Pres Trump job approval rockets to 50% after masterful SOTU

[toms...@gmail.com]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_feb08

It will go even higher as AOC drives the Dims even further left into LA LA Land.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-02-09 3:12 p.m., toms...@gmail.com wrote:
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_feb08
>
> It will go even higher as AOC drives the Dims even further left into LA LA Land.
>

1. Rasmussen is the only poll that has Trump that high.

2. It'll come crashing back down when people realize everything he said
was just more bullshit.

:-)

[toms...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 5:20:30 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> > http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_feb08
> >
> > It will go even higher as AOC drives the Dims even further left into LA LA Land.
> >
>
> 1. Rasmussen is the only poll that has Trump that high.
>
> 2. It'll come crashing back down when people realize everything he said
> was just more bullshit.
>
> :-)

1. Rasmussen was ALSO the 2nd closest in calling the election.

2. His numbers will rocket up after (each):
a. Settling the budget impasse.
b. Finalizing China negotiations.
c. AOC and the other Dims go down in flames over ridiculous NGD.

Who has been spewing bullshit are, of course, the Dims. These elitist bastards have been giving the working man the shaft for decades, expecting them to be mindless lemmings who will vote Democratic regardless of how they are being screwed.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-02-09 7:06 p.m., toms...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 5:20:30 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_feb08
>>>
>>>
>>>
It will go even higher as AOC drives the Dims even further left into LA
LA Land.
>>>
>>
>> 1. Rasmussen is the only poll that has Trump that high.
>>
>> 2. It'll come crashing back down when people realize everything he
>> said was just more bullshit.
>>
>> :-)
>
> 1. Rasmussen was ALSO the 2nd closest in calling the election.

Cite please...

>
> 2. His numbers will rocket up after (each): a. Settling the budget
> impasse.

Not going to happen.

> b. Finalizing China negotiations.

Not going to happen.

> c. AOC and the other Dims go down in flames over ridiculous NGD.

How will that improve Trump's numbers?

>
> Who has been spewing bullshit are, of course, the Dims. These elitist
> bastards have been giving the working man the shaft for decades,
> expecting them to be mindless lemmings who will vote Democratic
> regardless of how they are being screwed.

Sorry, but we've already had the huge bullshit that is the Republicans
cutting taxes for the rich after decades of decrying deficits...

...and now they are running bigger deficits than ever.

[DumbedDownUSA]

toms...@gmail.com wrote:

>
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_feb08
>

LOL.



--
“Don’t give up. If there’s a concrete wall in front of you, go through
it. Go over it. Go around it. But get to the other side of that wall.”
Donald Trump

[toms...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 7:32:32 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 5:20:30 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_feb08
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> It will go even higher as AOC drives the Dims even further left into LA
> LA Land.
> >>>
> >>
> >> 1. Rasmussen is the only poll that has Trump that high.
> >>
> >> 2. It'll come crashing back down when people realize everything he
> >> said was just more bullshit.
> >>
> >> :-)
> >
> > 1. Rasmussen was ALSO the 2nd closest in calling the election.
>
> Cite please...
>
> >
> > 2. His numbers will rocket up after (each): a. Settling the budget
> > impasse.
>
> Not going to happen.
>
> > b. Finalizing China negotiations.
>
> Not going to happen.

Prediction noted. Note that if they don't happen (very unlikely) it will have no effect on his poll numbers.

>
> > c. AOC and the other Dims go down in flames over ridiculous NGD.
>
> How will that improve Trump's numbers?

You need to ask? When people see the things they value very highly being attacked by Dims they will, obviously, gravitate to the party that will protect them (Trump and the GOP). Even YOU were incredulous that AOC wanted to take your gas guzzler.

>
> >
> > Who has been spewing bullshit are, of course, the Dims. These elitist
> > bastards have been giving the working man the shaft for decades,
> > expecting them to be mindless lemmings who will vote Democratic
> > regardless of how they are being screwed.
>
> Sorry, but we've already had the huge bullshit that is the Republicans
> cutting taxes for the rich after decades of decrying deficits...
>
> ...and now they are running bigger deficits than ever.

No, Dims in Congress are doing that.

[Alan Baker]

Nope. They didn't pass the tax cuts, Snowflake. That was all Republicans.

[toms...@gmail.com]

Libtard retard.

Deficits are the DIFFERENCE between tax revenues AND CONGRESSIONAL SPENDING, which REQUIRES Dim approval. More spending, higher deficits. Go back to grade school.

[Alan Baker]

No, Snowflake.

Both taxes and spending are decided in BUDGETS, and the budget the US
government is operating under was passed by a Republican House and
Senate and signed by Republican president.

[DumbedDownUSA]

That is a complete non-sequitur. The the average deficit to GDP ratio
is predicted to be the highest for 50 years.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-01/54918-Outlook-VisualSummary.pdf

(there it is in pictures for you)

The deficit was reducing under Obama but is now growing at
unprecedented amounts for such a healthy economic environment... and
that is before any of the much needed spending on infrastructure.

Why has Trump done NOTHING about that in two years?

He's spent all the money buying dumbed down support and support from
sponsors rather than tackling the issues.

I know you buy into all of Trumps lies no matter how contradictory or
unsupported so here are you can read an example of how he is misleading
dumbed down followers like yourself.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-twitter-obama-economic-depression-job-growth-numbers-white-house-great-recession-a8771446.html

[DumbedDownUSA]

"grade school name calling"

> Deficits are the DIFFERENCE between tax revenues AND CONGRESSIONAL
> SPENDING, which REQUIRES Dim approval. More spending, higher
> deficits. Go back to grade school.

Well there is nothng "erudite" about that nonsensical response.

Are you claiming the tax cuts, which were not approved by a single
democrat, have no effect on the deficit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017#Post-conference_vote

"Though the economy grew smartly and corporate profits boomed, overall
tax revenues grew by only 0.4% in the fiscal year that ended on Sept.
30. Individual income taxes rose by about 6% but corporate income taxes
fell by 31%, thanks largely to the big corporate rate cuts in the Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). And keep in mind that those tax cuts, which
passed at the end of calendar 2017, were in effect for only the last
three quarters of the fiscal year. The effects of the tax cut will be
even more dramatic in fiscal 2019 when we see the full-year effects of
the law."

...and before you make another ineffectual and ignorant counter
argument; a little reminder.

"In a November 2017 survey of leading economists, only 2% agreed with
the notion that a tax bill similar to those currently moving through
the House and Senate would substantially increase U.S. GDP. The
economists unanimously agreed that the bill would increase the U.S.
debt."

Were they right or were they right?

[John B.]

It didn't require Democratic approval when the Republicans controlled
the House. The deficit has consistently risen on their watch.

[-hh]

John B. wrote:
> Tommy wrote:
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > Alan Baker wrote:
> ...

> > > >> How will that improve Trump's numbers?
> > > >
> > > > You need to ask? When people see the things they value
> > > > very highly being attacked by Dims they will, obviously,
> > > > gravitate to the party that will protect them (Trump and
> > > > the GOP). Even YOU were incredulous that AOC wanted to
> > > > take your gas guzzler.
> > > >
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Who has been spewing bullshit are, of course, the Dims.
> > > >>> These elitist bastards have been giving the working man
> > > >>> the shaft for decades, expecting them to be mindless
> > > >>> lemmings who will vote Democratic regardless of how
> > > >>> they are being screwed.
> > > >>
> > > >> Sorry, but we've already had the huge bullshit that is
> > > >> the Republicans cutting taxes for the rich after
> > > >> decades of decrying deficits...
> > > >>
> > > >> ...and now they are running bigger deficits than ever.
> > > >
> > > > No, Dims in Congress are doing that.
> > >
> > > Nope. They didn't pass the tax cuts, Snowflake. That was all Republicans.
> >
> > Libtard retard.
> >
> > Deficits are the DIFFERENCE between tax revenues AND
> > CONGRESSIONAL SPENDING, which REQUIRES Dim approval. More
> > spending, higher deficits. Go back to grade school.
>
> It didn't require Democratic approval when the Republicans controlled
> the House. The deficit has consistently risen on their watch.

Well...

speaking of: "When people see the things they value very highly
being attacked...", the 2017 Tax Bill chickens are starting to
come home to ... er, go THUMP! ... in a quite ungraceful fashion:

"Hoo-boy! Lots of people are really unhappy with their tax refunds this year"
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.os.linux.advocacy/0_UtEGothEY/3EciMz6kAwAJ>

(less sensationalist):

"Average tax refund down 8.4 percent in first filing week"
<https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/08/average-tax-refund-down-1158440>

"Tax refunds are about 8 percent smaller so far this year compared to 2018"
<https://www.aol.com/article/finance/2019/02/10/tax-refunds-are-about-8-percent-smaller-so-far-this-year-compared-to-2018/23666046/>


A partial snapshot (I'm still waiting on some docs) suggests -3% YoY
for me and while this is better than paying more, even if this holds
true, the difference just isn't all that significant, particularly if
its motive changes in spending behaviors (or be a political kickback).

FYI, in going through the numbers, the reason why it was so small of
a savings is because of an accounting slight-of-hand which increases
the AGI to offset the lower rates.

So do also keep an eye out for how much your AGI changed YoY and
not just the net taxes due...because guess what happens in six years
when just the rates expire?


-hh

[toms...@gmail.com]

Hey Snowflake Foreigner,

And Pres Trump's alternative was what? Shut down the government? Dims have their fingerprints ALL OVER the deficit - and their DNA too!

[Alan Baker]

No, Snowflake.

The Republicans were in power in all three areas of government necessary
to pass the last budget.

The Republican-controlled Senate passed it.

The Republican-controlled House passed it.

What happens with the deficit and debt is on the people who passed it.

[toms...@gmail.com]

Hey Welcher,

Well, I am scoring BIG: my tax bill will be many thousands less than under the old law, close to 5 figures. You must live in one of the bad, red states. Tax refunds are smaller because the IRS withholding tables were more accurate than in the past. People that owe money clearly forgot to zero out deductions that went away. MAGA!

[toms...@gmail.com]

Hey Snowflake Foreigner,

You DO know that it takes 60 votes to get anything passed in the Senate, don't you? On the other hand, you clearly don't.

[Alan Baker]

Produce the figures...

[Alan Baker]

Indeed I do know that.

How does that change anything.

The Republicans were in charge, Snowflake.

If the results had been brilliant, you'd be crowing about how it was all
theirs...

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-02-11 5:17 p.m., toms...@gmail.com wrote:

Actually, I spoke too quickly. It takes 60 votes to override a
filibuster. Bills can pass the Senate with a simple majority...

...and the "Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017" passed the senate with a vote
of 51-49:

'Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed

Measure Number: H.R. 1 (Tax Cuts and Jobs Act )

Measure Title: To provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V
of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018.

Vote Counts: YEAs 51
NAYs 49

<https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00303>

Just so you know:

Every single Democrat voted against it. With a single exception (Bob
Corker), every Republican voted for it.

In the House, it passed 227 - 205 with every Democrat against it...

...and more than 5% of the Republicans joining them in voting NAY.

<http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll637.xml>

The Republicans are completely responsible for the results of that bill
and the spending resolutions that they passed...

...as they had the majority.

[toms...@gmail.com]

Right after YOU produce your last tax return!

[toms...@gmail.com]

Hey Snowflake Foreigner,

You Canadians just DON'T understand how the US political system works. Too bad. But it works better than your convoluted system. Is Ontario still going to go it alone and become a separate country?

[Alan Baker]

I haven't bragged about it, Snowflake...

...and I didn't say produce your return with all its personal information...

...just the figures.

But you can't, can you?

Because you don't actually know how to fake some figures that will
actually allow you to claim a "close to 5 figures" REDUCTION in your taxes.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

So explain how the Democrats are to blame for a tax cut they didn't vote
for...

...and spending they didn't vote for?

[-hh]

Alan wrote:

> Tommy wrote:
> > Well, I am scoring BIG: my tax bill will be many thousands less than under
> > the old law, close to 5 figures.

“Close to five” is still less than five. And YMMV, but most folks don’t bother
anymore with counting those two figures to the right of the decimal. /S

> You must live in one of the bad, red states.

Bad? Nope: the Red States are the adults who are still carrying the load for
the selfish childish Blue hypocrite leeches who take more from the Feds than
they pay in. And sure, we all know that the partisan Republicans did target
the Red States (again) to pay even more than their fair share (again), with it
being this time a $10K cap on the deductions for State & Local on Schedule A.

> > Tax refunds are smaller because the IRS withholding tables were more
> > accurate than in the past.

Oh, so suddenly the Feds are now great at modeling, golly gee imagine that!

No, the IRS was told to push some extra cash into Joe ‘Easily Bought Off’ Sixpack’s
pocket for politically expedient purposes of the 2018 election, so they tweaked it heavy.

> > People that owe money clearly forgot to zero out deductions that went away. MAGA!

Oh? And just how’s that supposed to work?
Call the town up and say “I want to zero out!” one’s property tax bill?

> Produce the figures...

Oh, we both know that that will never happen, Alan.

And Tommy can go take up his mantra with his local law enforcement officer on why
its great that private jets are tax deductible but not said police officer’s uniform anymore:

<https://www.businessinsider.com/tax-reform-could-boost-private-jet-sales-2018-2>

Apparently, the way this is designed to work is thst if you think you’re going to owe any taxes,
go buy a private jet and take the immediate depreciation to write down your taxes which would
have been due...a free jet for you instead of paying anything to Uncle Sam.


-hh

[DumbedDownUSA]

toms...@gmail.com wrote:


> Hey Snowflake Foreigner,
>

"grade school name calling"

I love the move to double barrelled infantile name calling...

It's like you can feel yourself failing and are attempting to double
down.

> And Pres Trump's alternative was what? Shut down the government? Dims
> have their fingerprints ALL OVER the deficit - and their DNA too!

Erudite counter argument FAIL

[DumbedDownUSA]

"grade school name calling" squared

> You DO know that it takes 60 votes to get anything passed in the
> Senate, don't you? On the other hand, you clearly don't.

Erudite (really, go and look it up) counter argument FAIL

Ever heard of a simple majority, puppy? No, clearly you haven't. In
fact clearly you haven't paid much attention to anything passed in the
senate in the last couple of years.

Let's dumb it down for puppy

https://fair.org/uncategorized/how-many-votes-does-it-take-to-pass-a-senate-bill/

(Note that the fillibuster became the norm when the Republicans lost
control of the senate. So now you know who is to blame when Trump
complains of not getting his unpopular bills passed)

Why not rejoin the argument when you can sound less ignorant.

Even us "foreigners" know more about your political system than you do.

That must make you feel small, like a weedy little runt, puppy.

[toms...@gmail.com]

Hey Canadian Snowflake,

I'm not faking shit, but you are scratching your collective asses trying to figure out how I did that. You are telling yourself, Tom HAS to be faking that because he can't be that WELL OFF. News flash Canuck: I AM! MAGA!!

[toms...@gmail.com]

Hey Welcher,

You are SO PREDICTABLE! I KNEW you would say that!

So, you DO live in one of those bad, red states! If you're smart, you'll join the exodus of people leaving New York, New Jersey, California, etc. But you're not. No, they are not "the adults who are still carrying the load for
the selfish childish Blue hypocrite leeches" - they ARE the states that have forced the rest of us to subsidize their high tax rates.

So, suck it up Buttercup - you chose to live in one of those liberal tax leaching states. Now you get to pay the piper, the king of the leaches, Andrew Cuomo:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/11/nyregion/cuomo-siena-poll-approval-rating.html

Best not knock private jets: Al Gore might have to give up his!

[Alan Baker]

Let's play a game, okay?

You claim you reduced your taxes by "close to 5 figures". So "close" to
$10,000, is that right?

What percentage reduction in your taxes was it?

Next round after you play this round.

:-)

[toms...@gmail.com]

Hey Dummy Squared,

Here's the most damning thing I can say about you: YOU'RE BORING (as well as being a totally ignorant foreigner)! At least HH and Alan have something halfway intelligent to say. Come back when you have a gotcha worth responding to, otherwise I'll just say "kill file."

[toms...@gmail.com]

Hey Snowflake Foreigner,

Let's play Five Questions: which province do you live in?

[Alan Baker]

Nope.

You're the one who's been making the bragging claims.

Are you scared you'll be trapped because you can't figure out the
numbers to make it seem real?

:-)

[DumbedDownUSA]

Yet it's not true.

> >
> > How does that change anything.
> >
> > The Republicans were in charge, Snowflake.
> >
> > If the results had been brilliant, you'd be crowing about how it
> > was all theirs...
>
> Hey Snowflake Foreigner,

"grade school name calling"

You are such a loser by your own criteria.

>
> You Canadians just DON'T understand how the US political system
> works.

Lol, yet you are the one making all the mistakes.

Erudite counter argument FAIL

I'm going to help you out here; all your posts are so embarassing for
you it's hardly funny anymore.

An "erudite" response relies on having some knowledge of the topic
under discussion.

If you aspire to making "erudite counter arguments" as you would have
it, you really need to start with educating yourself as to the subject
matter.

You lose again. :)

[DumbedDownUSA]

You find being consistently belittled and bested for you lack of
knowledge on any topic "BORING"; I can understand that.

Your attempt at an insult is so blatantly false especially as yet again
you are simply attempting to distract form the FACT that you have been
bested yet again... and embarassed in the extreme as it is on the topic
of your own political system.

Your ignorance must be so humiliating.

> At least HH and Alan
> have something halfway intelligent to say. Come back when you have a
> gotcha worth responding to, otherwise I'll just say "kill file."

You are so on the carpet.

Run away, run away... it's no different from what you have been doing
all along.

ROTFLMAO

[DumbedDownUSA]

You have a reputation for falsehoods. I expect everyone simply thinks
you are lying; your failure to offer any contrary evidence (something
you could do very simply, if it existed or even invent) simply appears
to confirm.

Occams razor.

You kinda lost this one when you failed to provide anything in the
first instance.

> You are telling yourself, Tom
> HAS to be faking that because he can't be that WELL OFF. News flash
> Canuck: I AM! MAGA!!

Swept an awful lot of floors, huh.

[DumbedDownUSA]

What does that money get spent on? You are complaining about the taxes
but what exactly do you want cut?

Law and order?
Healthcare?
Welfare?
Infrastructure?
Education?
Transportation?

We all have things we would prefer not to see our money but are yours
just about self interest? That would be my guess.

[-hh]

Tommy wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>> Tommy wrote:

>>>>…

>> Oh, so suddenly the Feds are now great at modeling, golly gee imagine that!
>>
>> No, the IRS was told to push some extra cash into Joe ‘Easily Bought Off’ Sixpack’s
>> pocket for politically expedient purposes of the 2018 election, so they tweaked it heavy.
>>
>> > > People that owe money clearly forgot to zero out deductions that went away. MAGA!
>>
>> Oh? And just how’s that supposed to work?
>> Call the town up and say “I want to zero out!” one’s property tax bill?

Hmmm... lack of response; apparently, we’re not erudite enough to comprehend why.

>> > Produce the figures...
>>
>> Oh, we both know that that will never happen, Alan.

A useful reference for average tax savings by income, as a gage for plausibility of claims:

<https://www.npr.org/2017/12/19/571754894/charts-see-how-much-of-gop-tax-cuts-will-go-to-the-middle-class>

>> And Tommy can go take up his mantra with his local law enforcement officer on why
>> its great that private jets are tax deductible but not said police officer’s uniform anymore:
>>
>> <https://www.businessinsider.com/tax-reform-could-boost-private-jet-sales-2018-2>
>>

>> Apparently, the way this is designed to work is that if you think you’re going to owe any taxes,

>> go buy a private jet and take the immediate depreciation to write down your taxes which would
>> have been due...a free jet for you instead of paying anything to Uncle Sam.

FYI, I forgot to mention that this tax dodge scheme only works because the AMT was killed.

> You are SO PREDICTABLE! I KNEW you would say that!

And of course, this prediction was previously documented in ... just what prior post?

> So, you DO live in one of those bad, red states!

As if that’s been a huge mystery? /S

> If you're smart, you'll join the exodus of people leaving New York, New Jersey,
> California, etc. But you’re not.

On the contrary: because I’m smart, I *can* (and do) make it here.

> No, they are not "the adults who are still carrying the load for the selfish childish
> Blue hypocrite leeches" - they ARE the states that have forced the rest of us to
> subsidize their high tax rates.

Factually incorrect claim:

<http://www.governing.com/week-in-finance/gov-taxpayers-10-states-give-more-feds-than-get-back.html>

> So, suck it up Buttercup - you chose to live in one of those liberal tax leaching states.

Because Quality of Life, and we largely get good value in return for what we pay. Granted,
we have also been doing some due diligence for the potential of retiring to a cheap Red State,
but we’re finding more & more elements where the quality of life is substantially lower, such
as on the decreased availability of high quality healthcare or a good international airport
which makes it to be found wanting.

Overall, the pattern we’ve observed is that Red States are often quite poorly managed/run,
which causes systemic & widespread structural problems which were quite preventable.


-hh

[toms...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 3:25:21 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
> Tommy wrote:
> > -hh wrote:
> >> Alan wrote:
> >>> Tommy wrote:
> >>>>…
> >> Oh, so suddenly the Feds are now great at modeling, golly gee imagine that!
> >>
> >> No, the IRS was told to push some extra cash into Joe ‘Easily Bought Off’ Sixpack’s
> >> pocket for politically expedient purposes of the 2018 election, so they tweaked it heavy.
> >>
> >> > > People that owe money clearly forgot to zero out deductions that went away. MAGA!
> >>
> >> Oh? And just how’s that supposed to work?
> >> Call the town up and say “I want to zero out!” one’s property tax bill?
>
> Hmmm... lack of response; apparently, we’re not erudite enough to comprehend why.

I don't respond to nonsense.

>
>
> >> > Produce the figures...
> >>
> >> Oh, we both know that that will never happen, Alan.
>
> A useful reference for average tax savings by income, as a gage for plausibility of claims:
>
> <https://www.npr.org/2017/12/19/571754894/charts-see-how-much-of-gop-tax-cuts-will-go-to-the-middle-class>

Totally biased - and wrong - piece. They claim that a family earning $75,000 will only see a tax reduction of $870. My calculations show this family, with 2 kids, will save $2,255, nearly a THREE TO ONE difference.

>
> >> And Tommy can go take up his mantra with his local law enforcement officer on why
> >> its great that private jets are tax deductible but not said police officer’s uniform anymore:
> >>
> >> <https://www.businessinsider.com/tax-reform-could-boost-private-jet-sales-2018-2>
> >>
> >> Apparently, the way this is designed to work is that if you think you’re going to owe any taxes,
> >> go buy a private jet and take the immediate depreciation to write down your taxes which would
> >> have been due...a free jet for you instead of paying anything to Uncle Sam.
>
> FYI, I forgot to mention that this tax dodge scheme only works because the AMT was killed.
>
> > You are SO PREDICTABLE! I KNEW you would say that!
>
> And of course, this prediction was previously documented in ... just what prior post?

I laid the TRAP for you, and you STEPPED IN IT! Obviously, if I put it in writing you (probably) wouldn't have, Einstein.

>
> > So, you DO live in one of those bad, red states!
>
> As if that’s been a huge mystery? /S

Well, it WAS!

>
> > If you're smart, you'll join the exodus of people leaving New York, New Jersey,
> > California, etc. But you’re not.
>
> On the contrary: because I’m smart, I *can* (and do) make it here.

You just proved otherwise.

>
> > No, they are not "the adults who are still carrying the load for the selfish childish
> > Blue hypocrite leeches" - they ARE the states that have forced the rest of us to
> > subsidize their high tax rates.
>
> Factually incorrect claim:
>
> <http://www.governing.com/week-in-finance/gov-taxpayers-10-states-give-more-feds-than-get-back.html>

Totally different from what I wrote.

>
> > So, suck it up Buttercup - you chose to live in one of those liberal tax leaching states.
>
> Because Quality of Life, and we largely get good value in return for what we pay. Granted,
> we have also been doing some due diligence for the potential of retiring to a cheap Red State,
> but we’re finding more & more elements where the quality of life is substantially lower, such
> as on the decreased availability of high quality healthcare or a good international airport
> which makes it to be found wanting.

Then you will be stuck with even HIGHER taxes as the wealthy leave - and leave you holding the bag.
https://buffalonews.com/2018/12/19/new-yorks-population-dips-over-the-past-year/

>
> Overall, the pattern we’ve observed is that Red States are often quite poorly managed/run,
> which causes systemic & widespread structural problems which were quite preventable.

California is a Blue state last time I checked...

>
>
> -hh

Final tally, Welcher: FAIL, FAIL, FAIL!

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-02-12 8:49 a.m., toms...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 3:25:21 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
>> Tommy wrote:
>>> -hh wrote:
>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>> Tommy wrote:
>>>>>> …
>>>> Oh, so suddenly the Feds are now great at modeling, golly gee imagine that!
>>>>
>>>> No, the IRS was told to push some extra cash into Joe ‘Easily Bought Off’ Sixpack’s
>>>> pocket for politically expedient purposes of the 2018 election, so they tweaked it heavy.
>>>>
>>>>>> People that owe money clearly forgot to zero out deductions that went away. MAGA!
>>>>
>>>> Oh? And just how’s that supposed to work?
>>>> Call the town up and say “I want to zero out!” one’s property tax bill?
>>
>> Hmmm... lack of response; apparently, we’re not erudite enough to comprehend why.
>
> I don't respond to nonsense.
>
>>
>>
>>>>> Produce the figures...
>>>>
>>>> Oh, we both know that that will never happen, Alan.
>>
>> A useful reference for average tax savings by income, as a gage for plausibility of claims:
>>
>> <https://www.npr.org/2017/12/19/571754894/charts-see-how-much-of-gop-tax-cuts-will-go-to-the-middle-class>
>
> Totally biased - and wrong - piece. They claim that a family earning $75,000 will only see a tax reduction of $870. My calculations show this family, with 2 kids, will save $2,255, nearly a THREE TO ONE difference.

So let's see your calculations....

[-hh]

Trolled Tommy Toils:

> -hh wrote:
>> Tommy wrote:
>> > -hh wrote:
>> >> Alan wrote:
>> >>> Tommy wrote:
>> >>>>…
>> >> Oh, so suddenly the Feds are now great at modeling, golly gee imagine that!
>> >>
>> >> No, the IRS was told to push some extra cash into Joe ‘Easily Bought Off’ Sixpack’s
>> >> pocket for politically expedient purposes of the 2018 election, so they tweaked it heavy.

Still stunted silence.

>>> >> > > People that owe money clearly forgot to zero out deductions that went away. MAGA!
>>> >>
>> >> Oh? And just how’s that supposed to work?
>> >> Call the town up and say “I want to zero out!” one’s property tax bill?
>>
>> Hmmm... lack of response; apparently, we’re not erudite enough to comprehend why.
>
> I don't respond to nonsense.

The point was rhetorical, as no one expects you to deliver the goods.

>> >> > Produce the figures...
>> >>
>> >> Oh, we both know that that will never happen, Alan.
>>
>> A useful reference for average tax savings by income, as a gage for plausibility of claims:
>>
>> <https://www.npr.org/2017/12/19/571754894/charts-see-how-much-of-gop-tax-cuts-will-go-to-the-middle-class>
>
> Totally biased - and wrong - piece. They claim that a family earning $75,000 will only see a tax
> reduction of $870. My calculations show this family, with 2 kids, will save $2,255, nearly a
> THREE TO ONE difference.

Because you cherry-picked a subset. You’ve assumed two under 17 kids for their child tax credit,
despite how the last Census data found an average of only 2.58 people per household. This means
that on average, you’ve picked a corner case because for single parents, they only average out to
only 1.58 kids, and a couple with even fewer: 0.58 kids. Plus you also then need to factor out for
tax purposes what percentage of these don’t get said credit because their kid is over age 17, which
for a “kick em out right after college” age 21 represents a 20% reduction in applicability.

TL;DR: just because it may be possible doesn’t make it typical or average.

>>>> FYI, I forgot to mention that this tax dodge scheme only works because the AMT was killed.
>>>
>>> You are SO PREDICTABLE! I KNEW you would say that!
>>
>> And of course, this prediction was previously documented in ... just what prior post?
>
> I laid the TRAP for you, and you STEPPED IN IT! Obviously, if I put it in writing you (probably) wouldn't have, Einstein.

(Yawn)...

>> > So, you DO live in one of those bad, red states!
>>
>> As if that’s been a huge mystery? /S
>
> Well, it WAS!

Nope.

>> > If you're smart, you'll join the exodus of people leaving New York, New Jersey,
>> > California, etc. But you’re not.
>>
>> On the contrary: because I’m smart, I *can* (and do) make it here.
>
> You just proved otherwise.

Sorry, but your circular logic doesn’t cut it. Plus I’ve been to 90% of the States to
have given me a decent read on pros/cons of various regions.

>> > No, they are not "the adults who are still carrying the load for the selfish childish
>> > Blue hypocrite leeches" - they ARE the states that have forced the rest of us to
>> > subsidize their high tax rates.
>>
>> Factually incorrect claim:
>>
>> <http://www.governing.com/week-in-finance/gov-taxpayers-10-states-give-more-feds-than-get-back.html>
>
> Totally different from what I wrote.

Yup, I saw how you tried to twist it, so I stayed on topic.

>> > So, suck it up Buttercup - you chose to live in one of those liberal tax leaching states.
>>
>> Because Quality of Life, and we largely get good value in return for what we pay. Granted,
>> we have also been doing some due diligence for the potential of retiring to a cheap Red State,
>> but we’re finding more & more elements where the quality of life is substantially lower, such
>> as on the decreased availability of high quality healthcare or a good international airport
>> which makes it to be found wanting.
>
> Then you will be stuck with even HIGHER taxes as the wealthy leave - and leave you holding the bag.
> <https://buffalonews.com/2018/12/19/new-yorks-population-dips-over-the-past-year/>

N/A. Merely noting that NY is losing some people doesn’t prove that the “rich” is fleeing. You’ll need to
go find some other reference to cite, as this one fails to support your claim.


>> Overall, the pattern we’ve observed is that [Blue] States are often quite poorly managed/run,

>> which causes systemic & widespread structural problems which were quite preventable.

Apologies, I got my silly partisan colors wrong again. I intended to say Blue (Democrat), not
Red (Republicans).

> California is a Blue state last time I checked...

Yup, and Jerry Brown did a pretty good job there fiscally. Plus I believe that I just read that
Newsom just recalled their National Guard from the fool’s folly it had been on.


-hh

[DumbedDownUSA]

toms...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 3:25:21 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
> > Tommy wrote:
> > > -hh wrote:
> > >> Alan wrote:
> > >>> Tommy wrote:
> > > > > > …
> > >> Oh, so suddenly the Feds are now great at modeling, golly gee
> > imagine that! >>
> > >> No, the IRS was told to push some extra cash into Joe ‘Easily
> > Bought Off’ Sixpack’s >> pocket for politically expedient purposes
> > of the 2018 election, so they tweaked it heavy. >>
> > >> > > People that owe money clearly forgot to zero out deductions
> > that went away. MAGA! >>
> > >> Oh? And just how’s that supposed to work?
> > >> Call the town up and say “I want to zero out!” one’s property
> > tax bill?
> >
> > Hmmm... lack of response; apparently, we’re not erudite enough to
> > comprehend why.
>
> I don't respond to nonsense.
>

A blatant falsehood. Puppy's preference is for nonsense he FAILS to
respond to much else and never with anything but nonsense.

> >
> >
> > >> > Produce the figures...
> > >>
> > >> Oh, we both know that that will never happen, Alan.
> >
> > A useful reference for average tax savings by income, as a gage for
> > plausibility of claims:
> >
> >
<https://www.npr.org/2017/12/19/571754894/charts-see-how-much-of-gop-tax-cuts-will-go-to-the-middle-class>
>
> Totally biased - and wrong - piece. They claim that a family earning
> $75,000 will only see a tax reduction of $870.

A falsehood. It suggests 1.6% or $1200.

> My calculations show
> this family, with 2 kids, will save $2,255, nearly a THREE TO ONE
> difference.
>

I see no calculations but from calculations that actually do exist and
I have seen can tell you such a family with two kids would need to be
making another 10k to see that kind of reduction...

...but it's easy enough for you to show your calculations to prove your
point. What could be simpler?

[toms...@gmail.com]

Hey Dummy Squared,

I know you can't spell - now I know you can't read as well. Here is what the article said:

Compare that with the a tax cut of $870, or 1.6 percent, for the average household earning $50,000 to $75,000.

Note that $870 is not 1.6% of either figure. You can apologize for falsely accusing me of lying.

>
> > My calculations show
> > this family, with 2 kids, will save $2,255, nearly a THREE TO ONE
> > difference.
> >
>
> I see no calculations but from calculations that actually do exist and
> I have seen can tell you such a family with two kids would need to be
> making another 10k to see that kind of reduction...

WTF? Not only can't you read, you can't WRITE either! And you are also incapable of math. For starters, this hypothetical would get TWO THOUSAND more in their child tax credit increase alone from 2017.

>
> ...but it's easy enough for you to show your calculations to prove your
> point. What could be simpler?

2017 2018
AGI $75,000 $75,000
Personal Exemption $16,200
Itemized Deduction $0 $0
Standard Deduction $12,700 $24,000
Taxable Income $46,100 $51,000
Tax Bracket 15.00% 12.00%
Difference
Tax $5,982 $5,727 -$255 -4.26%
Child Tax Credit $2,000 $4,000
Net Tax $3,982.35 $1,727.54 -$2,255 -56.62%

[DumbedDownUSA]

Hey LyingTom

I see you are sticking with the grade school name calling and lies.

Killfile not working too well.

> I know you can't spell - now I know you can't read as well. Here is
> what the article said:
>
> Compare that with the a tax cut of $870, or 1.6 percent, for the
> average household earning $50,000 to $75,000.
>

So you are claiming you think that the figure relates to everyone
between $50k and $75k and that it is equivalenmt to 1.6% of both those
figures.

> Note that $870 is not 1.6% of either figure.

So you did know you wer lying?

> You can apologize for
> falsely accusing me of lying.
>

You have just proven you lied.

QED

>
> >
> > > My calculations show
> > > this family, with 2 kids, will save $2,255, nearly a THREE TO ONE
> > > difference.
> > >
> >
> > I see no calculations but from calculations that actually do exist
> > and I have seen can tell you such a family with two kids would need
> > to be making another 10k to see that kind of reduction...
>
> WTF? Not only can't you read, you can't WRITE either! And you are
> also incapable of math.

Says he who used a figure of $870 as 1.6% of 75,000.

Hoist by your own petard. It's what happens to liars.

So still nothing but grade school name calling and lies.

[toms...@gmail.com]

Hey Dummy,

You are LIVING UP to your name! Can't even acknowledge that you were LYING about accusing me of lying. And you wanted figures, but you DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THEM!!! We'll have to start calling you KING OF DUMB!!!!

[DumbedDownUSA]

How the fuck is that meant to read. I've tried it the way it's written
and it makes you sound absolutely demented.

"you are"

/shouting/

"living up"

/stops shouting/

"to your name"

The only people that talk like that do so to themselves as the stumble
along the street in their urine stained trousers.

Are you responding to me or the voisec in your head.

> Can't even acknowledge that you were
> LYING about accusing me of lying.

I have no idea what your voices are telling you. Try calming down, take
your meds and try or NOT again.

> And you wanted figures, but you
> DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THEM!!! We'll have to start calling you
> KING OF DUMB!!!!

It's all very shouty but absolutely meaningless to me.

...except the plural ("we") very neatly confirms my suspicion about
your "voices". Take your meds...

...or as your voices might say 'TAKE your MEDS!'

[toms...@gmail.com]

Hey Dummy,

You are still on TIMEOUT!

[DumbedDownUSA]

> > shouting

> >
> > "living up"
> >
> > /stops shouting/
> >
> > "to your name"
> >
> > The only people that talk like that do so to themselves as the
> > stumble along the street in their urine stained trousers.
> >
> > Are you responding to me or the voisec in your head.
> >
> > > Can't even acknowledge that you were
> > > LYING about accusing me of lying.
> >
> > I have no idea what your voices are telling you. Try calming down,
> > take your meds and try or NOT again.
> >
> > > And you wanted figures, but you
> > > DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THEM!!! We'll have to start calling you
> > > KING OF DUMB!!!!
> >
> > It's all very shouty but absolutely meaningless to me.
> >
> > ...except the plural ("we") very neatly confirms my suspicion about
> > your "voices". Take your meds...
> >
> > ...or as your voices might say 'TAKE your MEDS!'
> >
> > --
> > “Don’t give up. If there’s a concrete wall in front of you, go
> > through it. Go over it. Go around it. But get to the other side of
> > that wall.” Donald Trump
>
> Hey Dummy,
>

Hey Tom (full of) Shit

> You are still on TIMEOUT!

You do realise that means nothing, less than nothing when you are
reading every post despite claiming to have kill filed.

I do not see the point of you replying as you have nothing to say but
then that is nothing new.

Is it just something those voices tell you to do.

NO don't reply, you will only lie.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-02-09 3:12 p.m., toms...@gmail.com wrote:
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_feb08
>
> It will go even higher as AOC drives the Dims even further left into LA LA Land.
>

How's that "rocketing" going?

:-)

[TomS]

On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 9:17:27 AM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> > http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_feb08
> >
> > It will go even higher as AOC drives the Dims even further left into LA LA Land.
> >
>
> How's that "rocketing" going?
>
> :-)

Pretty well - Trump is holding at 48%

[Bigbird]

Only 6 percent shy of Obama, that's pretty good for him but pretty
useless when you realise Obama was managing a recession and Trump is
benefiting off the back of a boom.

[-hh]

On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 2:30:30 AM UTC-5, Bigbird wrote:
> TomS wrote:
>
> > On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 9:17:27 AM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> > > >
> <http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_feb08>
> > > >
> > > > It will go even higher as AOC drives the Dims even further left
> > > > into LA LA Land.
> > > >
> > >
> > > How's that "rocketing" going?
> > >
> > > :-)
> >
> > Pretty well - Trump is holding at 48%

So that's down by 2% from the start of this thread.

> Only 6 percent shy of Obama, that's pretty good for him but pretty
> useless when you realise Obama was managing a recession and Trump
> is benefiting off the back of a boom.

Largely this is just a weak attempt to try to brag about how he's recovered
from shooting himself in his own foot with January's Gov't shutdown,
particularly since there's been just what actual policy successes to cite?

It wasn't in getting his wall funding from Congress. Nor was it a treaty with
North Korea to denuclearize. It wasn't China since he kicked the can on the
tariff deadline, as well as having signaled he's just going to give up.

So then, what was it? Is his base simply happy that he didn't screw up?


-hh

[Alan Baker]

So that would be DOWN from the number you claimed would "rocket" upward...

[John B.]

Wow, that's impressive!

[Carbon]

It truly is.

I would like to believe the suckers will finally be swayed when the rest
of the indictments land, but that's probably wishful thinking thinking on
my part.

[TomS]

Nope. 1% BETTER than Obama (a virtual tie):
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_mar08

[TomS]

Now, it's back up to 50%. What is more important is Trump's surge with Hispanics, a direct result with Dims desire for open borders. Hispanics are not your northern, elitist liberals; they want good jobs, good schools, reasonable housing prices, and a safe community. Pretty much what Trump is delivering and Dims are opposed to.

[TomS]

According to Cohen there WAS NO Russian collusion, so the Dim dream of a Mueller indictment of Trump is pretty much out the window. Hence the extreme fishing expedition by Nadler to try to dredge up ANYTHING. Dims had better come up with SOMETHING to convince people to vote for them. Right now, it looks pretty grim. And liberals were incensed that McConnell wanted to make Obama a one-term president!

[Alan Baker]

No. That is a falsehood.

Cohen did not make any statement that there WAS NO Russian collusion.

[Bigbird]

<sigh>

You cherry pick a single biased poll. I prefer to look at all the polls
(which includes the one you choose).

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

Net approval down a whole 14% on Obama...

How can anyone be proud to have a president you can't manage anything
close to 50% approval during a boom.

Do you ever pause to consider why a president who has been throwing
money at you is so so unpopular? He can't even buy approval.

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> On Saturday, March 9, 2019 at 12:36:58 PM UTC-8, Carbon wrote:
> > On 3/9/19 3:18 PM, John B. wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 9:09:46 PM UTC-5, TomS wrote:
> > >> On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 9:17:27 AM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > >
> > >>>>
> >
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_feb08
> > > > > >
> > >>>> It will go even higher as AOC drives the Dims even further
> > left into >>>> LA LA Land.
> > > > >
> > >>> How's that "rocketing" going?
> > > > >
> > >>> :-)
> > > >
> > >> Pretty well - Trump is holding at 48%
> > >
> > > Wow, that's impressive!
> >
> > It truly is.
> >
> > I would like to believe the suckers will finally be swayed when the
> > rest of the indictments land, but that's probably wishful thinking
> > thinking on my part.
>
> According to Cohen there WAS NO Russian collusion,

Is it because of your very low self esteem that you have to lie about
everything?

[TomS]

Hey Tweety,

You just quoted a bunch of pollsters that said Shrillary would WIN! And you continue to TRUST THEM! Tell me, what is the definition of insanity?

[TomS]

Hey Tweety,

I have been accused of a lot of things, but "low esteem" ISN'T one of them!

[Bigbird]

Grow up

>
> You just quoted

No I didn't.

> a bunch of pollsters that said Shrillary would WIN!
> And you continue to TRUST THEM!

If you were the scientist you claim to be you wouldn't make such a
childishly naive statement.

> Tell me, what is the definition of
> insanity?

Behaving like you and claiming not to childish?

[Bigbird]

Grow up,

> I have been accused of a lot of things, but "low esteem" ISN'T one of
> them!

Yes, it is.

[TomS]

Hey Tweety,

You just keep repeating yourself - at a loss for words?

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> Hey Tweety,
>
Grow up, little little man.

> You just keep repeating yourself - at a loss for words?

At a loss for proper punctuation? I guess spell checkers don't catch
that for you.

I train dogs; some aren't much brighter than you and I find consistent
repetition works eventually.

We'll have you house trained. We just have to put up with a little
shit... and rhetoric like a weak stream of piss until then.

[John B.]

Neither Democrats nor anyone else wants "open borders." Trump has not
delivered any of the things you attribute to him.

[John B.]

Clinton was at 62% while he was being impeached. One poll has Trump
at around 50%. All the rest are lower.

[John B.]

To be precise, Rassmussen, which always gives Trump better
numbers than other polls, him Trump at 47% today. No others
have him higher than 45%. The RealClearPolitics average has
him at 43.1%. Trump has not been higher than 50% in any poll
since taking office 26 months ago.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

[TomS]

Hey Tweety,

LOL! You ADMIT that you are at a loss for words.

[TomS]

Dims SAY they don't want open borders, but everything they do says otherwise. Actions speaker WAY LOUDER than words.

[Alan Baker]

Down at 47% today...

[Alan Baker]

Like what, exactly?

What is it they DO that says otherwise?

[Bigbird]

Don't be so stupid. They voted for the SFA you stupid little boy.

Grow up.

[Bigbird]

What fucking nonsense. Grow you stupid little twat.

[TomS]

Yeah, TWO POINTS above Obama's!

[John B.]

Please elaborate, if you can.

[TomS]

Hey Tweety,

> Grow up.

If that means acting like you, I'll pass.

OF COURSE they voted for the SFA (I have pointed that out already, but your reading comprehension isn't very good) - Trump wasn't in office then (although Bush was). This shows exactly how HYPOCRITICAL they are.

[Alan Baker]

But it's not rocketing, is it?

And you insist Obama was supposed to be terrible...

...so Trump is doing no better than someone you consider terrible.

:-)

[TomS]

Opposed to border wall
Disbanding ICE
Sanctuary cities
Free college tuition for illegals
Unemployment insurance illegal immigrants
Free healthcare for illegals
Driver's licenses for illegals
No voter ID laws
Allowing illegals to vote
Restricting ICE detention beds
Zero funds for new Border Patrol agents

[Bigbird]

Stupid little boy.

>
> OF COURSE they voted for the SFA (I have pointed that out already,
> but your reading comprehension isn't very good) - Trump wasn't in
> office then (although Bush was). This shows exactly how HYPOCRITICAL
> they are.

So you admit lying and you cannot support your stupid little comments.

[Bigbird]

You have a number of falsehoods there. Shame they do not support your
earlier stupid little comments.

[Bigbird]

Actually six points shy but really you should be asking yourself why
you are boasting that most of America disapprove of Trump.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

[TomS]

A nine point jump directly after the SOTU sure does qualify as "rocketing" - if it had been the reverse you would have said "crashing!"

[TomS]

...and, no doubt, Obama had his die-hard supporters, but he is your "gold standard," so beating him should be significant to you gals.

[Alan Baker]

The trouble for you, Snowflake, is that I was addressing this statement
in your original post:

"It will go even higher as AOC drives the Dims even further left into LA
LA Land."

I know you'd now like to forget it.

[TomS]

Not at all - it's even MORE valid now. AOC and her ilk are making the GOP be the party of reason. Keep in mind that these polls have a noise component called the margin of error, and this process takes months to occur (faster every time AOC opens her mouth!).

[Alan Baker]

It hasn't gone "even higher", Snowflake.

It has come back DOWN.

[Alan Baker]

He's not my ANYTHING, snowflake.

But he's obviously smarter than Trump.

[TomS]

Well, you ARE a canuck. No, he's dumber than Trump - by A LOT!

[TomS]

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 8:01:01 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
> > On 2019-03-13 1:22 p.m., TomS wrote:

> > > ...and, no doubt, Obama had his die-hard supporters, but he is
> > > your "gold standard," so beating him should be significant to you
> > > gals.

"gals" really? It seems your "grade school name calling" exposes your
innate misogyny.

What next "u r gay"?

We're a bunch of spics? Towel heads?

Your true (lack of) character shines through your posts.

> > >
> >
> > He's not my ANYTHING, snowflake.
> >
> > But he's obviously smarter than Trump.
>
> Well, you ARE a canuck. No, he's dumber than Trump - by A LOT!

OMG, if you have read or heard the Trump's confused ramblings and think
he is a genius it just goes to prove you are intellectually challenged.
I am surprised you don't call him Donald President.

During a recent rambling address:

Trump claimed to have said “Tim Cook Apple” extra quickly, and that the
“fake news” only reported that he said “Tim Apple.”

“I quickly referred to Tim + Apple as Tim/Apple as an easy way to save
time & words,”

Genius falsehoods; you believe him right even though he contradicted
one lie with another? Not embarrassing at all. Genius!

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> Not at all - it's even MORE valid now. AOC and her ilk are making the
> GOP be the party of reason. Keep in mind that these polls have a
> noise component called the margin of error, and this process takes
> months to occur (faster every time AOC opens her mouth!).

Admitting that a single rookie extremist scares the shit out of your
base. Normally a rookie like her would not get a single line of copy
but her intelligent rhetoric scares the shit out of mean old gits
sitting on their eggs.

Do you think they will all stay as scared as you for 2 years?

AOC is not running any more than one of your misogynist paedophile
billionaires in a pointy white hat.

[John B.]

Most of these are false. Even if they were true, they don't
show that Dems favor "open borders."

[TomS]

Certainly not to libtards.

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> Certainly not to libtards.

Grow up, you stupid little boy.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-02-09 3:12 p.m., toms...@gmail.com wrote:
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_feb08
>
> It will go even higher as AOC drives the Dims even further left into LA LA Land.
>

How's this working out for you?

<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_mar22>

:-)

[TomS]

On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 8:35:04 AM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
> > http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_feb08
> >
> > It will go even higher as AOC drives the Dims even further left into LA LA Land.
> >
>
> How's this working out for you?
>
> <http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_mar22>
>
> :-)

Hey Lazy,

So, now you are a Rasmussen follower? Good - it will be interesting to see what happens now that Mueller is out w/o the indictments Dims were predicting.

[Alan Baker]

How do you know what's about to come, Snowflake?

Fact: you predicted an approval rating that was going to continue up
from 50%.

Fact: it's fallen.