Thank you Donald Trump!

If only they could keep him off the stage to avoid the need to clean up after the senile imbecile speaks.

 

back to the basement starting this spring

 

I imagine that's something Cuomo (the former governor of New York) would say about all the nursing home residents.

 

He doesn't have the same advantage he did under the fabricated crisis of covid. He can't run on his "Biden economics" claims so he had to come out just the other day attacking Trump over the alleged "insurrection". The only thing missing from his "rally" was the word "deplorable". Of course, the new angle to toss out is MAGA "traitors".

 

The economy in the country was no better.

You're worried about gasoline prices when you should be worried for them about this...



House prices are nearly five times what they were in 1987. Overall prices are 2.76 times higher....

https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

You worry about gasoline?

 

I have a great idea-you worry about what worries you and I will worry about what I see as a problem. . My last year at Yale was about 10K. My niece graduated a couple years ago-it was near 70,000 a year. when I graduated law school my total cost was under 35K for three years. Starting offers I received in NYC was well over 100K. Now the cost of going to a top ten law school is close to 200K and the top firms that I received offers from aren't 6 times higher than what they were in 1984

 

Trump hoped what he organized--"riot" or "resurrection"--would stop the Electoral College from certifying the election.

You're spinning Jan6 as a big nothing. No, it was Trump trying to steal the election.

 

I see. You're going to "worry" about gas prices when home prices are going through the roof. Hi ho .., you're jumping on the media "gas prices" bandwagon. Sure, you "worry" about gas prices. You might note they were going up in Trump's last year.



You might note gas prices are back down.

Sure. My wife went to USC for $600 a semester. Today, it's almost $100,000 a year for tuition, books, room and board. What's your point?

And what?

 

You care a lot about rights and you oppose workers bargaining collectively? So much for their rights.

 

There has never been convincing evidence for hydroxychloroquine.

 

Not quite. He wanted to challenge the EC votes of only certain States. You can't challenge Electors if you stop the process. A process which is outlined in the Constitution. Thus he was actually following the Constitution.

Without the cooperation of members in Congress he could do nothing. He needed them to stand up and challenge the counting of certain States. There's no way he could "steal" the election by stopping the process. The rioters actually put a temporary hold on the count which in turn caused the Congress members planning on challenging the "official" votes to reconsider doing so. They came back giving up on their plans; allowing the count to proceed without any further interruption.

 

they have that right but employers should have the right to fire such people. If the workers get enough of the available labor to join, than they win, if not they lose. The government shouldn't protect them

 

The economic system is rigged against workers.

 

the economic system is rigged in favor of those with hi tech skills and not favorable to those who don't have much skills. I don't have any problem with that

 

Here's is Agent Orange playing doctor "common sense":

 

Sure, but anti-worker rights folks push "right to work" laws, force contract settlements on workers, outlaw secondary boycotts, oppose minimum wages, and generally denigrate union members. Your thumb is on the scale.

But it's okay for government to "protect" business? That thumb of yours...

 

the purpose of government is to protect people and property. and the nation as a whole. right to work is nothing more than a right to contract. Minimum wages I oppose as well. not valid constitutionally

 

No, it's actually rigged against those with high skills. The laws of economics favor skilled workers.

So, you figure people with 125 IQs should reap the rewards of their gifts while counterparts with 75 IQs should suffer through poverty?

 

I don't think smart people have a duty to fund the existence of stupid ones.

 

Yet you think the country can succeed when the last four decades have been particularly tough on average folks.

Like my right to sign an agreement with my employer that I don't have to work alongside nonunion workers?

Oh, please. What's your solution for declining real wages? What will you do for unemployed lawyers when AI replaces many of them in the next few decades?

 

things are tough on average folks because of the growth of government and the failures of public education.

WE HAVE too many lawyers. I have supported closing most of the law schools. maybe one state level law school per state and the top 20 private ones. Many lawsuits are nothing more than lawyers creating work for themselves--its a tax on productivity

 

Smart people aren't all that bright if they think they'll be better off living in a sea of poverty.

 

what causes poverty

1) dropping out of high school
2) getting a felony arrest
3) getting knocked up or fathering children out of wedlock

if you avoid all three-your chances of being in poverty is less than one out of 20

 

Yeah, too bad that half isn't functioning.

 

#1 indicator of poverty later in life? Growing up in poverty.

The three reasons you give do not CAUSE poverty.

If you are the child of a millionaire and any of those three things happen to you...guess what, you're not going to end up in poverty

Now if your parents are poor those three things are more likely to happen to you....but even if you avoid those three pitfalls, odds are you are STILL going to end up in poverty.