2024 vote could bring electoral college distortions to the forefront: The system empowers a sliver of the U.S. population in a diminishing number of battleground states.

[auburnatl1 4,914]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

The wall was  hindered by democrats federal judge shopping and getting wall construction stopped. Agree republicans lost ground. Primarily because they refused to work with Trump. Not a problem democrats ever have. They always get in line.  Also agree on spending although nobody outspent Obama and Biden, and Trump had to spend to salvage the state of the country during the height of Covid, and then handed Biden the “vaccine” which Biden subsequently used as a weapon against his subjects. Nobody ever glorified Putin. Trump said he was a strong leader. That is truth. Not glorification. A lot of establishment and never trump republicans quit so good riddance.  Def swamp still needs draining.

I thought Mexico was paying for the wall? Anyway, I’m sure all of his failures can be blamed on someone. Btw Trump is literally called the king of debt. Ran up the largest amount in US history. Probably why he went bankrupt 3 times.

[jj3jordan 2,053]

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

I thought Mexico was paying for the wall? Anyway, I’m sure all of his failures can be blamed on someone. Btw Trump is literally called the king of debt. Ran up the largest amount in US history. Probably why he went bankrupt 3 times.

Read much? Never mentioned Mexico but that wasn’t the issue. It was democrats hell bent on preventing ANYTHING Trump wanted even if it benefitted all of us. None of those presidents had a global pandemic with near shutdown of commerce as we know it. Please come back when you can critically analyze..well..anything.

[auburnatl1 4,914]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

Read much? Never mentioned Mexico but that wasn’t the issue. It was democrats hell bent on preventing ANYTHING Trump wanted even if it benefitted all of us. None of those presidents had a global pandemic with near shutdown of commerce as we know it. Please come back when you can critically analyze..well..anything.

I’ll try to keep up

[Cardin Drake 1,828]

It took us 100 days to go from 33 trillion in debt to 34 trillion in debt. Sobering.

[Aufan59 62]

On 1/4/2024 at 9:54 PM, homersapien said:

So to summarize, the economy is "bad" regardless of the statistical indicators, because some people are poor and struggling.

Got it.  

Economic indicators indicate how capital  is doing, not people, as now the top 10% own 70% of the wealth (aka capital) in the US.  

The economy doing good is another way of saying that capital is earning more capital.  Kraft Heinz and Exxon Mobil have record profits as we pay more for food and fuel.  Their increased profits are part of the positive economic indicators.  Their names are indicators how capital accumulates.

It is not that ‘some’ people are struggling - most people are struggling - as most people aren’t capital holders benefiting from economic indicators.

I think in short, economics does not trickle down.

[AUFAN78 3,895]

On 1/4/2024 at 2:54 PM, homersapien said:

So to summarize, the economy is "bad" regardless of the statistical indicators, because some people are poor and struggling.

Got it.  

No, you obviously do not "Got it."  If you did you would have answered a simple question. But you cannot because you don't know the answer. You're stumped so you obfuscate to hide the deficiency. It is your go to move homey. Now I got it! 

 

[homersapien 11,373]

On 1/5/2024 at 2:48 PM, TexasTiger said:

I’d be thrilled with a true centrist- prefer it. But these Q Republicans who believe John John is alive and waiting in the wings need some help. 😉

Biden is a centrist, just old.

Four whole years older than TFG.

[homersapien 11,373]

On 1/6/2024 at 11:58 PM, Aufan59 said:

I think in short, economics does not trickle down.

No s***.

At least not in a politically timely manner - like tax cuts do for the people that need them most.

But let's remember that trickle down is Republican strategy - including Trump. Biden's spending largely involves investments.

Such investments also take time to reach everyone.  But I guarantee you that without an improved economy, no one will benefit or prosper.

Edited January 8 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,373]

On 1/7/2024 at 12:15 AM, AUFAN78 said:

No, you obviously do not "Got it."  If you did you would have answered a simple question. But you cannot because you don't know the answer. You're stumped so you obfumscate to hide the deficiency. It is your go to move homey. Now I got it! 

 

What "simple question" oh great obfuscator?

I think I described your position quite succinctly.  (Without all the irrelevant blah, blah, blah.)   Most - if not all - economic indicators show the economy is improving, period.

If you want to argue it's not enough, or those indicators don't mean everyone is enjoying, or it won't last, fine.  But that doesn't refute the fact. its improving. (Why do you suppose statistical indicators were developed in the first place.)

If you want to expand the argument fine, but don't keep refuting my premise with points that are irrelevant to that basic premise.

You are demonstrating a prime example how we are becoming a fact-less society, at least when politics enters the equation.  You are a "fake news" person.

 

Edited January 8 by homersapien

[AUFAN78 3,895]

15 hours ago, homersapien said:

What "simple question" oh great obfuscator?

Lol. The one I've asked you like 4 times now. How do those on the lower end of the economic ladder feel about the economy?

15 hours ago, homersapien said:

I think I described your position quite succinctly.  (Without all the irrelevant blah, blah, blah.)   Most - if not all - economic indicators show the economy is improving, period.

Laughable. You've simply obfuscated without answering a simple question. And I agreed economic indicators show the economy is improving. 

15 hours ago, homersapien said:

If you want to argue it's not enough, or those indicators don't mean everyone is enjoying, or it won't last, fine.  But that doesn't refute that fact.

Frankly homey, it was my only point. It was clear and in the form of a question. One you've yet to answer.

15 hours ago, homersapien said:

If you want to expand the argument fine, but you keep refuting my premise with points that are irrelevant to that basic premise.

I haven't. I agreed with you on economic indicators. Only in your mind was there refutation.

16 hours ago, homersapien said:

You are demonstrating a prime example how we are becoming a fact-less society, at least when politics enters the equation.  You are a "fake news" person.

Horse s***. I've disputed zero facts. I asked a simple question and you muddied the waters with obfuscation per usual. I never once brought politics into the equation and I certainly have not reported any fake news. 

[homersapien 11,373]

7 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Lol. The one I've asked you like 4 times now. How do those on the lower end of the economic ladder feel about the economy?

Laughable. You've simply obfuscated without answering a simple question. And I agreed economic indicators show the economy is improving. 

Frankly homey, it was my only point. It was clear and in the form of a question. One you've yet to answer.

I haven't. I agreed with you on economic indicators. Only in your mind was there refutation.

Horse s***. I've disputed zero facts. I asked a simple question and you muddied the waters with obfuscation per usual. I never once brought politics into the equation and I certainly have not reported any fake news. 

Go back and reread this exchange from my first post.

All I've said is the economy has improved according to most economic indicators. 

You just couldn't accept that simple claim because Biden is POTUS.  Every post you made tried to refute that.  Now you are trying to re frame the entire argument, apparently trying to save face.

You are a supreme weasel and a cultist to boot.

[AUFAN78 3,895]

20 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Go back in this exchange to my first post.  I demonstrated the economy has improved by the objective indicators.  You just can't admit that because of your partisanship.

Now you are trying to switch to a completely different subject because you can't admit to the facts.

Say after me: "The economy has improved. Biden may be responsible or may not.  But the economy is better than it was last year, period."

Can't do that can you?  Cultist.

 

Damn you're dense. And your comprehension sucks. It's as if you can no longer read. Crazy stuff man. 

We agree about the objective indicators and I've stated as much multiple times. You just cannot comprehend this and  are arguing with yourself and making a point no one but you has made. Its sad really.

Not a different subject. I asked the question on my first post and every subsequent one. You simply cannot answer and chose obfuscation to hide your shortcoming. 

I've never stated otherwise. I've never argued the economy wasn't improving. I agreed it was! But there you were again  arguing with yourself over comments only you made. Nuts!

Just for sh*** and giggles, How do those on the lower end of the economic rung feel about the economy?

 

 

 

[AUFAN78 3,895]

32 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Go back and reread this exchange from my first post.

All I've said is the economy has improved according to most economic indicators. 

You just couldn't accept that simple claim because Biden is POTUS.  Every post you made tried to refute that.  Now you are trying to re frame the entire argument, apparently trying to save face.

You are a supreme weasel and a cultist to boot.

You actually said a lot of really stupid sh**!  It is written for all to see. 

You brought Biden and politics in general into the thread, not me. I simply indicated from the first post those at the lower rungs of our economy don't feel so great about economic indicators. A fact you cannot dispute nor will you attempt to address. Why?  

Tip: never look in a mirror when you speak you old lying fart. 

[homersapien 11,373]

On 1/8/2024 at 10:27 PM, AUFAN78 said:

You actually said a lot of really stupid sh**!  It is written for all to see. 

You brought Biden and politics in general into the thread, not me. I simply indicated from the first post those at the lower rungs of our economy don't feel so great about economic indicators. A fact you cannot dispute nor will you attempt to address. Why?  

Tip: never look in a mirror when you speak you old lying fart. 

You are a lying weasel cultist.

The economy is improving.  You simply cant admit to that, can you?

[homersapien 11,373]

On 12/27/2023 at 5:32 PM, AUFAN78 said:

No, my opinion is perspectives from middle and lower class individuals differ greatly from MSM commentary with regards to the economy. What these individuals feel in their pockets doesn't jive with the narrative pushed by MSM. Capisce?

So that clearly indicates you don't accept objective economic indicators, by equating those indators to to "MSM commentary" or "narrative pushed by MSM".

You just weasel instead of saying it plainly.

[homersapien 11,373]

On 12/26/2023 at 6:32 PM, AUFAN78 said:

This sh$# drives me crazy. The lazy among us believe everything in print as long as it fits our biased narrative....

..Now whether you choose to believe those indicators is another story for another day. Quite certain this too will be based on biases.

Ask middle to lower class individuals how they feel about the economy? Compare and contrast to MSM narratives. 

More evidence that you reject the objective indicators that are used to measure the health of our economy.

You can't have it both ways.

If you describe economic indicators as subject to bias or narratives, then you reject the idea they are objective, which is the whole point.

 

Edited January 10 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,373]

But, but, but, there are poor people who are struggling, so Biden's economy is bad. 

(As if that's not true for every economy we have ever experienced )

Edited January 12 by homersapien

[AUFAN78 3,895]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

You are a lying weasel cultist.

The economy is improving.  You simply cant admit to that, can you?

You're senile, so responses like this or other dumb a** remarks you made to me are expected. 

Yeah we agreed on the indicators remember? Your comprehension skills suck!

[AUFAN78 3,895]

17 hours ago, homersapien said:

So that clearly indicates you don't accept objective economic indicators, by equating those indators to to "MSM commentary" or "narrative pushed by MSM".

You just weasel instead of saying it plainly.

No you dumb a**. It means what I said:

"No, my opinion is perspectives from middle and lower class individuals differ greatly from MSM commentary with regards to the economy. What these individuals feel in their pockets doesn't jive with the narrative pushed by MSM. Capisce?"

Damn shame I have to explain such a simple concept over and over to a single idiot, but whatever.

In other words, you and I can agree the economy is improving. Doesn't have to reflect the thoughts of those on lower economic rungs. Nothing weaselly about it just facts you can't wrap your pea brain around for some odd reason.

Edited January 11 by AUFAN78

[AUFAN78 3,895]

17 hours ago, homersapien said:

More evidence that you reject the objective indicators that are used to measure the health of our economy.

You can't have it both ways.

If you describe economic indicators as subject to bias or narratives, then you reject the idea they are objective, which is the whole point.

 

This sh$# drives me crazy. The lazy among us believe everything in print as long as it fits our biased narrative....

..Now whether you choose to believe those indicators is another story for another day. Quite certain this too will be based on biases.

 

Nice try at moving the goalposts. Ain't gonna fly. 

This was a response to a report from Politico and a certain poster claiming Trump referred to the stock market as his greatest measure of the economy. Go back and look at his daily press conferences and you'll clearly see the inaccuracy of the reporting. He did mention the market often, as well as multiple other economic indicators, unemployment as an example. (my point in the bold print of yours was Trump's embellishment) Here is a single article from the National Archive's. It should help, but you being you, I doubt it : https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-economic-club-new-york-new-york-ny/

Anyway, I simply called out the lie from the poster. You have to read man. You can't :make this sh** up. But you'll try. SMH 

Edited January 11 by AUFAN78

[AUFAN78 3,895]

16 hours ago, homersapien said:

But, but, but, there are poor people who are struggling so Biden's economy is bad.  (As if that's not true for every economy we have ever experienced )

You said that not me. Of course you attempted to put words in my mouth. Major fail of yours as usual. 

You need to wake earlier and drink more coffee as this ain't working out too well for you. But bring it on you dumb a**.  

Edited January 11 by AUFAN78

[autigeremt 6,616]

On 1/6/2024 at 9:08 PM, Cardin Drake said:

It took us 100 days to go from 33 trillion in debt to 34 trillion in debt. Sobering.

Breakfast of Champions