American Politics

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;3072352]See what exactly?

Blue (Democratic-leaning) states generally have higher median household incomes than red (Republican-leaning) states, with 15 of the top 20 highest-income states leaning Democratic as of 2023 data. The national median household income is $81,000, and many blue states exceed this, while several red states fall below it.

Top-income states by political leaning (2023 median household income):

Blue states: Massachusetts ($107 K), Maryland ($102 K), New Hampshire ($99 K), Colorado ($97 K), Hawaii ($97 K), Virginia ($96 K), Washington ($93 K), Connecticut ($92 K), New Jersey ($92 K), California ($90 K).

Red states: Utah ($101 K), Alaska ($98 K), Nebraska ($89 K), Kansas ($85 K), South Dakota ($82 K).

Swing states: Arizona ($83 K), Nevada ($81 K), Pennsylvania ($80 K), Wisconsin ($80 K), Michigan ($77 K), Georgia ($72 K), North Carolina ($69 K).

Lowest-income states are predominantly red, including Mississippi ($55 K), Louisiana ($58 K), West Virginia ($60 K), Alabama ($61 K), and Arkansas ($63 K). Notable exceptions include New Mexico (blue, $61 K) and Utah / Alaska (red, both above $98 K). This pattern reflects broader economic differences, with blue states often having more urbanized, service-oriented economies, while red states rely more on agriculture, manufacturing, and natural resources.

I have visited 48 of the 50 states in the Dis United States of America. Exactly WHAT do you think I need to see?

Inaccurate. See the information I provided above.

What is the basis for this statement? What state do you actually live in in the Dis United States of America?

No, Montana does not have zero state taxes; it imposes a graduated individual income tax (up to 6. 75%) and a corporate income tax (6. 75%.

In contrast, South Dakota and Wyoming have zero individual and corporate income tax, but they are not entirely tax-free as they rely on other revenue sources:

South Dakota levies a sales tax (averaging 6. 11% combined) and property tax (effective rate 1. 17% along with taxes on cigarettes and alcohol to offset the lack of income tax.

Wyoming has a sales tax (averaging 5. 36%) and property tax (effective rate 0. 53% while also utilizing severance taxes on mineral extraction.

All three states, like all USA States, levy property taxes.

This is the [B]third time [/B]I have had to put you in check using facts.[/QUOTE]Yes, historically for every hard working, taxpaying Republican in California maybe there were two Democratic slackers. If you look at this at the individual level, Republicans made more money, until Trump came along. When he disappears and Democratic Socialists increasingly take control from the Democratic moderates, I think we'll go back to the way it was. Please note below that people who pay higher taxes have higher taxable income.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;3060532]Here's what Gemini Deep Research says, as to its estimates of federal tax rates borne by Democrats vs. Republicans for the last 8 presidential elections, based on exit polls. Please note that party affiliation was based on who the respondent voted for President. So when Trump ran, there were a lot of upper income, highly taxed Republicans who didn't vote for him. They would show up as Democrats or "other" in the polls.

Average estimated tax rates:

1996 Democrat: 9. 2% Republican: 17.5%.

2000 Democrat: 9. 8% Republican: 16.2%.

2004 Democrat: 8. 5% Republican: 15.4%.

2008 Democrat: 10.1% Republican: 14.8%.

2012 Democrat: 7. 4% Republican: 18.2%

2016 Democrat: 11.5% Republican: 13.9%.

2020 Democrat: 12.8% Republican: 12.1%.

2024 Democrat: 16.1% fRepublican: 11.4%.

So people voting for the Republican presidential candidate paid a lot more than their fair share up through the 2012 election. In 2016 they paid somewhat more. In 2020 the numbers were about equal. And in 2024 people voting for Kamala Harris paid a lot more than their fair share.
[/QUOTE]

Theres a link to the Gemini reply in my original post. It should provide links to the exit poll results, where you should be able to see income estimates for the Repblican vs Democrat voters.

If you adjusted for purchasing power, the red states, where costs are lower, would look better. Look at how people are voting with their feet, leaving California and New York for places like Texas, Oklahoma and Florida.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;3072414]Nice. You combined your own unfounded and unsubstantiated opinion that the USA GDP Growth Rate is not declining with other peoples' opinion about what will happen by the end of this year.

[B]U.S. GDP (1960-2026)[/B]

[URL]https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/gdp-growth-rate[/URL]

[URL]https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/gdp4q21_3rd.pdf[/URL]

[URL]https://www.bea.gov/news/2023/gross-domestic-product-fourth-quarter-and-year-2022-third-estimate-gdp-industry-and[/URL]

Yep. After the 4th Quarter of the year, the USA GDP Growth Rate for the entire year is also calculated and published:

Biden.

2021 = 6. 9%.

2022 = 2. 6%.

2023 = 2. 89%.

2024 = 2. 79%.

Trump.

2025 = 2. 11%.

2026, Q1 = 1. 27%.

Last I checked, 2. 11% is lower than 6. 9%, 2. 6%, 2. 89% and 2. 79%.

And there is nothing about a 1. 27% YOY 1st Quarter figure that suggests Trump's 2nd year of his 2nd term GDP Growth Rate will be higher than any of the 4 Biden years either.

Sorry. I looked but could not find a definition for the term "chugging along" in any of those historical records links. "Declining" and "Increasing", yes. "Chugging along", no.

Are you going to break the bad news to Canada or should I?[/QUOTE]The topic is the effect of tariffs on GDP growth. It's not how too much stimulus spending during COVID and afterwards juiced GDP, and added to the national debt.

We both agree that the tariffs affected GDP growth negatively. Tax increases (including new tariffs), like cuts in government spending, should cause GDP to be less than it would be otherwise, all else being equal.

Apparently you disagree that GDP has been"chugging along" despite the tariffs.

Please see.

Real Gross Domestic Product (GDPC1).

FRED.

St. Louis Fed.

Please note that real GDP in 2017 dollars was 24.18 trillion dollars in Q1 2026 and 23.55 trillion dollars in Q1 2025.

Also please note that while a piddly tariff on iron and steel took effect in March, 2025, most of the Trump tariffs kicked in starting in April, in the 2nd quarter of 2025. A reasonable baseline for the pre-tariff economy is Q1 2025. Over the succeeding year, to Q1 2026, the GDP growth rate was 24.18/23.55 1 = [B]2.7%[/B]. You don't need to make seasonal adjustments because you're comparing like quarters. Ask your AI agent, "What was the year-on-year GDP Growth Rate for the United States in Q1 2026" and this is what you'll get unless the ***** is lying to you.

Alternately, if you want to take the average quarter-on-quarter (QoQ) seasonally-adjusted-annualized-rate (SAAR) rate since the tariffs took effect, it's still 2.7%:

Q2 2025:3. 8%.

Q3 2025:4. 4%.

Q4 2025:0. 5%.

Q1 2026:2. 1%.

Average: 2. 7%.

I can't provide you with a link to the Bloomberg consensus estimate (average of 65 economists) I pulled for the 2 Q2026 QoQ SAAR because it's a pay site that requires Bloomberg software. But here's the estimate from the frequently followed Atlanta Fed model:

GDPNow. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.

Edit: apparently my links didnt come through, just the titles. You should be able to Google the names and go to the sites.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;3072424] Look at how people are voting with their feet[/QUOTE]Anyone who is a citizen of the Dis United States of America who votes with their feet and leaves the Dis United States of America pays taxes on their worldwide income to the Dis United States of America unless they renounce their citizenship.

[B]More Americans Are Giving Up USA Citizenship, New Report Finds[/B]

[URL]https://www.boundless.com/blog/more-americans-are-giving-up-us-citizenship[/URL]

[QUOTE=Spidy;3072382]What a debacle, what a dumbass MAGA president! When the dude can't even manage the re-servicing, re-doing and re-painting a reflecting pool, I don't image the country will fare any better under this presidential total incompetence.

How much of a loser MAGA president can you be?

Yet another bungled project with millions of taxpayer dollars to the fragile ego and vanity of a president who continues to fiddle while America insidiously crumbles and burns, from MAGA "values" of corruption, ineptitude and lawlessness and the continuous "fuck you" to hardworking Americans, as the MAGA president cares very little for affordable housing for those hardworking Americans, since before he was elected and so concerned about the price of bacon.[/QUOTE]Project was great and the refurbishment went well. Actually is was too good prompting the jealous Democrats to vandalize the pool. Now 7 Democrats have been arrested for vandalism and will be spending several years in prison. That is the way the violent Democrats operate. Not something you should be proud of.

The Republican Party is for the rich but they will glad you rule over you and keep you poor if you let them.

[U]Mississippi[/U] has the highest poverty rate at 18.0%, followed by [U]Louisiana[/U] at 18.9% and [U]New Mexico[/U] at 17.8% based on 2023 Census data.

The correlation between state wealth and political control is distinct:

[B]Republican-Controlled States[/B]: The majority of the poorest states are governed by Republicans. [U]Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina[/U] all have [B]Republican[/B] governors and legislatures (or supermajorities). Kentucky is unique with a Democratic governor but Republican legislative control.

The Democratic Outlier: New Mexico is the only state with complete Democratic control that ranks among the poorest, currently holding the fourth-highest poverty rate.

Wealth Correlation: Conversely, eight of the ten wealthiest states by median household income have Democratic governors.

Critics argue that [BE]Republican[/BE] policies, such as lower taxes and "Right to Work" laws, contribute to lower public investment in education and infrastructure, perpetuating poverty. Conversely, analysts note that historical factors, such as the economic legacy of the post-Civil War South, also play a significant role in the persistent economic disparities in these regions.

People who are too poor to buy shoes cannot vote with their feet and leave the states where Republicans want to keep them poor and working on the corporate government plantations that make them rich.

I was asked who in the Republican Party was racist. I provided a list that was not allowed to be published. So I present the following as all the proof I need to show me that the [B]Republican[/B] party is racist at it's core:

[QUOTE]In the weeks since Callais was decided, the decision has already spurred a flurry of mid-decade partisan gerrymandering in key states such as Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina, to advance Republican control of the House of Representatives after the 2026 elections. The Louisiana governor went so far as to cancel an active primary election and discard 45,000 already-cast ballots to redraw congressional maps. 6 We can expect that more congressional gerrymandering will occur in advance of the 2028 elections and that federal, state, and local bodies of government will come into play as post-census redistricting begins after 2030.

[URL]https://www.demos.org/policy-briefs/voting-rights-and-representation-aftermath-louisiana-v-callais[/URL][/QUOTE]Republicans want to count those who look like me as 3/5 of a person again and take away our right to vote!

[QUOTE=Tiny12;3072442][b]The topic is the effect of tariffs on GDP growth. It's not how too much stimulus spending during COVID and afterwards juiced GDP, and added to the national debt.[/b]

We both agree that the tariffs affected GDP growth negatively. Tax increases (including new tariffs), like cuts in government spending, should cause GDP to be less than it would be otherwise, all else being equal.

Apparently you disagree that GDP has been"chugging along" despite the tariffs.

Please see.

Real Gross Domestic Product (GDPC1).

FRED.

St. Louis Fed.

Please note that real GDP in 2017 dollars was 24.18 trillion dollars in Q1 2026 and 23.55 trillion dollars in Q1 2025.

Also please note that while a piddly tariff on iron and steel took effect in March, 2025, most of the Trump tariffs kicked in starting in April, in the 2nd quarter of 2025. A reasonable baseline for the pre-tariff economy is Q1 2025. Over the succeeding year, to Q1 2026, the GDP growth rate was 24.18/23.55 1 = [B]2.7%[/B]. You don't need to make seasonal adjustments because you're comparing like quarters. Ask your AI agent, "What was the year-on-year GDP Growth Rate for the United States in Q1 2026" and this is what you'll get unless the ***** is lying to you.[/QUOTE]That is exactly what Trump claimed his Trump Tariffs would do after inheriting a "dead" country from Biden, who so far has shown to have produced much, much better results on all counts in his 4 years than Trump did in his 5 1/2 years.

The A. I. Overview:

[QUOTE][b]Trump promised higher gdp growth due to his tariffs [/b]
+9

President Donald Trump promised that his broad "reciprocal" tariffs would trigger [b]an economic boom, reshore manufacturing jobs, and lower domestic prices.[/b] However, independent data and economic research show that his trade policies have [b]largely failed to deliver these promised benefits.[/b]

Key impacts of the tariffs include:GDP and Economic Output: Academic research by institutions like the Brookings Institution indicates that the tariffs had a minimal impact on overall U.S. economic output, adding or subtracting merely fractions of a percentage point from the national GDP.

Manufacturing and Jobs: Despite promises that factories would "come roaring back," U.S. manufacturing employment has declined since the tariffs were implemented. The administration has faced pushback from lawmakers over the negative impacts on blue-collar workers.I

nflation and Cost of Living: Rather than lowering consumer prices, the tariffs have functioned essentially as an import tax. Economists, including those from Harvard Business School, note that these costs are primarily passed on to U.S. consumers, driving up inflation by roughly three-quarters of a percentage point.

Revenue: The Congressional Budget Office and financial reports from outlets like the Wall Street Journal confirm that while the tariffs have significantly boosted federal revenue, they have not successfully replaced broader income taxes or sparked widespread, transformative economic growth.

A year on: Four ways Trump's tariffs have changed the global economy - BBCApr 2, 2569 BE 2 April 2026. Natalie ShermanBusiness reporter. EPA-EFE/Rex/Shutterstock. When US President Donald Trump launched his trade war last April, he promised a new er...BBCTrump touts 'high economic growth.' The numbers are mixed. - NBC NewsJan 21, 2569 BE Barring three recession years, 2025 was the slowest 12 months for U.S. job creation since 2003. Trump promised in the spring that his protectionist economic pol...NBC News8:21'Trump's promise that foreign companies would pay. . .turned out to be false'YouTubeCNNPresident Trump promised, again and again, that he would lower ...Jun 30, 2569 BE Starting on Day 1, we'll drive down prices and make America affordable again. - Trump Trump promised to slash healthcare costs Day 1. Instead, premiums are ...FacebookSenator Dick DurbinThe Tariff Effect: Billions in Revenue but No Economic EarthquakeAug 6, 2568 BE Quick Summary * Trump's tariffs, intended to reshape the economy, have so far only caused minor disruptions, with inflation ticking up slightly. * Tariff revenu...WSJSens. Warren, Kelly press Trump administration on effects of tariffs on manufacturingJun 23, 2569 BE Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., sent a letter, shared exclusively with CNBC, to three Trump administration Cabinet officials dinging t...CNBCTrump says tariffs led to economic growth. The facts tell another story - AP NewsFeb 6, 2569 BE Alberto Cavallo, an economist at Harvard and the author of a study on the impact of tariffs cited by Trump in his op-ed, has found that Trump's tariffs have boo...AP NewsTrump's tariffs had little impact on GDP in 2025, but raised revenue ... - ReutersMar 25, 2569 BE Trump's tariffs had little impact on GDP in 2025, but raised revenue, academic paper finds. By David Lawder. March 25, 20266:05 PM PDTUpdated March 25, 2026. Sh...ReutersChaos, fear and disappointment: Trumps tariffs turn one year oldApr 2, 2569 BE Although the tariff increase was larger than the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs of 1930, which many economists blame for deepening the Great Depression, the overall impa...EL PAS EnglishAre the tariffs working? - POLITICOMar 30, 2569 BE A Brookings Institution paper on the short-term impacts of tariffs concluded that the tariffs only had a small effect on the overall economy, with authors Pablo...PoliticoEconomic coercion, eroding trust, and the future of multilateral trade | What we are readingJan 27, 2569 BE The Washington Post reports that US ( the United States ) tariffs have failed to deliver the manufacturing boom Trump ( President Donald Trump ) promised. The W...Hinrich FoundationIn his State of the Union address, President Trump said the economy is soaring. But more than half of Americans don't agree, according to a CBS News poll. CBS News business analyst Jill Schlesinger breaks down President Trump's claims from Tuesday night, from the stock market to tariffs. https://cbsn.ws/4ceW8aaFeb 25, 2569 BE I love them. Yes. Look at that and Trump also claimed that tariffs could replace income tax. No. Absolutely not. There there's no way. We're talking about the g...Facebook[/QUOTE]Maybe if you hold Canada's hand while you assure him that A. I. And I "made up this stuff just to make Trump look bad" he'll be able to get over the trauma of it sooner.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;3072478]That is exactly what Trump claimed his Trump Tariffs would do after inheriting a "dead" country from Biden, who so far has shown to have produced much, much better results on all counts in his 4 years than Trump did in his 5 1/2 years.

The A. I. Overview:

Maybe if you hold Canada's hand while you assure him that A. I. And I "made up this stuff just to make Trump look bad" he'll be able to get over the trauma of it sooner.[/QUOTE]It's like we're playing full court two on two with Elvis and Canada and you're down by their goal scoring points for them.

It looks like the AI and the Brookings Institution, the premier Democratic Party think tank, are on their side. From your post.

"Academic research by institutions like the Brookings Institution indicates that the tariffs had a minimal impact on overall USA economic output, adding or subtracting merely fractions of a percentage point from the national GDP. ".

"Albert Cavallo, an economist at Harvard and the author of a study on the impact of tariffshas found that Trump's tariffs had little impact on GDP in 2025, but raised revenue. ".

Then there's something about the tariff increase being larger than the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs of 1930, but the impact apparently wasn't significant, the quote is cut off.

So the 2025 tariffs were on track to raise $250 to $300 billion a year in federal revenue but according to AI and the Brookings Institution possibly were [B]adding[/B] to GDP? That's like having your cake and eating it too. Taxes are supposed to subtract from GDP, especially tariffs. Consumers should buy less because prices are higher, and that should hurt GDP.

I don't believe the AI and Brookings on this any more than I believe Modern Monetary Theory.

Instead of the short term effect on GDP you need to highlight inflation. Trump's making the same mistake as Biden and the Democrats did in 2021 and 2022. The tariffs and the second Iran War bumped up inflation. And worse yet, there are hints that real wages are stagnating. This is going to hurt Republicans in elections this year, just like it hurt Democrats in 2024.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;3072589]It's like we're playing full court two on two with Elvis and Canada and you're down by their goal scoring points for them.

It looks like the AI and the Brookings Institution, the premier Democratic Party think tank, are on their side. From your post.

"Academic research by institutions like the Brookings Institution indicates that the tariffs had a minimal impact on overall USA economic output, adding or subtracting merely fractions of a percentage point from the national GDP. ".

"Albert Cavallo, an economist at Harvard and the author of a study on the impact of tariffshas found that Trump's tariffs had little impact on GDP in 2025, but raised revenue. ".

Then there's something about the tariff increase being larger than the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs of 1930, but the impact apparently wasn't significant, the quote is cut off.[/QUOTE]Next thing the 3 of you will be insisting is that Trump's jobs creation numbers are "The Best Ever, Nobody's Seen Anything Like It"!

And that his 4. 2% CPI Rate of Inflation is lower than the 3. 0% he inherited from Biden. "Nobody's Seen Anything Like It"!

Or that for all his jobs creation failures and near zero infrastructure improvement, he still managed to add to the debt at the fastest rate of any president in USA History.

When any one of you 3 MAGAs finally produce a credible link showing that GDP Growth for 2025 was HIGHER than the Third Revision figures I provided credible links for 2021,2022, 2023 and 2024 rather than unsubstantiated opinions about it, I'll be quite impressed. And I assure you that is the biggest emotional reaction I will have ever conjured up about anything you guys have ever posted supposedly but never successfully refuting my points about consistently far superior economic policy and stewardship results for Dem presidents vs weak to disatrous Repub presidents' results going back 100 years.

Since the typically pro Repub Mainstream Media simply cannot formulate the words, "Kudos to President Biden's CHIPS and Science Act for at least making it look like Trump "economy" isn't a total flop on all fronts again" or anything like it and Trump and his MAGAs damn sure never will, allow me:

[QUOTE][b]Is the CHIPS and Science Act driving the market on chips industry?[/b]
+4
Yes, the CHIPS and Science Act is a major driving force in the semiconductor market, acting as the premier U.S. industrial policy to revitalize domestic manufacturing and research. It has successfully spurred hundreds of billions of dollars in private investments and reshaping regional industry supply chains.

The market is being driven in three specific ways:

Massive Private Investment: The promise of $39 billion in manufacturing incentives and a 25% tax credit has triggered nearly $400 billion in private industry investments in U.S.-based semiconductor facilities.

Research and Workforce Development: The act allocates $13 billion for advanced research and development (R&D) and workforce training programs, aiming to secure long-term U.S. competitiveness in cutting-edge computing and AI technologies.

Supply Chain Localization: Driven by national security priorities and geopolitical concerns, the act is localizing supply chains, prompting major industry players to build mega-fabs in states like Arizona and New York.

If you'd like, let me know if you want to explore:Specific companies and suppliers receiving CHIPS Act fundingState-by-state economic impacts and new mega-fab locationsHow the act compares to global semiconductor initiativesI can provide more detailed information tailored to those specific areas.The CHIPS Act: How U.S. Microchip Factories Could Reshape the EconomyOct 8, 2567 BE In 2022, President Joe Biden signed into law the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) and Science Act. The legislation directs hundreds...Council on Foreign RelationsDoes the CHIPS and Science Act Argue for Industrial Policy?Aug 25, 2568 BE Key Points * Industrial policy's costs are knownwaste, corruption, and distorted markets. A new set of potential gains has emerged in the form of reduced vulne...Center for Technology, Science, and EnergyInnovation Lightbulb: Tracking CHIPS Act Incentives - CSISApr 25, 2568 BE In August 2022, Congress passed the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act (CHIPS Act) to revitalize U.S. semiconductor research and manufacturing and drive innovatio...CSIS | Center for Strategic and International StudiesWhich market will dominate the semiconductor industry in ... - LSE BlogsMay 29, 2569 BE America's share of global chip manufacturing fell from approximately 37 per cent in the early 1990s to around 12 per cent today, even as American firms retain c...The London School of Economics and Political ScienceWhy Micron Is Betting Big on New York Chips - WSJJun 30, 2569 BE Gov. Kathy Hochul and the Legislature reinforced those advantages through the 2022 NY Green Chips Act, which led to up to $5.8 billion in incentives for the Mic...WSJThe Politics of Semiconductors in 2025Jan 24, 2568 BE Driving Localization Through Incentives Governments are focused on initiatives to localize semiconductor production. The US CHIPS Act, European semiconductor fu...PublitekCHIPS and Science Act - WikipediaThe law constitutes an industrial policy initiative which takes place against the background of a perceived AI Cold War between the US and China, as artificial ...Wikipedia[/QUOTE][B]Record chip rally adds $2 trillion in combined value to Micron, Intel and AMD in Q2[/B]

[URL]https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/30/ai-chip-rally-in-q2-adds-2-trillion-in-value-to-micron-intel-amd-.html?__source=androidappshare[/URL]

[B]Dow jumps 100 points to close out best first half in 5 years; Nasdaq posts best quarter since 2020[/B]

[URL]https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/29/stock-market-today-live-updates.html?__source=androidappshare[/URL]

[QUOTE]The moves higher were supported by a rise in chip stocks. Shares of Nvidia gained 2.6%, while Advanced Micro Devices added 7.7% and Intel advanced 6%. The VanEck Semiconductor ETF (SMH) climbed more than 3%, putting its year-to-date gain at 82%.

Tuesday marked the final day of the first half and the second quarter.

[B]The Dow gained 8.9% in the first six months of the year, posting its best first-half performance since 2021, when it jumped 12.7%. The S&P 500 climbed 9.6% in the first half, while the Nasdaq outperformed with a more than 12% advance. Additionally, the Russell 2000 gained almost 22% for its best first half since the first six months of 1991.[/b][/QUOTE]Since it becomes abundantly clear by the day that this kind of positive result for America never, never would have happened without them, I'm sure the USA Stock Market-watchers and USA GDP Growth-watchers here and elsewhere will happily and gratefully join me in a very heartfelt "Thanks, Joe, Kamala and the Dems in Congress who made this happen"!

[QUOTE=Tiny12;3072066]Well, Ive recently read a couple of articles about children dying in cars from heat in France. Maybe the French need to get over the fear of pollution, climate change and catching cold, and leave their engines running and air conditioning on when kids are in the car.[/QUOTE]You mean the French are going to admit that they are wrong? LOL. That is as likely as Democrats doing so.

Only the French could have thousands dying in a heat wave and brag about their not having air conditioning. After debating Spidy, there are things I have learned about electricity generation. You want baseline usage rates to stabilize a grid. It is actually good for people to be charging their batteries at night and on the weekends as too little power being drawn from the grid is as much a problem as too much. So if you use solar or wind during the day and the grid at night, you really are not doing much in the way of carbon emissions.

And maybe just maybe you should revisit the issue when the technology gets better? Nah, why? You cannot tell the French anything. So my RV has this loud big GE AC unit and look at the numbers: [URL]https://www.bigbearvans.com/blog-detail/how-many-watts-does-a-camper-ac-use-a-complete-breakdown[/URL]

Up to 4000 watts per hour to get it going and then up to 2000 watts per hour, and it is loud to boot. To prevent the massive power surge when starting up, there is a device called a soft starter that can reduce those huge initial surges and cut energy usage up to 70%.

Then you are seeing 12 v AC units come into play now. You can see a breakdown of the most efficient RV units on the planet in this video and go to the 7:47 mark to see how much power they consume. [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CXCWdxj22Q[/URL]

The amount the lower 12 volt AC unit puts out is a tiny 671 watts per hour.

Then you have the mini split AC systems I see being used in Colombia and Mexico and they cool very well and can use as little as 400 watts per hour.

But wait there is more! You can even take a 400 watt portable AC unit in your tent when camping if you desire: [URL]https://cybertake.com/products/s2-pro?srsltid=AfmBOopt_qYZAMvRmHk0uhAJd10bOfPJNT-9OcM8k62fGgNaTe5Wz78T[/URL]

Or you can do as the super intelligent French do and die of heat stroke instead of considering using AC that is up to 90% more efficient.

BTW, is it possible the French are thinner because they smoke more? It is funny seeing all the world come to the USA for the world cup and rave about the food especially the BBQ. For all their food snobbery, I did not have one decent piece of meat the whole time I was in France, and I have been there for months at a time. The old USSR had better steak than France did. French food is so overrated!

[QUOTE=Tiny12;3072589]It's like we're playing full court two on two with Elvis and Canada and you're down by their goal scoring points for them.[/QUOTE]Maybe you can stop with the simple taxes / tariffs are bad m'kay attitude you both have. Let's start with the simple numbers. Average tax rate on American goods sent to China per Gemini is 31%. Before Trump, 40% of packages coming from China were taxed at a rate of 0% as they qualified for the de minimums option.

I had a sugar baby ask me to buy her some lingerie stuff from Shein and I was blown away at how cheap the prices were and at the quality. So of course, Victoria's Secret went bankrupt competing with Shein.

But, but, but prices are going to up if you put tariffs on lingerie, Elvis. Big Fucking deal. Then I buy my sugar baby two sets of lingerie instead of three. If higher prices sabotage demand, then higher prices will not hold.

Then look at the automobile market. Oh brother! If the dumb Dems applied their anti tariff rhetoric to the auto industry, they would lose every presidential election for the next 100 years. Withdrawing tariffs would let the Chinese dump their cars into our market which would be devastating to the middle class in the rust belt states.

And China forced the world's automakers to pair with a Chinese company to access the auto market in China. This was done such that the Chinese could steal the secrets of those companies and then produce autos on their own. At first, their cars sucked, but now the Chinese cars are fantastic. Of course, the CCP is in massive debt and subsidizing every Chinese vehicle sold.

So the Chinese plan with cars was to steal the technology of foreign rivals and then use dirt cheap labor and government subsidies to drive down the price of cars so low that you put your competitors out of business and then jack up the prices of your cars when there is no alternative. Tariffs are in place to stop the Chinese from committing this evil plan.

But tariffs are taxes, Elvis, M'kay. Well, if you have all the auto companies going out of business and all their workers going on unemployment, everyone's taxes in the USA are going to go up to support their unemployment ETC which means fewer $ in YOUR pocket.

I don't get why anyone thinks China taxing us at 31% and our taxing China at 0% is a good idea. The Dems were just against tariffs because Trump was for them. Like everything else, the current Democratic position is whatever Trump is for, do the opposite no matter how stupid it is.

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;3072471]The Republican Party is for the rich but they will glad you rule over you and keep you poor if you let them.

[U]Mississippi[/U] has the highest poverty rate at 18.0%, followed by [U]Louisiana[/U] at 18.9% and [U]New Mexico[/U] at 17.8% based on 2023 Census data.

The correlation between state wealth and political control is distinct:

[B]Republican-Controlled States[/B]: The majority of the poorest states are governed by Republicans. [U]Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina[/U] all have [B]Republican[/B] governors and legislatures (or supermajorities). Kentucky is unique with a Democratic governor but Republican legislative control.

The Democratic Outlier: New Mexico is the only state with complete Democratic control that ranks among the poorest, currently holding the fourth-highest poverty rate.

Wealth Correlation: Conversely, eight of the ten wealthiest states by median household income have Democratic governors.

Critics argue that [BE]Republican[/BE] policies, such as lower taxes and "Right to Work" laws, contribute to lower public investment in education and infrastructure, perpetuating poverty. Conversely, analysts note that historical factors, such as the economic legacy of the post-Civil War South, also play a significant role in the persistent economic disparities in these regions.

People who are too poor to buy shoes cannot vote with their feet and leave the states where Republicans want to keep them poor and working on the corporate government plantations that make them rich.

I was asked who in the Republican Party was racist. I provided a list that was not allowed to be published. So I present the following as all the proof I need to show me that the [B]Republican[/B] party is racist at it's core:

Republicans want to count those who look like me as 3/5 of a person again and take away our right to vote![/QUOTE]I have never lived in and rarely visited the American south, so I can not speak to it. There's probably some truth there in what you say.

I'm a product of a part of Texas that's more Midwest than south. And have had ties to Wyoming, Colorado and several states in the Midwest. So mostly Republican areas. My perception is way different than yours. The city where I lived for the majority of my life had Republican leadership at every level, city, county, state, since 1995. Government is efficient and cost effective. Costs are about average for the disunited states, but income is much higher. We have the highest GDP per capita of any city in USA. Like I told you before, there are more Hispanics than whites. And most people, regardless of race, vote Republican. Trump won by 60 points in the last election. At the grade school level, we underperform, for the same reason that California does. There are a lot of kids who start out in bilingual classes. But on the CCMR test, which high school seniors take, we're above average. Taxes are indeed lower than in deep blue America. Investment though is high, and unemployment low.

I don't buy that the majority of Republicans are racists, where I've been anyway. I asked ChatGPT about that, and the only hard numbers it came up with were from this Pew survey. 54% of Republicans queried said Blacks and Hispanics face more discrimination than whites.

[URL]https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/05/20/how-much-discrimination-do-americans-say-groups-face-in-the-u-s/[/URL]

Now, unfortunately in his quest to make the GOP a big tent party, Trump has taken in some groups he shouldn't have. The Trump administration is taking anti-DEI too far. Hegseth is way out in left field. Trump never should have appointed him Secretary of War, and the Senate never should have confirmed him. If I had three job candidates who were well qualifed, one white, one black, and one Hispanic, I'd pick the one with the biggest tits. Failing that, if I chose the black or the Hispanic, for purposes of diversity or because I figured she had to work harder to get to where she is, government has no (expletive deleted) business telling me I can't hire her.

Admittedly it's probably not fair to go back to Lincoln. But until the Donald came along, I'the argue the majority of major league Republicans were anti-racist. People like George W. Bush, Jack Kemp, Tim Scott, Will Hurd, Larry Hogan, and the Marquesa's beloved John McCain and Mitt Romney condemned racism and bigotry whenever they saw it. I don't think you're being fair to Good Old Time Republicans.

As to the 3/5 of a man thing, the Republican Party doesn't give a rat's ass that you're black. It wants to give you 60% of a vote because you're a Democrat. If you were a Republican it would want you to have at least 2 or 3 votes.

As to the gerrymandering, IMO they should assign districting to a computer program, and do it in a way that maximizes the contiguity of Congressional districts. That said Democrats have gotten away with murder, since at least 1946. They've gotten a lot more Congressional seats than they deserved based on the House popular vote. See the last column here, [URL]https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/vitalstats_ch2_tbl2.pdf[/URL].

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3072632]You mean the French are going to admit that they are wrong? LOL. That is as likely as Democrats doing so.

Only the French could have thousands dying in a heat wave and brag about their not having air conditioning. After debating Spidy, there are things I have learned about electricity generation. You want baseline usage rates to stabilize a grid. It is actually good for people to be charging their batteries at night and on the weekends as too little power being drawn from the grid is as much a problem as too much. So if you use solar or wind during the day and the grid at night, you really are not doing much in the way of carbon emissions.

And maybe just maybe you should revisit the issue when the technology gets better? Nah, why? You cannot tell the French anything. So my RV has this loud big GE AC unit and look at the numbers: [URL]https://www.bigbearvans.com/blog-detail/how-many-watts-does-a-camper-ac-use-a-complete-breakdown[/URL]

Up to 4000 watts per hour to get it going and then up to 2000 watts per hour, and it is loud to boot. To prevent the massive power surge when starting up, there is a device called a soft starter that can reduce those huge initial surges and cut energy usage up to 70%.

Then you are seeing 12 v AC units come into play now. You can see a breakdown of the most efficient RV units on the planet in this video and go to the 7:47 mark to see how much power they consume. [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CXCWdxj22Q[/URL]

The amount the lower 12 volt AC unit puts out is a tiny 671 watts per hour.

Then you have the mini split AC systems I see being used in Colombia and Mexico and they cool very well and can use as little as 400 watts per hour.

But wait there is more! You can even take a 400 watt portable AC unit in your tent when camping if you desire: [URL]https://cybertake.com/products/s2-pro?srsltid=AfmBOopt_qYZAMvRmHk0uhAJd10bOfPJNT-9OcM8k62fGgNaTe5Wz78T[/URL]

Or you can do as the super intelligent French do and die of heat stroke instead of considering using AC that is up to 90% more efficient.

BTW, is it possible the French are thinner because they smoke more? It is funny seeing all the world come to the USA for the world cup and rave about the food especially the BBQ. For all their food snobbery, I did not have one decent piece of meat the whole time I was in France, and I have been there for months at a time. The old USSR had better steak than France did. French food is so overrated![/QUOTE]There are a couple of recent WSJ editorials that absolutely pillory French attitudes towards air conditioning. France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear and a lot of the rest from solar and wind. So even if you're a bsc climate change fanatic, it doesn't make sense. You're not demonstrably reducing carbon emissions by foregoing ac. A lot of French believe air conditioning is unhealthy. They've got that ass backwards. And some neighborhoods ban it because they think it makes the architecture less appealing.

Duplicate post

[QUOTE=Tiny12;3072648]There are a couple of recent WSJ editorials that absolutely pillory French attitudes towards air conditioning. France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear and a lot of the rest from solar and wind. So even if you're a bsc climate change fanatic, it doesn't make sense. You're not demonstrably reducing carbon emissions by foregoing ac. A lot of French believe air conditioning is unhealthy. They've got that ass backwards. And some neighborhoods ban it because they think it makes the architecture less appealing.[/QUOTE]When you are fit and healthy, you don't need AC everywhere, to catch bad cold in hot Summer. Just a nightmare for me in USA, when everywhere you feel in a fridge for meat, when in Summer. If people didn't eat and drink American shits, they would be much more healthy and strong. How many obese die in USA per year? Since 2003, all residences for seniors have a room with AC. Don't you know solar or wind systems are built in China making big pollution, when big pollution made by China or for transport are above our head everyday. Big pollution killing so many, high heat, tornados, hurricanes, rivers going crazy, making billions of damages and killing many, are because of countries like China or USA which make half pollution, killing our planet. Trump is so ignorant also for this.