American Politics

[MarquisdeSade1]

"Intelligence as measured by IQ tests peaks around age 20 to 40 and then heads downward. But IQ is adjusted for age. By definition, the average IQ of 20 year olds would be 100. The average for 50 year olds is also 100, as is the average for 80 year olds. This is even though people get stupider and score lower on the tests as they get older.

Alan Kaufman, a researcher at Yale, calculates a "full scale" (global) IQ, where he removes the adjustment for age, and adds an adjustment for educational levels of people in different age groups:

https://metafact.io/factcheck_answers/2355

Based on Kaufman's research, the average full scale IQ for people 20 to 44 is about 100. Then it drops as follows:

45 to 54 years old - 97.

55 to 64 years old - 94.

65 to 69 years old - 90.

70 to 74 years old - 86.

75 years and older - 79.

So lets assume Joe Biden is of average intelligence. He graduated in the bottom part of his classes at the University of Delaware and Syracuse University Law School. Some believe he wouldn't have graduated from either if he weren't a skilled plagiarizer. Throughout his career he's seemed somewhat mentally challenged from time to time.

I think "average" is reasonable.

Biden is 81 years old. So let's go with the "full scale" IQ of 79 above, for people 75 and older.

Here's an IQ percentile converter.

https://www.omnicalculator.com/health/iq-percentile

If I plug in 79, I get 8%. In other words, if Biden is of average intelligence for your person 75+ years old, he'd be pretty close to the bottom, in the 8% percentile, for people 20 to 44 years old.

I plugged that into a couple of other converters and got about the same number.

Think about it another way. Human Rights Watch says "to be diagnosed as having mental retardation, a person must have an IQ below 70-75":

https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/ustat/ustat0301-01.htm

If Biden's IQ is 79, four points higher than the 75 cutoff, we have a president who'd be pretty close to a retard if he were in the 20 to 44 age group. How much sense does that make?

Trump's not much better. If elected next year, he'll be 82 when his term expires.

We need new blood! Yes, Ronald Reagan did a great job. But he was "only" 77 when he left office. ".

This is the kinda "new blood" that gives you wood w / o Viagra.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/...ces-officials/

[MarquisdeSade1]

Tucker Carlson, who declares that the people who represent Ron DeSantis "online are the nastiest, the stupidest, and the most zero-sum people I've ever seen in my life.

Coming from someone that worked at Fox for several years that's saying a lot!!

[EihTooms]

Stock market declines, recessions and a pandemic would have occurred in 2020 and around 2008/2009 if John Kerry or Hillary Clinton had been president, instead of Bush and Trump. About Hoover, I don't remember back to 1929. The party of the president is pretty far down the list of what causes market indices to go up and down.

That's an interesting theory you have about tax cuts and market performance. Very unconventional. Individual tax cuts provide stimulus to the economy and corporate cuts boost after tax profits, which in turn cause share prices to increase, all else being equal.

Please recall the NBER piece that determined changes in corporate taxation in 2018 as a result of the Republicans' TCJA actually caused government revenues to be higher than they would be otherwise. Everybody, the corporations, workers, and the taxpayer, are better off as a result -- more corporate profits, more jobs, higher wages, and higher revenues to the government.

Did it occur to you that one of the reasons for higher corporate profits and thus higher share prices is the TCJA? Recall that by the estimates in the NBER paper it took 4 years for the benefits of the TCJA to kick in to such an extent that government revenues are higher than they would have been otherwise. Similarly the benefits to investment, jobs and corporate profits are greater now than they were in 2018.

The USA has the most progressive tax system in the developed world. It had the highest corporate rate in the developed world prior to 2018.

1. There is nothing unconventional about it at all. Bear Markets typically accompany Recessions. Mega Bear Markets would naturally and logically accompany Great Depressions and Great Recessions where Unemployment Rates spike up into double digits and / or jobs are wiped out by the millions. All of which occurred due to Repub economic policy and stewardship (the POTUS being both the policy guide and "decider" and the steward. Sorry) and none of which occurred due to that of a Dem for the past 100 years or so. Wildly coincidentally, of course.

2. I am always talking about tax cuts. You know, those thingies POTUSes generally propose in order to produce a necessary economic stimulus at a given moment in time. Might even be temporary until the economy gets back on track. When, where, why, how much of a cut and on whom is the "stewardship" part of it, completely aside from the "fact" of a tax cut. Clearly, obviously and inarguably supported by every bit of data and historical record available, not all tax cuts are created equal and they all don't produce the same result simply because somebody's taxes got cut.

It turns out Repub tax cuts, when, where, why, how much and on whom, along with their "stewardship", if any while they are out fishing, riding ponies, clearing brush down at the ranch or playing golf, golf, golf, either produce zero economic stimulus, fewer jobs with them than without them (see the TCJA), cost more in deficit spending than the stimulus there were supposed to produce (again, see the TCJA) or, most notably throughout history, Great Repub Recessions, Skyrocketing Unemployment Rates and / or Massive Jobs Destruction. If for no other reason but that the cuts made by Repubs were so irrelevant to the stimulus required at the time, if any, IN ORDER to avert and avoid a looming economic storm. Again, that is the "stewardship" part.

Dem tax cuts do not produce those negative net results. By stark contrast, they have produced some of the greatest economic recoveries, expansions and job gains in history. That is very likely because Dem tax cuts are designed to actually recover, stimulate the economy and create jobs rather than to merely make some political donor class wealthier. FDR, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry would no more have proposed and passed a tax cut designed to produce the latter Repub result at a time of gathering economic storm clouds than any of them would have defied all expert warnings not to do something so stupid and dangerous as to defund and eliminate all of the Pandrmic Prevention and Response teams from those Chinese labs in 2018,2019 and lied about the resulting situation all through 2020 and beyond. Meaning they never would have considered such a thing for a single minute.

You then generally reply with some niceity about progressive tax rates, which is lovely to read and revisit from time to time but, alas, is not even the same topic as the totally accurate point I make about tax cuts made at a given moment in order to stimulate the economy, create jobs, generate revenue to pay down the debt, deficit and so on.

[MarquisdeSade1]

"Intelligence as measured by IQ tests peaks around age 20 to 40 and then heads downward. But IQ is adjusted for age. By definition, the average IQ of 20 year olds would be 100. The average for 50 year olds is also 100, as is the average for 80 year olds. This is even though people get stupider and score lower on the tests as they get older.

Alan Kaufman, a researcher at Yale, calculates a "full scale" (global) IQ, where he removes the adjustment for age, and adds an adjustment for educational levels of people in different age groups:

https://metafact.io/factcheck_answers/2355

Based on Kaufman's research, the average full scale IQ for people 20 to 44 is about 100. Then it drops as follows:

45 to 54 years old - 97.

55 to 64 years old - 94.

65 to 69 years old - 90.

70 to 74 years old - 86.

75 years and older - 79.

So lets assume Joe Biden is of average intelligence. He graduated in the bottom part of his classes at the University of Delaware and Syracuse University Law School. Some believe he wouldn't have graduated from either if he weren't a skilled plagiarizer. Throughout his career he's seemed somewhat mentally challenged from time to time.

I think "average" is reasonable.

Biden is 81 years old. So let's go with the "full scale" IQ of 79 above, for people 75 and older.

Here's an IQ percentile converter.

https://www.omnicalculator.com/health/iq-percentile

If I plug in 79, I get 8%. In other words, if Biden is of average intelligence for your person 75+ years old, he'd be pretty close to the bottom, in the 8% percentile, for people 20 to 44 years old.

I plugged that into a couple of other converters and got about the same number.

Think about it another way. Human Rights Watch says "to be diagnosed as having mental retardation, a person must have an IQ below 70-75":

https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/ustat/ustat0301-01.htm

If Biden's IQ is 79, four points higher than the 75 cutoff, we have a president who'd be pretty close to a retard if he were in the 20 to 44 age group. How much sense does that make?

Trump's not much better. If elected next year, he'll be 82 when his term expires.

We need new blood! Yes, Ronald Reagan did a great job. But he was "only" 77 when he left office. ".

Great job? Doing what shitting his pants? Ronny the Retard was shitting his pants long before he ever left the White House.

Skilled plagiarizer? LOL but how about Barry Hussein that dum MFer still won't release his grades 15 yrs after 2008.

I'm guessing any school he "attended" was ordered by the deep state to BURN all records, so they are NEVER seen.

And being the stable genius that he is I'm sure our Lord and Savior is a very high performing outlier.

Trump is sharper and more energetic than any college grads, hes a very young 77.

Crusty Dirtbag Joe is a very very old 81.

New blood ok 2028 Donald Trump Jr and Tucker for VP theres your new blood!!

[Tiny 12]

(...kkkk!) I so do get a kick out of your "WHAT IF...?" type posts!

Coincidentally, Disney just started it's 2nd season of "WHAT IF...?". Your post, much like the Disney show, makes for terrific fantasy. (...kkkk!)

OK Spidy, since you're convinced of the cause-and-effect relationship between the party of the president and stock market performance, I've got some great additional areas of research for you and Tooms to tackle:

https://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

You have to put all the blame for the 1929-1939, 2008/2009 and 2020 downturns on Republican presidents to come to your conclusions:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Deliver...960458&mirid=1

I can guaran-damn-tee you that 2020 would have happened with or without Trump. And it's very doubtful a Democrat presidential administration would have avoided 2008/2009. I don't know about 1929, but certainly the governing class and economists, from both parties, have since learned a lot about using fiscal and monetary policy to ameliorate downturns since then.

[Spidy]

Stock market declines, recessions and a pandemic would have occurred in 2020 and around 2008/2009 if John Kerry or Hillary Clinton had been president, instead of Bush and Trump. About Hoover, I don't remember back to 1929. The party of the president is pretty far down the list of what causes market indices to go up and down.

That's an interesting theory you have about tax cuts and market performance. Very unconventional. Individual tax cuts provide stimulus to the economy and corporate cuts boost after tax profits, which in turn cause share prices to increase, all else being equal. . . .

(...kkkk!) I so do get a kick out of your "WHAT IF...?" type posts!

Coincidentally, Disney just started it's 2nd season of "WHAT IF...?". Your post, much like the Disney show, makes for terrific fantasy. (...kkkk!)

[Tiny 12]

Intelligence as measured by IQ tests peaks around age 20 to 40 and then heads downward. But IQ is adjusted for age. By definition, the average IQ of 20 year olds would be 100. The average for 50 year olds is also 100, as is the average for 80 year olds. This is even though people get stupider and score lower on the tests as they get older.

Alan Kaufman, a researcher at Yale, calculates a "full scale" (global) IQ, where he removes the adjustment for age, and adds an adjustment for educational levels of people in different age groups:

https://metafact.io/factcheck_answers/2355

Based on Kaufman's research, the average full scale IQ for people 20 to 44 is about 100. Then it drops as follows:

45 to 54 years old - 97.
55 to 64 years old - 94.
65 to 69 years old - 90.
70 to 74 years old - 86.
75 years and older - 79.

So lets assume Joe Biden is of average intelligence. He graduated in the bottom part of his classes at the University of Delaware and Syracuse University Law School. Some believe he wouldn't have graduated from either if he weren't a skilled plagiarizer. Throughout his career he's seemed somewhat mentally challenged from time to time.

I think "average" is reasonable.

Biden is 81 years old. So let's go with the "full scale" IQ of 79 above, for people 75 and older.

Here's an IQ percentile converter.

https://www.omnicalculator.com/health/iq-percentile

If I plug in 79, I get 8%. In other words, if Biden is of average intelligence for your person 75+ years old, he'd be pretty close to the bottom, in the 8% percentile, for people 20 to 44 years old.

I plugged that into a couple of other converters and got about the same number.

Think about it another way. Human Rights Watch says "to be diagnosed as having mental retardation, a person must have an IQ below 70-75":

https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/ustat/ustat0301-01.htm

If Biden's IQ is 79, four points higher than the 75 cutoff, we have a president who'd be pretty close to a retard if he were in the 20 to 44 age group. How much sense does that make?

Trump's not much better. If elected next year, he'll be 82 when his term expires.

We need new blood! Yes, Ronald Reagan did a great job. But he was "only" 77 when he left office.

[MarquisdeSade1]

Even the CCP laughs at DNC desperation and fear of MAGA.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...itical-weapon/

Only 10 more months! Approx. 300 days.

[MarquisdeSade1]

"Trump used Chinese factories to manufacture products he sold, including Trump ties "produced in Chinese Factories under horrific conditions. " he also invested in China, has a bank account in China, borrowed money from a Chinese government bank, paid taxes in China, leased office space to a Chinese government bank for $1. 9 million per year, and has sold real estate to individuals and entities associated with the Chinese government. As well as a lot of real estate to Chinese individuals who received residency and citizenship in the USA in return for buying the properties.

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/dona...-racked-report

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/dona...ory?id=3182679

https://www.ft.com/content/9eb753d8-...5-0e11fb1607df

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/20/u...xes-china.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalex...h=45c12e33ed11

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...na-debt-205475

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...ium=cpc_search".

ROTFLMMFAO.

OMG you're worse than ET hey wait a second, I think you are ET you must have 2 accounts LMAO.

[Tiny 12]

Trump used Chinese factories to manufacture products he sold, including Trump ties "produced in Chinese Factories under horrific conditions. " He also invested in China, has a bank account in China, borrowed money from a Chinese government bank, paid taxes in China, leased office space to a Chinese government bank for $1. 9 million per year, and has sold real estate to individuals and entities associated with the Chinese government. As well as a lot of real estate to Chinese individuals who received residency and citizenship in the USA in return for buying the properties.

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/dona...-racked-report

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/dona...ry?id=31826791

https://www.ft.com/content/9eb753d8-...5-0e11fb1607df

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/20/u...xes-china.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalex...h=45c12e33ed11

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...na-debt-205475

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...ium=cpc_search

[Tiny 12]

"Your hero, lord and savior, oppressing immigrants and hiring undocumented workers. All to save a buck.

https://time.com/4465744/donald-trum...ented-workers/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ff7_story.html

He threatened to call the Immigration and Naturalization Service and have the Poles deported to avoid paying them. They were working 12 hours a day under unsafe conditions and not getting paid. ".

Seriously you're going to try to use Time or WAPO as a source LMAO.

https://www.breitbart.com/2024-elect...allot-removal/

WHOMP WHOMP WHOMP.

https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/...em/4879205007/

https://www.usw.org/blog/2016/the-st...polish-workers

https://thehill.com/latino/429136-mo...resort-during/

https://www.chicagotribune.com/natio...208-story.html

https://www.esquire.com/news-politic...workers-fired/

[Tiny 12]

That one is so easy I bet even you knew it before you posted that. The same as you knew the stock market has indeed performed better under Dems than Repubs:

Of that group only Hoover, GW Bush and Trump produced stock market crashes well beyond a conventional 20% Correction decline.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stocks-...rs-2020-03-18/

The stock market experiences gains roughly 75% of the time. That is the normal tendency for it. That is a factor in why investing in broadly diversified Index funds for the long term produces better results for more investors than stock picking; you will go along for that 75% ride and not miss it standing on the sidelines guessing which individual stocks might make up for what you missed.

But the 25% of the time when it declines can be brutal. History shows Repubs produce the most brutal declines. Well, all of them for the past 100 years or so.

It is during the most brutal declines that investors who just can't handle the pain bail out. By the millions. And usually at or near the bottom. Life savings and future plans are wiped out. Forever, if, as is often the case those investors vow to never return again.

That kind of deep decline has never happened under Dem economic policy and stewardship, it has only happened under Repubs since the Great Repub Crash and Depression.

Lackluster stock market returns are not damaging in that way. They do not tend to shake out investors by the millions after scary, serious, historic losses. For one thing, that is because such a period of lackluster returns, say 15-24 months, often comes about because the Fed spends that much time dithering over whether and how much to ease off raising or ease off lowering Fed Funds Rates in light of clear signs of a recovery from, typically, a Great Repub Economic Disaster. The Fed's dithering and indecision about that prevents investors from going in as much as they would ordinarily during such economically benign times. And the overall improvement in the economy keeps them from bailing out entirely.

Such was the case for about 16 months at the end of Obama's Great Dem Recovery while the Fed dithered over raising Rates as the full Recovery was solidifying and, this time, regarding lowering Fed Funds Rates related to unavoidable Trump's Pandemic Recovery Inflation, for the past 22 months of Biden's Great Dem Recovery. The markets simply traded within a range roughly between a Correction and the market high, not yet confident enough (due to Fed dithering about rates) to exceed the previous all time closing high.

That is much preferred over those Great Repub Crashes during periods of, wildly coincidentally I know, the exact same Repub-style disproportionately high tax cuts for top margins and corporations accompanied by little or no attention to regulations that, again, only wildly coincidentally, are promoted and overseen only by Repubs and never by Dems.

All wild coincidences, of course. The Major Repub Crashes and the Historic Dem Recoveries, that is. For about 100 years so far.

Stock market declines, recessions and a pandemic would have occurred in 2020 and around 2008/2009 if John Kerry or Hillary Clinton had been president, instead of Bush and Trump. About Hoover, I don't remember back to 1929. The party of the president is pretty far down the list of what causes market indices to go up and down.

That's an interesting theory you have about tax cuts and market performance. Very unconventional. Individual tax cuts provide stimulus to the economy and corporate cuts boost after tax profits, which in turn cause share prices to increase, all else being equal.

Please recall the NBER piece that determined changes in corporate taxation in 2018 as a result of the Republicans' TCJA actually caused government revenues to be higher than they would be otherwise. Everybody, the corporations, workers, and the taxpayer, are better off as a result -- more corporate profits, more jobs, higher wages, and higher revenues to the government.

Did it occur to you that one of the reasons for higher corporate profits and thus higher share prices is the TCJA? Recall that by the estimates in the NBER paper it took 4 years for the benefits of the TCJA to kick in to such an extent that government revenues are higher than they would have been otherwise. Similarly the benefits to investment, jobs and corporate profits are greater now than they were in 2018.

The USA has the most progressive tax system in the developed world. It had the highest corporate rate in the developed world prior to 2018.

[EihTooms]

"Your hero, lord and savior, oppressing immigrants and hiring undocumented workers. All to save a buck.

https://time.com/4465744/donald-trum...ented-workers/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ff7_story.html

He threatened to call the Immigration and Naturalization Service and have the Poles deported to avoid paying them. They were working 12 hours a day under unsafe conditions and not getting paid. ".

Seriously you're going to try to use Time or WAPO as a source LMAO.

https://www.breitbart.com/2024-elect...allot-removal/

WHOMP WHOMP WHOMP.

Of course, Trump's poll numbers went up among Repubs for the Repub Primary election. That is why I pointed out it was all admitted Repubs and 1 likely Repub only pretending to be an "Independent" that filed that lawsuit knowing full well the Colorado Supreme Court would have no choice but to follow the clear and unambiguous Constitutional disqualification and of Trump as a so-called potus and determine him ineligible to run. Those Repubs knew their Party loves itself some anti-American Insurrectionist Traitors bent on crapping all over the USA Economy, National Security, the USA Constitution and wiping out millions upon millions of jobs while publicly blowing Xi, Kim and Putin.

Your boy, in other words. Especially him. But almost any other Repub will do.

However, I question that it helps Trump beat Biden. See, there have all along been telltale signs in those polls that mostly deeply aggrieved admitted Repubs and deeply aggreived Repubs pretending to be "Independents" were racing to their phones and computers this far out from the general election in order to express to any and all pollsters their undying love for Trump or any other Repub certain to produce the aforementioned disastrous Repub results. For example:

https://www.deseret.com/2023/12/5/23...be-the-nominee

Do you think Donald Trump will win or lose the Republican primaries for President?

ALL VOTERS:

60% Yes
40% No

Huh? 40% of ALL VOTERS sampled in that poll think the idiot Repub whose poll numbers has had him 50-60 points ahead of the nearest Repub rival for the nomination in practically every poll since the beginning, a greater margin for the GOP nomination than any candidate in history, think he WON'T get the nomination? Before this Colorado Supreme Court decision came down?

Holy shit. Obviously, very, very few VOTERS have been paying the least bit of attention to any of this up to now. If they had been, that number would have been more like 5%.

So now is the time when more and more voters will finally begin to pay attention to what the candidates stand for, have done and are campaigning on. Which, as usual, is a much worse proposition for Trump or any other Repub than for Biden. Or any other Dem, for that matter.

[EihTooms]

That's quite an achievement! During the last 100 years, the Dow only hit records during the Biden, Trump, Obama, George W. Bush, Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Hoover and Coolidge Administrations.

In fact, the only elected presidents during the last century who didn't see records set in the Dow were Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Jimmy Carter.

Looking forward to Toom's explanation, most likely during a cherry picked period, on how the stock market has outperformed under Democratic presidents. Tooms, it's just coincidence, like Roosevelt, Truman and Carter being Democrats.

That one is so easy I bet even you knew it before you posted that. The same as you knew the stock market has indeed performed better under Dems than Repubs:

Of that group only Hoover, GW Bush and Trump produced stock market crashes well beyond a conventional 20% Correction decline.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stocks-...rs-2020-03-18/

The stock market experiences gains roughly 75% of the time. That is the normal tendency for it. That is a factor in why investing in broadly diversified Index funds for the long term produces better results for more investors than stock picking; you will go along for that 75% ride and not miss it standing on the sidelines guessing which individual stocks might make up for what you missed.

But the 25% of the time when it declines can be brutal. History shows Repubs produce the most brutal declines. Well, all of them for the past 100 years or so.

It is during the most brutal declines that investors who just can't handle the pain bail out. By the millions. And usually at or near the bottom. Life savings and future plans are wiped out. Forever, if, as is often the case those investors vow to never return again.

That kind of deep decline has never happened under Dem economic policy and stewardship, it has only happened under Repubs since the Great Repub Crash and Depression.

Lackluster stock market returns are not damaging in that way. They do not tend to shake out investors by the millions after scary, serious, historic losses. For one thing, that is because such a period of lackluster returns, say 15-24 months, often comes about because the Fed spends that much time dithering over whether and how much to ease off raising or ease off lowering Fed Funds Rates in light of clear signs of a recovery from, typically, a Great Repub Economic Disaster. The Fed's dithering and indecision about that prevents investors from going in as much as they would ordinarily during such economically benign times. And the overall improvement in the economy keeps them from bailing out entirely.

Such was the case for about 16 months at the end of Obama's Great Dem Recovery while the Fed dithered over raising Rates as the full Recovery was solidifying and, this time, regarding lowering Fed Funds Rates related to unavoidable Trump's Pandemic Recovery Inflation, for the past 22 months of Biden's Great Dem Recovery. The markets simply traded within a range roughly between a Correction and the market high, not yet confident enough (due to Fed dithering about rates) to exceed the previous all time closing high.

That is much preferred over those Great Repub Crashes during periods of, wildly coincidentally I know, the exact same Repub-style disproportionately high tax cuts for top margins and corporations accompanied by little or no attention to regulations that, again, only wildly coincidentally, are promoted and overseen only by Repubs and never by Dems.

All wild coincidences, of course. The Major Repub Crashes and the Historic Dem Recoveries, that is. For about 100 years so far.

[MarquisdeSade1]

"If tweet were true, it's hard to see why MAGA nation and the faithless would be upset about the gay priests and LGBTQ rights. I'm sure just more subterfuge for the gullible MAGA media, who eat that "shit-up". Just like when he says, "Dictator ONLY on day 1".

"Social / Economic liberal", is that what you Repubs "moderate" and "normies" are calling themselves these days? (. kkkk!

Not too worry, in light of the Pope now allowing priests to bless LGBTQ couples, there's maybe hope for all those being called "son (s) of Satan" and who knows, maybe even the 2 x impeached, 4 x indicted "devil" himself? (. kkKk!

Local leaders welcome popes statement on LGBTQ couples.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other...es/ar-AA1lHUFq

The homophobes here and at MILFs for Liberty, must be blowing a gasket, over the Pope's blessing of LGBTQ congregation. I wonder what that does for their "DON't SAY GAY!" laws and their so called religious beliefs, if the Pope is okaying / blessing LGBTQ unions?

https://www.newsmax.com/us/franklin-...21/id/1146754/

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/po...20/id/1146680/

https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/r...19/id/1146480/

He will say anything for a few Argentinian pesos.

https://www.ncronline.org/news/javie...ions-argentina