Your biggest error, well known to science students, is that you made your hypothesis AFTER the measurements were conducted!!
You claimed there were four close states, so cheating only needed to happen in those four. BUT! Those four were only known to be close AFTER the election. Making your hypothesis about critical precincts AFTER the election is known in science as a "Type 1 Error." Look, PRIOR to the election, a cheater would need near perfect knowledge of the outcome to know where to cheat. Since that near perfect knowledge didn't exist, any cheating attempt with a high probability of success would need to cheat in many more places.
[quote] in amounts certain to ensure success in those critical precincts, [/quote]
Nope. You can't be sure of critical precincts prior to the election. An after-the-fact hypothesis is a subtle error that trips up many science students in the early years. A cheater can't know where to do precision targeted cheating until AFTER the votes are tallied, and by then it's too late. And THAT error is the biggest hole in your argument.
[quote] Some of these self same precincts insisted on new voting machines manufactured in the most brutal communist country in the western hemisphere where its people are searching for food having eaten their pets and zoo animals. [/quote]
Why so coy? Why are you afraid to name the machines and the nation? Is it because it'll be easy to debunk your claim if you make it explicit?? Look, vote counting machines are super easy to check. Hand count the ballots and run them thru the machine and compare counts. Georgia did that in 159 different counties; see below. The 'Cyber Ninjas' did all kinds of audits in AZ and found only a clean election and some extra votes for Biden. Mich & Penn also audited their machines; links are below.
[quote] Curiously, though it was later reported from various wire services that Speaker Pelosi and Attorney General Barr possessed stock in the company. [/quote]
Again, you can't name the company because then your claim would be easy to debunk. Your claim is dependent on once-upon-a-time fairy tale levels of vagueness, LOL!!!
The next biggest hole in your argument involves down-ballot races; that's where the cognitive dissonance comes in. If someone is cheating ballots, are they really gonna forget to cheat for House of Representatives??
In Arizona, democratic House candidates got 33,000 fewer votes than the democratic presidential candidate. In Georgia, the differential was 81,000 fewer. Mich: 115,000 fewer, Penn, 113,000 fewer; Wisc 43,000 fewer. Do you really think these wily perfect cheaters are gonna forget the downballot races? LOL!!!
Sorry, the only logical explanation for the downballot underperformance by House democrats is that republican voters went against Trump in the presidential election, but for the downballot republicans. And that's exactly what the polling said about suburban housewives voting against Trump.
[sep][sep][sep]
Now let's go state by state:
[quote] There were four states involved whose win margins were very close. Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia. [/quote] [b]Wrong wrong wrong!![/b]
The closest margin, 10,457 was Arizona. But I bet you left AZ out of your list because the very thorough $6 million 'Ninja' recount eliminated all possibility of cheating. Either that or you have no idea what you're talking about. Next closest, 12,670, was Georgia. Georgia checked signatures on absentee ballots, and both hand counted and machine counted every single vote in every county. See [b]https://www.ajc.com/politics/no-fraud-georgia-audit-confirms-authenticity-of-absentee-ballots/QF2PTOGHLNDLNDJEWBU56WEQHM/[/b] and [b]https://www.wrcbtv.com/story/42925055/no-sign-of-foul-play-found-in-audit-of-georgias-voting-machines[/b] The Georgia hand count of 4.9 million votes DESTROYS the narrative that crooked voting machines were involved. In most of GA's 159 counties, the hand count matched or differed from the machine count by less than 10. Yet cons still pretend crooked machines are a valid complaint; are they too dumb to follow the logic?
Then comes Wisc, with a 20,682 vote margin; which than is more than 0.5%. Trump's rich supporters paid $2 million for a recount of the two most democratic counties in Wisc, and found ZERO evidence of fraud, but netted Biden 87 more votes, LOL!!! [b]https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/completed-wisconsin-recount-confirms-bidens-win-over-trump[/b]
Michigan?? Biden won Michigan by 154,188 votes! [b]https://www.michigan.gov/som/0,4669,7-192-47796-553386--,00.html[/b] Here's an example, from one of Trump's many lawsuits, of a court evaluating 'evidence' that fails to meet the standards: [quote] “‘I heard someone else say something,’” Michigan Judge Cynthia Stephens said on Thursday, summing up Connarn’s affidavit. “Tell me how that is not hearsay. Come on now!” ... “The assertion that Connarn was informed by an unknown individual what ‘other hired poll workers at her table’ had been told is inadmissible hearsay within hearsay, and plaintiffs have provided no hearsay exception for either level of hearsay that would warrant consideration of the evidence.” [/quote]
Biden also won Penn by 81,660 votes, and the audits came up clean: [b]https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsylvania/spl/pa-election-results-risk-limiting-audit-results-limitations-20210310.html[/b]
[b]LOL!!! [/b] So many errors, so little time!!
Lets begin with your biggest error. No, it wasn't ignoring Arizona, and it wasn't pretending Georgia hadn't done thorough hand recounts and signature audits. No, your biggest error is the one that proves you didn't study a STEM field. Your biggest error, well known to science students, is that you made your hypothesis AFTER the measurements were conducted!!
You claimed there were four close states, so cheating only needed to happen in those four. BUT! Those four were only known to be close AFTER the election. Making your hypothesis about critical precincts AFTER the election is known in science as a "Type 1 Error." Look, PRIOR to the election, a cheater would need near perfect knowledge of the outcome to know where to cheat. Since that near perfect knowledge didn't exist, any cheating attempt with a high probability of success would need to cheat in many more places.
[quote] in amounts certain to ensure success in those critical precincts, [/quote]
Nope. You can't be sure of critical precincts prior to the election. An after-the-fact hypothesis is a subtle error that trips up many science students in the early years. A cheater can't know where to do precision targeted cheating until AFTER the votes are tallied, and by then it's too late. And THAT error is the biggest hole in your argument.
[quote] Some of these self same precincts insisted on new voting machines manufactured in the most brutal communist country in the western hemisphere where its people are searching for food having eaten their pets and zoo animals. [/quote]
Why so coy? Why are you afraid to name the machines and the nation? Is it because it'll be easy to debunk your claim if you make it explicit?? Look, vote counting machines are super easy to check. Hand count the ballots and run them thru the machine and compare counts. Georgia did that in 159 different counties; see below. The 'Cyber Ninjas' did all kinds of audits in AZ and found only a clean election and some extra votes for Biden. Mich & Penn also audited their machines; links are below.
[quote] Curiously, though it was later reported from various wire services that Speaker Pelosi and Attorney General Barr possessed stock in the company. [/quote]
Again, you can't name the company because then your claim would be easy to debunk. Your claim is dependent on once-upon-a-time fairy tale levels of vagueness, LOL!!!
The next biggest hole in your argument involves down-ballot races; that's where the cognitive dissonance comes in. If someone is cheating ballots, are they really gonna forget to cheat for House of Representatives??
In Arizona, democratic House candidates got 33,000 fewer votes than the democratic presidential candidate. In Georgia, the differential was 81,000 fewer. Mich: 115,000 fewer, Penn, 113,000 fewer; Wisc 43,000 fewer. Do you really think these wily perfect cheaters are gonna forget the downballot races? LOL!!!
Sorry, the only logical explanation for the downballot underperformance by House democrats is that republican voters went against Trump in the presidential election, but for the downballot republicans. And that's exactly what the polling said about suburban housewives voting against Trump.
[sep][sep][sep]
Now let's go state by state:
[quote] There were four states involved whose win margins were very close. Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia. [/quote] [b]Wrong wrong wrong!![/b]
The closest margin, 10,457 was Arizona. But I bet you left AZ out of your list because the very thorough $6 million 'Ninja' recount eliminated all possibility of cheating. Either that or you have no idea what you're talking about. Next closest, 12,670, was Georgia. Georgia checked signatures on absentee ballots, and both hand counted and machine counted every single vote in every county. See [b]https://www.ajc.com/politics/no-fraud-georgia-audit-confirms-authenticity-of-absentee-ballots/QF2PTOGHLNDLNDJEWBU56WEQHM/[/b] and [b]https://www.wrcbtv.com/story/42925055/no-sign-of-foul-play-found-in-audit-of-georgias-voting-machines[/b] The Georgia hand count of 4.9 million votes DESTROYS the narrative that crooked voting machines were involved. In most of GA's 159 counties, the hand count matched or differed from the machine count by less than 10. Yet cons still pretend crooked machines are a valid complaint; are they too dumb to follow the logic?
Then comes Wisc, with a 20,682 vote margin; which than is more than 0.5%. Trump's rich supporters paid $2 million for a recount of the two most democratic counties in Wisc, and found ZERO evidence of fraud, but netted Biden 87 more votes, LOL!!! [b]https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/completed-wisconsin-recount-confirms-bidens-win-over-trump[/b]
Michigan?? Biden won Michigan by 154,188 votes! [b]https://www.michigan.gov/som/0,4669,7-192-47796-553386--,00.html[/b] Here's an example, from one of Trump's many lawsuits, of a court evaluating 'evidence' that fails to meet the standards: [quote] “‘I heard someone else say something,’” Michigan Judge Cynthia Stephens said on Thursday, summing up Connarn’s affidavit. “Tell me how that is not hearsay. Come on now!” ... “The assertion that Connarn was informed by an unknown individual what ‘other hired poll workers at her table’ had been told is inadmissible hearsay within hearsay, and plaintiffs have provided no hearsay exception for either level of hearsay that would warrant consideration of the evidence.” [/quote]
Biden also won Penn by 81,660 votes, and the audits came up clean: [b]https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsylvania/spl/pa-election-results-risk-limiting-audit-results-limitations-20210310.html[/b]
MarthannBann888 · 70-79, F
ElwoodBlues · M
@MarthannBann888 I humbly accept your somewhat ungraceful concession of defeat.
SevIsPamprinYouAlways · 56-60, F
@ElwoodBlues [image]
MarthannBann888 · 70-79, F
@Nanoose
I guess you don't care about those seventy million people, either.
Why? You act so indifferent.
I guess you don't care about those seventy million people, either.
Why? You act so indifferent.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Nanoose · 61-69, M
@MarthannBann888 Of coarse I care about those seventy million people - it is Donald J Trump that I don't care about (except for the making jokes up about him - I really care about doing that - you could almost call it a passion). As far as the why do I act so indifferent goes - I think it is because I live at sea level so my brain gets lots of oxygen and it can easily figure out and see what kind of horrible person Trump is. Cheers!
BohemianBoo · M
SevIsPamprinYouAlways · 56-60, F
@BohemianBoo [image]
SevIsPamprinYouAlways · 56-60, F
MarthannBann888 · 70-79, F
windinhishair · 61-69, M
SevIsPamprinYouAlways · 56-60, F
@windinhishair [image deleted]
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@MarthannBann888 You were wrong on everything you just said. And not just wrong, but spectacularly wrong.
Let's start with the tax cuts and their impact on the US economy. You said it improved the budget. So let's go back in time to the last two federal budget deficits under Obama, for FY16 and FY17:
fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-deficit/
FY16 $0.59 trillion
FY17 $0.67 trillion Obama's last budget starting October 1, 2016
These budgets were significantly less than the $1.42 trillion in 2009, the first year of the Bush/Republican Great Recession. Great job, Obama!
Now lets see what happened when Trump had the reigns and a huge tax cut for billionaires:
FY18 $0.78 trillion Trump's first budget deficit
FY19 $0.98 trillion
FY20 $3.13 trillion
FY21 $2.77 trillion Trump's last budget deficit
Well, what do you know? Not only did you lie about the tax cuts not impacting the US budget deficit, it went up by over 16% in FY18 and another 25+% in FY19. For the factually-challenged such as yourself, that is BEFORE COVID. So Trump's first two failed years resulted in an increase in the budget deficit increase of over 66% in just two years! Of course, during covid, Trump blew the previous record deficits out of the stratosphere as he closed out his failed presidency. But not to worry, with a Democrat coming in to fix things, help was right around the corner:
FY22 $1.38 trillion Biden's first year
FY23 $1.39 trillion
Not only were the fictitious "gains" not wiped out in Biden's first six months, the federal budget deficit decreased by 50%. Way to go, Biden!
The Keystone Pipeline was commissioned in 2010, when Obama was President, and continues to operate to this day. Trump had nothing to do with it. Perhaps you are thinking about the Keystone XL pipeline, which was a planned short cut. It has never been built, so that wasn't a Trump success either.
Trump did impose tariffs on foreign goods, particularly from China. And guess who pays the tariffs? Americans! Paying more for goods and services by starting foolish trade wars does not help average people. They pay MORE, not less!
My apologies for showing you to be a lying fool again, but it always happens when facts are involved.
Let's start with the tax cuts and their impact on the US economy. You said it improved the budget. So let's go back in time to the last two federal budget deficits under Obama, for FY16 and FY17:
fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-deficit/
FY16 $0.59 trillion
FY17 $0.67 trillion Obama's last budget starting October 1, 2016
These budgets were significantly less than the $1.42 trillion in 2009, the first year of the Bush/Republican Great Recession. Great job, Obama!
Now lets see what happened when Trump had the reigns and a huge tax cut for billionaires:
FY18 $0.78 trillion Trump's first budget deficit
FY19 $0.98 trillion
FY20 $3.13 trillion
FY21 $2.77 trillion Trump's last budget deficit
Well, what do you know? Not only did you lie about the tax cuts not impacting the US budget deficit, it went up by over 16% in FY18 and another 25+% in FY19. For the factually-challenged such as yourself, that is BEFORE COVID. So Trump's first two failed years resulted in an increase in the budget deficit increase of over 66% in just two years! Of course, during covid, Trump blew the previous record deficits out of the stratosphere as he closed out his failed presidency. But not to worry, with a Democrat coming in to fix things, help was right around the corner:
FY22 $1.38 trillion Biden's first year
FY23 $1.39 trillion
Not only were the fictitious "gains" not wiped out in Biden's first six months, the federal budget deficit decreased by 50%. Way to go, Biden!
The Keystone Pipeline was commissioned in 2010, when Obama was President, and continues to operate to this day. Trump had nothing to do with it. Perhaps you are thinking about the Keystone XL pipeline, which was a planned short cut. It has never been built, so that wasn't a Trump success either.
Trump did impose tariffs on foreign goods, particularly from China. And guess who pays the tariffs? Americans! Paying more for goods and services by starting foolish trade wars does not help average people. They pay MORE, not less!
My apologies for showing you to be a lying fool again, but it always happens when facts are involved.
SevIsPamprinYouAlways · 56-60, F
MarthannBann888 · 70-79, F
Nanoose · 61-69, M
@MarthannBann888 I say lots of intelligent things but you don't hear them because intelligent things can't get through your Jiffy Pop hat.
MarthannBann888 · 70-79, F
@Nanoose
We all bow to your high and mighty diagnosis! Oh great dispenser of knowledge. And I borrowed a hundred grand to actually learn about some of that, and would not dare such disrespect of another human being. You must be great indeed. I am really encouraged that i have never met a republican with arrogance like you.
We all bow to your high and mighty diagnosis! Oh great dispenser of knowledge. And I borrowed a hundred grand to actually learn about some of that, and would not dare such disrespect of another human being. You must be great indeed. I am really encouraged that i have never met a republican with arrogance like you.
RedBaron · M
ABT: Anybody but Trump. Life is good.
RedBaron · M
@MarthannBann888 Try again. The correct response is, “Thank you for your service.”
MarthannBann888 · 70-79, F
@RedBaron
Wow red! I didn't know I was supposed to take it if you wanted to shame me. Getting a new picture of vets.. You don't mention the ccp so i guess you don't mind if we all croak. By the way, I never knew a soldier who talked like you. You do this to all the girls? If you get called again, let me know and I will go for you. I wouldn't have you put out again.
Wow red! I didn't know I was supposed to take it if you wanted to shame me. Getting a new picture of vets.. You don't mention the ccp so i guess you don't mind if we all croak. By the way, I never knew a soldier who talked like you. You do this to all the girls? If you get called again, let me know and I will go for you. I wouldn't have you put out again.
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
Most people don't want Biden or Trump in there.
Most internet users are rabidly for just Biden or just Trump.
Real people don't matter anymore.
Most internet users are rabidly for just Biden or just Trump.
Real people don't matter anymore.
ElwoodBlues · M
@MarthannBann888 Idiot! Yes you DID!!
That's how the BLS computes CPI, that's why the source of the graph data is BLS, idiot!!!
P.S. if you don't like having your insulting words thrown back at you, then you shouldn't throw them in the first place!!!
That's how the BLS computes CPI, that's why the source of the graph data is BLS, idiot!!!
P.S. if you don't like having your insulting words thrown back at you, then you shouldn't throw them in the first place!!!
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
ElwoodBlues · M
@MarthannBann888 Some cons believe the Dems masterminded a plot to fake millions of ballots for thousands of jurisdictions, sneak them into hundreds of counting centers, evading tens of thousands of watchful eyes, and not slip up once. Also that the Dems forgot to cheat downballot and control the Senate overwhelmingly. Plus, these cons believe the Dems are not competent to run a lemonade stand. No, I can't explain their cognitive dissonance.
MarthannBann888 · 70-79, F
@ElwoodBlues
How little you know! Only the truly ignorant have no idea that the cheating took place in carefully chosen polling sites. The cheating involved hundreds of thousands of votes, not millions. There were four states involved whose win margins were very close. Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia. The cheating also was done in places where liberal judges, in violation of the law, changed voting laws to render elections far more vulnerable to fraud. The Constitution REQUIRES that all election law changes be done by the state legislatures. Far from being watched, kkk/democrats ran republicans out of the voting places by intimidation and force, covered the windows, and then got down to the business of election fraud. Of course, the same judges who illegally changed the voting laws, never had any trouble denying the Trump campaign their day in court.
The cognitive dissonance came in the person who signed the campaign donation checks in amounts certain to ensure success in those critical precincts, all of which had voting laws changed in violation of the law by the self same judges who denied any day in court by the Trump campaign. Some of these self same precincts insisted on new voting machines manufactured in the most brutal communist country in the western hemisphere where its people are searching for food having eaten their pets and zoo animals. Humanitarian aid to the country was turned away at the border. Curiously, though it was later reported from various wire services that Speaker Pelosi and Attorney General Barr possessed stock in the company.
While I fully refrain from speculating as to the coordination of events, I realize coordination had to have been part of the picture.
I await your response, but be careful what you say.
How little you know! Only the truly ignorant have no idea that the cheating took place in carefully chosen polling sites. The cheating involved hundreds of thousands of votes, not millions. There were four states involved whose win margins were very close. Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia. The cheating also was done in places where liberal judges, in violation of the law, changed voting laws to render elections far more vulnerable to fraud. The Constitution REQUIRES that all election law changes be done by the state legislatures. Far from being watched, kkk/democrats ran republicans out of the voting places by intimidation and force, covered the windows, and then got down to the business of election fraud. Of course, the same judges who illegally changed the voting laws, never had any trouble denying the Trump campaign their day in court.
The cognitive dissonance came in the person who signed the campaign donation checks in amounts certain to ensure success in those critical precincts, all of which had voting laws changed in violation of the law by the self same judges who denied any day in court by the Trump campaign. Some of these self same precincts insisted on new voting machines manufactured in the most brutal communist country in the western hemisphere where its people are searching for food having eaten their pets and zoo animals. Humanitarian aid to the country was turned away at the border. Curiously, though it was later reported from various wire services that Speaker Pelosi and Attorney General Barr possessed stock in the company.
While I fully refrain from speculating as to the coordination of events, I realize coordination had to have been part of the picture.
I await your response, but be careful what you say.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
SevIsPamprinYouAlways · 56-60, F
@LordShadowfire I wonder if OP is Strictgram”s alt.
SevIsPamprinYouAlways · 56-60, F
@Gloomy Probably learned to sanitize it to appear more “reasonable”. Problem is that political takes are still dogsh!t with no facts to support them, only her “feelings”.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
SnailTeeth · 36-40
Is this def poetry, or bad 80's hiphop lyrics? 🤔
SevIsPamprinYouAlways · 56-60, F
@SnailTeeth It’s word salad being spewed by somebody who was born on third base, but thought they hit a triple.
SnailTeeth · 36-40
@SevIsPamprinYouAlways I wish I was born with a platinum-spoon. 🙄
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Ignorance becomes you.
MarthannBann888 · 70-79, F
@BlueGreenGrey
Well blue, I do believe I see your heart. It is impossible for me to see how people participate in your party. You have truly drawn what your posts suggest you are.
I don't know how you would think i would have nothing between my ears. You are illiterate. Why would you be able to convince anyone to vote for you.
Well blue, I do believe I see your heart. It is impossible for me to see how people participate in your party. You have truly drawn what your posts suggest you are.
I don't know how you would think i would have nothing between my ears. You are illiterate. Why would you be able to convince anyone to vote for you.
@MarthannBann888 I'm not running for anything, so please do [i]not[/i] vote for me
I still find it fascinating that you sent me [i]three different replies[/i] (!) to my original comment, on different days ... thus the pic above is emblematic of your bottomless well of rage ... the Picard triggered meme above was quite fitting for you in that regard as well
I still find it fascinating that you sent me [i]three different replies[/i] (!) to my original comment, on different days ... thus the pic above is emblematic of your bottomless well of rage ... the Picard triggered meme above was quite fitting for you in that regard as well
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
SevIsPamprinYouAlways · 56-60, F
@LordShadowfire She doesn’t have any facts. Only her “feelings”. Notice how she never cites any concrete evidence to back up her wild accusations?
LordShadowfire · M
@SevIsPamprinYouAlways I do notice. That's why I get a kick out of asking people like that for evidence. It makes them angry. Then they start calling me names.
SevIsPamprinYouAlways · 56-60, F
@LordShadowfire You can’t convince me otherwise that she isn’t Strictgram’s alt, only with the sp*nko forums edited out of her profile