When the dust settles and the Rino's are reigned in Jim Jordan WILL be Speaker of the House

OK, Charles, you're far from stupid, but you have some profoundly stupid beliefs, which is far more shameful than the Shortbus Trio (etc.) having those same beliefs. You literally should know better.

And PJ did an excellent job of pointing out some examples of race hatred-motivated actions by Republicans. I can perhaps excuse some portion of all that crap by recognizing that the RepubliQ targets blacks not because they're black per se, but because blacks tend to vote Democrat. Nonetheless, nonwhites are the groups most harmed by those actions.

Don't try to pull the old reductio ad absurdum argument with me. I never claimed nobility on the part of Democrats, or absolute evil on the part of Republicans. I DO claim, however, that Democratic actions, policies, and attitudes are more oriented--MUCH more--toward the good of the people than Republican actions, policies, and attitudes. You can't plausibly or rationally deny that. Corporate welfare is on Page One of the Republican playbook.

And y'know what's really sad, Charles? They've managed to convince you--and a LOT of other folks--that boosting corporate share value is the surest shining path to overall happiness and prosperity. You evidently are a true believer in that shibboleth--despite all that historical evidence that you love indicating the exact opposite.

I do find MAGAism interesting in that it turns upside down a lot of conventional conservative views.

1.  They are for big government spending. Trump ran up more debt per-year than any other American President in history. There was hardly a peep out of traditional conservatives when he was doing this.

2.  Foreign Policy is probably where MAGAs differ from traditional conservatives the most. They are pro authoritarian and anti-demoracy. In other words their policies are pro-Russia and other authoritarian regimes. For example, they don't want to fund Ukraine which would mean the surrender of it to Russia. Once Putin finishes with Ukraine, he will likely move on to the Baltic region and those countries are members of NATO which would mean we would be treaty bound into a direct conflict with Russia. Speaking of NATO, the MAGAs want to end it.

3.  They are anti-law enforcement and rule of law. They want to defund Federal Law Enforcement. Their current position is that a Republican President/Former President is simply not bound to follow the law whenever he feels like it.

I'd ask Charles if he is ok with all of this as this is what he is signing up for if he follows through with his plans to vote for these folks.

#1..I think over time in this forum  I've made my opinion clear on big  government spending. I despise it, and that is obviously a traditionally conservative view. I've offered that both sides have over-spent, including the R's and further including the Trump and Biden admins. It's easily accessible public knowledge. The entire set of governing branches and members have contributed to the current $33T deficit. I guess we could always revert to borrowing a few bucks from the French like Franklin attempted during the Revolution when Continental soldiers weren't being paid for their cause / effort participation.  Or, we could actually return to considerations of balanced budget legislation which would probably piss off the grand majority of legislators because they've simply gotten away with their spending habits for way too long. I'm not an eternal pessimist on these spending issues even though the past and recent history would support such negativism, but I''m concerned that we will soon hit a wall that we can't scale. I'm practically over the hill and comfy enough myself, but what about my kids /grandkids/ the neighbors? The general public can't get away with operating outside their means, why should our government be able to in a massive and perpetual fashion? Reverting back to some of that evil traditional conservatism, such  attitudes and approaches are just irresponsible. I'm not apologizing to anybody for that archaic opinion, either. They spend money on casinos for pigeons, gonadal hormone therapy to create / study transgendered monkeys, wellness sidewalks..on, on, and on. How does such spending benefit the average working Joe that remitted taxes to fund these ridiculous projects? It doesn't.

#2...I'm certainly not pro-Russia/ pro-Putin. He's a flat criminal and epitomizes authoritarianism. So is China's Chairman Xi..can't tolerate him either. I'm empathetic / sympathetic to Ukraine's plight to some extent from a humanitarian standpoint for sure. I'm legitimately on the fence currently regarding further spending for Ukraine.I waver on it daily and want to see an end to it.. but it's a bit immoral to approve of innocents dying at the hands of the likes of Putin and his class of thugs. There's an entire fruitbasket of tentacled consequences if we don't provide assorted forms of aid to the Ukrainians, despite the fact that they may be among the most corrupt nations worldwide. These named entities all have elements of corruption on their resumes, but the truth is we have to deal with them on a daily basis for a lot of foreign policy and other reasons. Their worldwide influences can't just be ignored and we have interests of our own that would suffer if we were to do that. Yet, I also have some isolationist leanings as well..as I progressively age. Though somewhat unrealistic, I have comfy thoughts about being left alone while the world burns if a good football game is being televised.

#3...Rule of law is supreme..and final. There is no order without it. It's the core issue. If a court of law tries and convicts an individual legitimately no matter who they are, they ought to get their just due/ pay consequences. The appeals courts are still around for second chances, which I think everybody/anyone should get a shot at according to the law. 

Mark..my individual voting choices will always be based on the above and general conservative principles..if that certain individual is not an asshole / criminal. IMO, there's perpetually fewer individuals to consider on my side and your side, as a key attribute for being a politician is base narcissism. Self-interest of these candidates regardless of affiliation generally reigns supreme these days...to be fair that's what most of us are interested in too. Those decisions might be tempered by the fact that there is no perfect human and that all have frailties..there's degrees of variation in just how frail certain candidates might be beyond ideological stances. There's some that likely don't deserve a second/ third / fourth chance, which I generally ascribe to. In a diverse population, as long as they don't mess up my football games I'll get by, ya know? 

I often wish to ask those who complain about "big" government: compared to what? And I suppose "big government spending" is the funding and disbursements needed to keep such a behemoth going? And is that the same as bigly?

For the thicker of those reading this, my point is that "big" is a relative term--and the way it's applied in discussions (to use the term loosely) of government spending is that "big" is SOMETHIN' ME NO LIKE. Such complainants rarely acknowledge that government spending MUST increase on an absolute basis as the population increases just to maintain the same level of functioning and services. And one man's "wasteful" is another man's "necessary." There are actually very few current expenditures that are truly wasteful--they just get painted that way by those who oppose benefiting some group or the other.

Hell, even the Great Wall of Stupid can be said to have a useful function. Can you really justify the expenditure? Of course not--but it's certainly more palatable if the worst thing in the world for you is the specter of some filthy Messkin opening a taco truck in your neighborhood. I realize that there are some MAGAs and such who would slit their grandmothers' throats to prevent that. Likewise, for some, aid to Israel is sacrosanct and inviolate--no matter how authoritarian and undemocratic they become--because they want to show everyone they have great big matzo balls. And I consider renewable energy initiatives to be absolutely vital, because I've been watching the place I live slowly incinerate.

So, Charles, I call you out on your supposed opposition to BIG GUMMINT SPENDIN'. You have no such opposition--you have opposition to spending on the things you and your friends don't like. Those things are "wasteful" and the things y'all crave are "absolutely necessary."

And duck! here comes a taco truck.

Yes, I am against big government spending when it includes funding of programs such as pigeon casinos, smart toilets that via AI technology develop 'anal imprints' via camera recordings, and transgender monkey hormone therapy. You'll counter that I have no vision for the future potentiality of such funded research; I certainly don't under the current fiscal environment. So, in such instances involving govt funding, you're absolutely right that I don't like it..unashamedly. Many are in fact not necessary for the general citizen population's well being.

Our own internal GAO ( Government Accountability Office) reported that nearly $250 billion was wasted on improper payments alone in 2022. I don't approve of that either. I can make a lengthy list of similar skewed thinking and spending ( which I already provided in earlier similar threads here), but it won't make any difference to you and your kind. It's a waste of time..no point in it.

I don't mind paying taxes for real infrastructure (roads, bridges, interstates, the like), SSI and Medicare, national defense, law enforcement, a functional justice system, care for the indigent and elderly..those that can't provide for themselves, and some aspects of the economic safety net for citizens. But I'll be damned if I want to fund, via mine or the neighbors taxes, programs similar to what I outlined above. It's wasteful and detracts from / subtracts from pooled funds that should be used for providing some of those essential services just described; all the while our deficit just continues to skyrocket. Yeah, I don't like it; yet you sit there and assume or pretend that our deficits are sustainable, and that we won't hit a fiscal wall at some point. Your prerogative..I just don't agree. Just fire up the digital currency printers and invite the politicians and lawyers to back it...most of them will get on board if past and present conditions are hints for us.

  The truth about which President ran up the most debt per year --  (the majority of the debt that President Trump added was because of the corona virus, as alluded to in this compilation ---- - (1-Joe Biden In January 2023, the nation hit the $31.4 trillion debt limit Congress passed in 2021.5 Republican lawmakers in control of the House of Representatives said they won’t raise the debt limit unless Democrats, who control the Senate, agree to budget cuts. On Oct. 1, 2021, at the end of fiscal year 2021, the national debt was $28.4 trillion. Between the end of fiscal year 2020 and the end of fiscal year 2021, the national debt grew $1.5 trillion, a 5.6% increase year over year. For fiscal year 2022, President Joe Biden's budget included a deficit of $1.84 trillion, and by August 2022, the national debt had grown to $30.8 trillion.46 When Biden took office, the economy and household finances were still reeling from the pandemic, and Biden continued his predecessor’s policy of spending heavily to keep households afloat. In March 2021, Biden signed the American Rescue Plan, which showered taxpayers with pandemic relief cash in the form of stimulus checks and extra unemployment payments, and temporarily expanded child tax credits, plus other help. It all came with a cost to future budgets: The bill would add $1.9 trillion to the national debt by 2031, the Congressional Budget Office estimated.7 The bipartisan infrastructure bill, signed by Biden in November 2021, provided new funding for highways, railways, broadband Internet expansion and other projects. It added to the debt too, with estimates on its 10-year impact ranging from $374 billion to $400 billion, depending on how it’s calculated.89 Some of Biden’s actions cut the other way. In August 2022, Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, an anti-climate change bill that spent money on new green energy programs and tax credits as well as to make drugs cheaper for patients, and paid for it by raising taxes on corporations and the ultra-wealthy. The bill should reduce the national debt by $102 billion by 2031, the CBO estimated.10 Biden followed up this bill with an executive action that forgave up to $10,000 of federal student loan debt per borrower, and $20,000 for those who received Pell Grants. He also proposed a new, cheaper income-driven student loan repayment program for future borrowers. However, he also announced that student loan interest and required payments, both of which had been frozen since the pandemic hit, would resume in 2023. As of April 2023, repayments have not yet resumed.1112 In August 2022, the government did not have an official estimate of how these measures would impact the national debt. One piece of it—forgiving $10,000 of debt per student loan borrower—would cost $329.7 billion over 10 years, according to an estimate by the Wharton School of Business.13 ---- (2)-Donald Trump At the end of fiscal year 2020, the debt was $26.9 trillion. Trump added $6.7 trillion to the debt between fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2020, a 33.1% increase, largely due to the effects of the coronavirus pandemic and 2020 recession. In his FY 2021 budget, Trump's budget included a $966 billion deficit.14 However, the national debt actually grew by $1.5 trillion between October 1, 2020, and October 1, 2021. FY 2021: $1.5 trillion FY 2020: $4.2 trillion FY 2019: $1.2 trillion FY 2018: $1.3 trillion  ---(3)- Barack Obama President Obama added about $8.6 trillion, about a 74% increase, to the national debt at the end of President Bush’s last budget in 2009. FY 2017: $671 billion FY 2016: $1.42 trillion FY 2015: $326 billion FY 2014: $1.09 trillion FY 2013: $672 billion FY 2012: $1.28 trillion FY 2011: $1.23 trillion FY 2010: $1.65 trillion FY 2009: $253 billion (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion)1

Kevin likes big government.  It is his livelihood.  He went into a low paying occupation after his business failed.  He will dispute that but he was the one that let us all know these exact happenings in his life here on this forum.  

I think what you presented here just illustrates that these recent administrations all contributed to the deficit, regardless of party affiliation.You can add the GW Bush admin to the mix as well, who raided the SSI surplus at the time ( nearly $2 trillion was absconded with in this specific instance).

The main reason I posted this is because Mark has a penchant to cherry pick and present "facts" in a distorted way to reinforce his latest lying rant. Typical of a lawyer - which Mark claims he is. No matter who was in the White House during the pandemic, their numbers of dollars added to the national debt would have been similar. President Trump tried to SAVE America and Americans from a recession and from financial ruin.

Y'all notice how the conservitard fucks ignore the horrible effect that the Orange Turd had on the deficit, with his $6 trillion+ tax giveaways to the rich? Talk about "cherry picking"--licking Trump and drooling on his shoes while ignoring the massive damage he did to the economy.