American Politics

[Spidy]

That's right, China's a carbon state, not an electrostate.

BTW, did ChatGOP, puppet you ...I mean "educate" you, into thinking China wasn't an electrostate? Or did you come to that dumbfounded falsehood on your own?

Why China is becoming the worlds first electrostate, Aug 12,2025. https://newsapp.abc.net.au/news/2025...owth/105555850 "The superpower is dominating the global clean technology sector. It's not all about climate change. ".

China Is The Worlds First Electrostate, Mar 26,2025. https://cleantechnica.com/2025/05/26...-electrostate/ "An "electrostate" refers to a country that primarily relies on electricity generated from renewable sources rather than fossil fuels. ..[/QUOTE]So while ChatGOP is educating you to "cut-and-paste" large swaths of its Chat info (you cannot put into own frame of thought), then perhaps you can ask it, if China isn't an electrostate, then who is?

At this point, I'm not sure what's worse:

• MAGA posts with large swaths of "cut-n-paste" news articles, with blank spaces and the word "ADVERTISTMENT" still left in the post, because the poster is too lazy to take them out or to paraphrase in their own words;

• MAGA posts with a single webpage link, with no explanation, often too lazy put into words their own words on the subject matter;

OR

• MAGA posts with large swaths of "cut-n-paste" ChatGOP information, with no associated links (or links to French webpages) because the poster is again too lazy to put the aggregated information, in their own words and thoughts.

So, what say you, Tiny 12 ...err, I mean ChatGOP? Please do "educate" us,as too what is an electrostate and what makes an electrostate, if China is not?

[Spidy]

California is broke and the laughing stock of USA. Newsome has destroyed California. Stop posting misinformation.

Here is California bad news. Budget deficit $18 billion going to $$35 billion in 2027. High employment 5.3% and rich people leaving the state in droves. Look at the link. Don't be lazy. Just google it and 20 + news posts on California debt and financial problems. Big economy but Newsome policies driving it to ruins. Rich people leaving and illegals arriving to their sanctuary cities. This is common knowledge everywhere but on fake news.

https://calmatters.org/politics/2025...budget-primer/

So while, my esteem colleague EihTooms, was very generous giving you credit for posting a link with you post, "...rather than laying back in your barcalounger with a Tim Horton donut utter nonsense pro Trump fantasies", I think your post was being a bit disingenuous and failed to mention those budget numbers were only projected numbers. Take a look the most recent projected numbers, posted well before your post.

Governor Proposes Balanced Budget, No New Taxes January 16th, 2026. "The budget plan released on January 9 estimates more than $42 billion in added General Fund revenue compared to what was expected last June. As a result, the projected budget deficit has dropped to $2.9 billion instead of the $18 billion anticipated last year." https://calchamberalert.com/2026/01/...-no-new-taxes/.

Alberta in Contrast: I thought this was supposed to be Canada's oil-rich province? Canada's Alberta projects deficit of nearly C$9.4bn, citing low oil prices, February 27th, 2026 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yvppyv442o? WTF, that's roughly US$7.55 bn (C$9.4 bn) and slightly more than 2x as much as California, for a province that has population, 10x smaller.

From what I've gathered, it sounds like one of those dumb and unqualified women (Danielle Smith, right-wing conservative party), you referred to in a previous post, running an inept provincial gov't and has the so called "oil-rich" province in debt to the tune of US $7.55 bn (C $9.4 bn).

What do yo make of this right-wing conservative US $7.55 bn (C $9. 4 bn) incompetence?

[EihTooms]

6 weeks ago gas was $2.00 to $2.20 a gallon in Wyoming, Oklahoma and Arizona. I filled up in Arizona at $2.20. Oklahoma had some stations at $1.99. It was on the national news as cheapest gas in USA. CA was averaging $4.89 at the same period so double. CA is usually $2. 00 above USA average. Canada was about $4.00 a gallon.

So for a day or two some podunk gas station in the middle of podunk nowhere decided to take a loss and sell gas for an amount low enough to get free advertisement on international news somewhere and that was the "huge economic gain" Trump somehow brought to the table?

Uh. Ok.

I hear somebody gave away a couple of free cookies with the purchase of a dozen eggs during the Avian Flu epidemic in 2022. And you didn't do a cartwheel and congratulate Biden for that?

[Tiny 12]

"Potayto, potahto, tomato, tomahto". Once again, your failure to understand basic meaning of "cumulative", I first posted, in the link clearly entitled: Our World in Data: Cumulative CO2 emissions: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/c...e-co-emissions, is indeed astounding.

Allow me to add the following (Courtesy of Google Search) in case you still, like to use conjecture and phrases like "potayto, potahto":

Yes, it is accurate that while China is currently the world's largest annual emitter of, the United States and Europe hold the highest cumulative emissions in history. Because remains in the atmosphere for centuries, historical emissions are a major contributor to current global warming. Who has contributed most to global CO2 emissions? Oct 2019 https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2 OR Which countries have contributed the most to historical CO2 emissions? Mar 17th, 2025 https://ourworldindata.org/data-insi...l-co-emissions.

Historical vs. Annual Emissions Key Points:

• Historical Top Emitter: The United States is the largest cumulative emitter, responsible for roughly one-quarter (approx. 20-25%) of all historical emissions since 1750.
  https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2

• Europe's Role: European countries, particularly the UK and Germany, were the dominant emitters between 1750 and 1850, leading to a high total accumulation.

• China's Rise: While China only recently became a major emitter, its rapid industrialization has caused it to overtake the EU27 in historical cumulative emissions to become the second-largest contributor.

• The Gap: Despite China's rapid rise, the U.S. cumulative total is still significantly higher roughly twice as much as China's.

• Per Capita Difference: On a per capita basis, U.S. cumulative emissions are far higher than China's, as China's emissions are spread over a much larger population.

In short, the U.S. and Europe bear the primary responsibility for the current stock of in the atmosphere, while China is the largest contributor to the current annual flow of emissions.

Note: The above passage, was Courtesy of Google Search (with links in English to the related subject).

No, I absolutely get it. Your tribe wants to blame the genocide of Indians and the enslavement of blacks on the American white men alive today. Same principle.

Sorry, I've only been able to read French, at high school grade level. But if you're just throwing out links, just because ChatGOP told you so, and your lazy ass, didn't want verify whatever garage it tells you, then that's on you!

You and Tooms demand to be spoon fed everything. And then if the info doesn't come from one your favored LWM (leftist WINGER media) sources you discount it.

I didn't get those numbers from ChatGPT. ChatGPT, presumably providing a guess for 2026, estimated fossil fuels would account for 81% of Chinese energy. You asked for a source. So I asked ChatGPT to provide a link to a source and it came back with the Wikipedia entry, which most likely is available in the French but not English edition. If you're using Chrome or Edge, right click on the web page and "translate to English. " Then scroll down and you'll find 2023 numbers. They should be easy to spot, as from memory fossil fuels accounted for 87.1% of Chinese energy and nuclear 2. 8%. You'll need to add solar, wind, hydro, etc. to come up with the renewables %.

Note that "energy" or primary energy, is not even close to being the same final energy, OR useful energy. Nor does it have anything to do with China being an electrostate or producing electrotech, other than fossil fuels (prime energy) molecules being 3 x less efficient at generating electricity, than electrons.

So while your post goes off into the weeds, talking about, some of the "hard to abate" sectors of industry, today being powered by fossil fuels, feel free to table that in as a separate and different debate, when it comes to electrification.

Yeah, well try and find a good source for a "useful energy" breakdown by source for China. Or take primary energy and try to calculate it. If you do it right, I bet you'll still come up with the vast majority of useful energy in China being produced from fossil fuels.

And I'll ***** right back of you. The massive capacity increases, in GW, reported for China for solar and wind don't take into account that the energy produced from that capacity, in GW-HR, will be much lower because the sun don't shine bright and the wind don't blow all the time. (Grammatical errors added for emphasis.).

But rest assured, China being the world's 1st electrostate and their $180 bn electrotech (exports in 2024 and projected nearly $200 bn in 2025), has everything to do with their world electrification prowess, and the move towards reducing theirs and the world's carbon foot print, through electrification technologies. But when you are the world's greatest manufacturing power, at close to 30% (and projected to be 45% in 2030, where the US is only 11%) then you're going to use a fair amount of nations most abundant fossil fuel resource, while your electrification transition ramps up.

Now, since you missed the irony of the "electrostate vs. Petrostate" export of technologies comparison and their related cumulative CO2/ GHG emissions, it is should be obvious, that while both China and the United States, are adding their CO2/ GHG emissions "balance sheet" (or ledger), China is producing and exporting more clean tech ($180 bn), that annually abate billions of tons CO2 emission around the world, should in a practical and pragmatic world, would be weighed against total emissions, on balance.

China not only is adding much more renewable capacity than any other country, it's also adding a lot more coal capacity and nuclear capacity than anyplace else, and running neck and neck with the USA (which is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas) in adding gas fired capacity. China has a very logical energy policy -- throw everything but the kitchen sink at the problem, have a diversified energy supply, and don't be dependent on any one source or country. Thus when Qatari natural gas gets cut off China doesn't suffer, like some Asian and European countries will. Excluding some blue states, the USA operates similarly. We have a diversified supply, and like China are adding solar capacity in much larger amounts than capacity from fossil fuels or nuclear. That's because solar is cheaper than coal or nuclear and competitive with natural gas. China has dirty air from coal and does not have large domestic natural gas reserves, so solar makes all the more sense. The drawback at present though is that solar is not a solution for reliable base load power.

Contrast with countries like Germany, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, and the Peoples' Republic of California that rely heavily on solar and wind energy without adequate backup. When they foolishly cut off their supplies of Russian pipeline gas, the European countries suffered through energy crises.

I think it's great that China is a low cost producer of solar panels and the like and exports that to the world. I think tariffs on Chinese imports related to renewable energy should be "0", as long as that wouldn't represent a threat to the USA's national security. And as long as we have backup generation from natural gas, coal, etc. available, it won't be.

Similarly I believe it's great that the USA exports LNG to the world. The LNG mostly substitutes for coal. Natural gas (LNG) emits much lower quantities of SO2, NOx, particulates and harmful metals than coal, and lower quantities of CO2. You on the other hand, like many climate advocates, probably don't like that, because you believe that good is the enemy of perfect. Well, a perfect world, with "0" net carbon emissions achieved in short order, will do a lot more harm than good.

[Spidy]

It destroys anything it comes into contact with.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/story...ay-humbled-him

https://www.teepublic.com/t-shirt/72...it-anti-trump-

[Canada]

And you were doing so well with that one post containing a link.

Please tell us where "gas was $2 a gallon six weeks ago" in the USA. And please be specific with a link, a chart, anything.

Please cite when and where in the USA Trump made "huge economic gains" from the "train wreck" Biden-Harris handed him. Did you mean for Trump himself, his family and a few billionaires? Because that fact is undeniable and is charted on a monthly basis in the media. However, it certainly hasn't been in jobs creation, business bankruptcies reduction, wage gains, GDP Growth, a lower rate of inflation or lowering the prices for most other items including gas and groceries.

The average price of a gallon of regular gas in the USA is higher now under Trump than all but about 3-4 months in 2022 under Biden. And the reason for it in 2022 had nothing to do with Biden while the reason for it today has everything to do with Trump.

The rate of inflation was 2.9% at the Biden-Harris handoff to Trump. In 2025 it was 3.0%. You know which one is higher, right?

So where were these "huge economic gains" in the USA under Trump vs the Envy of the World Economy he inherited from Biden-Harris? And, again, please be specific with a link, a chart, anything.

6 weeks ago gas was $2.00 to $2.20 a gallon in Wyoming, Oklahoma and Arizona. I filled up in Arizona at $2.20. Oklahoma had some stations at $1.99. It was on the national news as cheapest gas in USA. CA was averaging $4.89 at the same period so double. CA is usually $2. 00 above USA average. Canada was about $4.00 a gallon.

[Spidy]

I am from Alberta and it would be great if Alberta was part of USA. USA should trade Colorado, CA, Oregon and Washington for Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Yukon. USA could throw in Minnesota too. Canada is ripping off Alberta royally.

Nah, no need for all that! Just show up at the border, looking all helpless in a MAGA T-shirt and I'm sure ICE (the MAGA Nazi Brownshirts) will welcome you with open arms. Problem solved, for being a part of the U.S.!

[Spidy]

If you want say the USA was the world's biggest CO2 emitter, everyone will agree with you. If you say the USA is the world's largest CO2 emitter, everyone will think you're on drugs. China BY FAR is the largest. Again, https://www.climate.gov/media/15559

"Potayto, potahto, tomato, tomahto". Once again, your failure to understand basic meaning of "cumulative", I first posted, in the link clearly entitled: Our World in Data: Cumulative CO2 emissions: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/c...e-co-emissions, is indeed astounding.

Allow me to add the following (Courtesy of Google Search) in case you still, like to use conjecture and phrases like "potayto, potahto":

Yes, it is accurate that while China is currently the world's largest annual emitter of, the United States and Europe hold the highest cumulative emissions in history. Because remains in the atmosphere for centuries, historical emissions are a major contributor to current global warming. Who has contributed most to global CO2 emissions? Oct 2019 https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2 OR Which countries have contributed the most to historical CO2 emissions? Mar 17th, 2025 https://ourworldindata.org/data-insi...l-co-emissions.

Historical vs. Annual Emissions Key Points:

• Historical Top Emitter: The United States is the largest cumulative emitter, responsible for roughly one-quarter (approx. 20-25%) of all historical emissions since 1750.
  https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2

• Europe's Role: European countries, particularly the UK and Germany, were the dominant emitters between 1750 and 1850, leading to a high total accumulation.

• China's Rise: While China only recently became a major emitter, its rapid industrialization has caused it to overtake the EU27 in historical cumulative emissions to become the second-largest contributor.

• The Gap: Despite China's rapid rise, the U.S. cumulative total is still significantly higher roughly twice as much as China's.

• Per Capita Difference: On a per capita basis, U.S. cumulative emissions are far higher than China's, as China's emissions are spread over a much larger population.

In short, the U.S. and Europe bear the primary responsibility for the current stock of in the atmosphere, while China is the largest contributor to the current annual flow of emissions.

Note: The above passage, was Courtesy of Google Search (with links in English to the related subject).

I clearly said 81% of energy, not electricity, was from fossil fuels. Your link looks at % of electricity.

I got the numbers from ChatGPT. I went back and asked it for links. It gave this.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89nergie_en_Chine.

Sorry, I've only been able to read French, at high school grade level. But if you're just throwing out links, just because ChatGOP told you so, and your lazy ass, didn't want verify whatever garage it tells you, then that's on you!

I see "primary energy" as more of a fossil fuel fallacy. The electricity energy mix is better comparative mix. But if you like, I can just throw you a bone or two and give you many of my in links in Chinese (or French for that matter), if that's more to ChatGOP's (or your) liking?

I clearly said 81% of energy, ... The USA is a net importer of crude oil. If you look at crude oil and products refined from crude oil, the trade balance is roughly equal. Exports are about equal to imports. ...

Note that "energy" or primary energy, is not even close to being the same final energy, OR useful energy. Nor does it have anything to do with China being an electrostate or producing electrotech, other than fossil fuels (prime energy) molecules being 3 x less efficient at generating electricity, than electrons.

So while your post goes off into the weeds, talking about, some of the "hard to abate" sectors of industry, today being powered by fossil fuels, feel free to table that in as a separate and different debate, when it comes to electrification.

But rest assured, China being the world's 1st electrostate and their $180 bn electrotech (exports in 2024 and projected nearly $200 bn in 2025), has everything to do with their world electrification prowess, and the move towards reducing theirs and the world's carbon foot print, through electrification technologies. But when you are the world's greatest manufacturing power, at close to 30% (and projected to be 45% in 2030, where the US is only 11%) then you're going to use a fair amount of nations most abundant fossil fuel resource, while your electrification transition ramps up.

Now, since you missed the irony of the "electrostate vs. Petrostate" export of technologies comparison and their related cumulative CO2/ GHG emissions, it is should be obvious, that while both China and the United States, are adding their CO2/ GHG emissions "balance sheet" (or ledger), China is producing and exporting more clean tech ($180 bn), that annually abate billions of tons CO2 emission around the world, should in a practical and pragmatic world, would be weighed against total emissions, on balance.

[EihTooms]

Just comparing numbers for states doesn't make sense. A place like the PRA (Peoples Republic of Austin) benefits from efficient, Republican state governance. However at the county and municipal level, Democrats rule the show. In my well run-county, all levels of government are controlled by Republican politicians, many of which are businessmen and women.

So, for grins, with help from industrial strength ChatGPT (the $200/month subscription version), I decided to compare my county to blue California, and to blue Travis County, which includes Austin. Here are the estimates.

My County (God's country)
Unemployment: 3% to 3.5%
Per Capita personal income: $144,000
Federal taxes per person: $42,000 to $49,000
Federal disbursements to residents, per person: $9,500 to $10,500

People's Republic of California (PRC)
Unemployment 5.5%
Per Capita personal income: $82,000
Federal taxes per person: $22,500 to $25,000
Federal disbursements to residents, per person: $13,500

People's Republic of Austin (PRA)
Unemployment 3% to 3.5%
Per capita personal income: $82,000
Federal taxes per person: $21,000 to $24,000
Federal disbursements to residents, per person: $10,500 to $12,000

ChatGPT says the federal per person disbursements are less than the receipts because of items like defense and intelligence that benefit the whole nation, not individuals in a particular state or county.

So, the hard working people in my deep red county and the businesses here pay $35,500 per person more to the feds than we get back. The deadbeats in California and Austin only pay about $10,000 to $11,000 more than they take in. We're getting fucked.

You could pick and choose states or counties and come to the opposite conclusion though, say by comparing San Mateo county to some poor as shit place in Mississippi..

In my country where a Democrat occupies the White House and Democrats hold the Majority in the House and Senate over the past 100 years:

There were no Great Depressions.

There were no Great Recessions.

There were no Massive Job Losses.

There was no Trump's Pandemic.

There was no Vietnam War.

There was no Attack on 9/11.

There was no Iraq War.

There was no Afghanistan War.

There was no Iran War.

There was no skyrocketing crime rate in 2020.

All cities, counties and states in the USA benefitted accordingly.

[Tiny 12]

Just comparing numbers for states doesn't make sense. A place like the PRA (Peoples Republic of Austin) benefits from efficient, Republican state governance. However at the county and municipal level, Democrats rule the show. In my well run-county, all levels of government are controlled by Republican politicians, many of which are businessmen and women.

So, for grins, with help from industrial strength ChatGPT (the $200/month subscription version), I decided to compare my county to blue California, and to blue Travis County, which includes Austin. Here are the estimates.

My County (God's country)
Unemployment: 3% to 3.5%
Per Capita personal income: $144,000
Federal taxes per person: $42,000 to $49,000
Federal disbursements to residents, per person: $9,500 to $10,500

People's Republic of California (PRC)
Unemployment 5.5%
Per Capita personal income: $82,000
Federal taxes per person: $22,500 to $25,000
Federal disbursements to residents, per person: $13,500

People's Republic of Austin (PRA)
Unemployment 3% to 3.5%
Per capita personal income: $82,000
Federal taxes per person: $21,000 to $24,000
Federal disbursements to residents, per person: $10,500 to $12,000

ChatGPT says the federal per person disbursements are less than the receipts because of items like defense and intelligence that benefit the whole nation, not individuals in a particular state or county.

So, the hard working people in my deep red county and the businesses here pay $35,500 per person more to the feds than we get back. The deadbeats in California and Austin only pay about $10,000 to $11,000 more than they take in. We're getting fucked.

You could pick and choose states or counties and come to the opposite conclusion though, say by comparing San Mateo county to some poor as shit place in Mississippi.

In reality, there's not much difference in how much Republicans and Democrats pay into the system and take out. ChatGPT's estimates for average federal tax per person are

Democrats $18,000 to $24,000
Republicans $20,000 to $26,000

And its estimates for federal benefits per person are

Democrats $12,000 to $15,000
Republicans $13,000 to $16,000

Please note that people pay in more than they get back. While admittedly some of this is attributable to "benefits" from defense spending and the like, I'd argue it's also an indication of how wasteful and inefficient the federal government is. Older, wiser Americans (you excepted) are more likely to vote Republican, and younger Democrat. So the Republicans per capita get more from Medicare and Social Security and the Democrats more from welfare.

The MSM and LWM (Main Stream Media and Left WINGER Media) sources you read point towards red states and counties paying more than blue states and counties. These are based on GDP allocated to states and counties. County data for GDP are much easier to come by than taxes or personal income for counties. Part of the problem with this is that GDP disproportionately gets allocated to company's headquarter cities, and cities are predominantly blue. For example, GDP generated by Wells Fargo, Apple, and Google is disproportionately allocated to the San Francisco Bay area. JP Morgan's to New York City. And ExxonMobil's to blue Harris County (Houston). That's even though the majority or most of Exxon's management, employees and ultimate beneficial owners are Republicans.

Also, you have Democratic and Republican voters in cities. Maybe like in Houston, the majority of the highly productive, highest taxpaying individuals are Republicans, while a majority of lower income individuals are Democrats.

In any event, the reality is that Republicans and Democrats contribute and receive about the same. And sadly the MSM and LWM have convinced you otherwise.

[Axel Heyst]

I almost feel sorry for Newsom. This is what he has to come home to every night. 555/ KKK. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJY0a1S8afo&t=23s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzWHE32IxUc&t=4s

[EihTooms]

Excerpt from a Letter to the Editor:

At Unleash Prosperity, we've examined the cumulative change in net income from Internal Revenue Service data from the years 2012-23. These data quantify the massive wealth transfer from high-tax to low-tax states due to interstate migration.

Florida gained a net $1 trillion increase in income from new entrants minus those who left. Texas was runner up with a nearly $300 billion cumulative income gain. Neither state imposes an income tax.

Meanwhile, two of the highest income tax states, California and New York, lost more than $500 billion and nearly $400 billion respectively over the same period. These losses keep accumulating year after year because the migration is almost all in one direction. The low-tax states are plundering the tax base of the high-tax states.

States such as California, New York and Massachusetts that carry the load for deadbeat Red states that deadbeat Repubs flee to in order to be more deadbeat among other deadbeats are hoping and praying that deadbeat Repub Trump finally sticks to this proposal:

Trump says it's 'not possible' for the U.S. to pay for Medicaid, Medicare and day care: 'Were fighting wars'.
Trump urged states to fund benefits programs instead because "we have to take care of one thing: military protection."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...g-w-rcna266381

Later in his remarks, the president added that states would have to raise their taxes to pay for child care costs and that the federal government could lower our taxes a little bit to them to make up for it.

Its not possible for us to take care of day care, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things, Trump said. They can do it on a state basis. You cant do it on a federal. We have to take care of one thing: military protection. We have to guard the country.

Perfect! I sure hope he is somehow including Social Security in the mix.

I hate to break it to economic numbskulls like Stephen Moore but the Blue states that keep America going and carry the load for deadbeat Red states will do just fine and dandy thank you very much under his Cult Leader's proposal. In fact, better than ever! Meanwhile, those deadbeat Red states will be in a world of Trumpian Deadbeat Repub pain from it. Aww. Too bad.

Please, please, please oh please, Donnie-boy, don't TACO out on this one good idea you might have ever come up with!

Lolololol.

[MarquisdeSade1]

USA boots on the ground! That didn't take long.

As usual, good news for most Americans is bad news for Trump and his fellow Repubs.

Just as Repub Eisenhower put USA military personnel directly in harms way in Vietnam in order to ensure that eventually something, anything would happen to enough of them that the American people would "rally 'round the flag" in greater support for his unprovoked, no-win, quagmire, Repub Vietnam War of Choice, so too has and is Repub Trump doing exactly the same thing but worse and more of it with his Repub Iran War of Choice.

So the one person we can be 100% sure is unhappy about this rescue is Donald J. Trump, who most assuredly was hoping for a much worse outcome for any and all USA military members in the region, all "losers" anyway according to him, rather than merely demonstrating what shameless liars Trump and his SOW Kegsbreath were about how their military controls the air and sea and can do anything he wants it to do since they have "obliterated" and left "in ruins" Iran's ability to shoot at them.

The same lies those two liars keep telling about how safe the Strait of Hormuz is.

Missing U.S. crew member from downed fighter jet rescued in Iran, Trump says.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/missing...n-sources-say/

Well, at least Trump must be delighted that he got USA Boots on the Ground, contrary to his and Kegsbreath's lies about that too, so fast, "the likes of which nobody has ever seen before."But he'll have to rachet up the deadly harm to those "losers", according to him, in the USA military if he is going to acheive the desired effect of fully changing the subject of the Epstein Files and rally support for his no-win Repub War of Choice.

Bangkok Bob aka Tokyo Rose.

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/20...e-war-n4951442#google_vignette.

https://www.newsmax.com/scottpowell/...02/id/1251621/

[Tiny 12]

Excerpt from a Letter to the Editor:

At Unleash Prosperity, we've examined the cumulative change in net income from Internal Revenue Service data from the years 2012-23. These data quantify the massive wealth transfer from high-tax to low-tax states due to interstate migration.

Florida gained a net $1 trillion increase in income from new entrants minus those who left. Texas was runner up with a nearly $300 billion cumulative income gain. Neither state imposes an income tax.

Meanwhile, two of the highest income tax states, California and New York, lost more than $500 billion and nearly $400 billion respectively over the same period. These losses keep accumulating year after year because the migration is almost all in one direction. The low-tax states are plundering the tax base of the high-tax states.

Over the past few decades, I've debated many of the most leftist economists in the country, and they consistently don't have a good answer to this question: If blue states high-tax policies create a workers paradise, why is everyone leaving?.

Stephen Moore.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-blue...s&pos=1&page=1

[EihTooms]

Yes we would love to have Trump in Canada just like numerous other countries. He has done more for USA than any other president since Reagan. When gas in USA was $2 a gallon 6 weeks ago our gas was $5 a gallon like CA. Now we are $6-$7 a gallon. Inflation is higher here and our dollar is worth 71 cents in USA and 60 cents in Europe. Trump has closed your borders and has made huge economic gain after the Biden train wreck. The TDS that the socialists and traitors that that hate USA keep writing fake posts and try to block all his actions making America great. Democrats are hoping Trump fails and are doing everything in their power to make America and Americans fail. For every great thing Trump does in the world there is an USA hater writing fake posts and fake news. Any country in the world would be happy to have Trump make their country great. Unfortunately we have Carney a loser like Biden.

And you were doing so well with that one post containing a link.

Please tell us where "gas was $2 a gallon six weeks ago" in the USA. And please be specific with a link, a chart, anything.

Please cite when and where in the USA Trump made "huge economic gains" from the "train wreck" Biden-Harris handed him. Did you mean for Trump himself, his family and a few billionaires? Because that fact is undeniable and is charted on a monthly basis in the media. However, it certainly hasn't been in jobs creation, business bankruptcies reduction, wage gains, GDP Growth, a lower rate of inflation or lowering the prices for most other items including gas and groceries.

The average price of a gallon of regular gas in the USA is higher now under Trump than all but about 3-4 months in 2022 under Biden. And the reason for it in 2022 had nothing to do with Biden while the reason for it today has everything to do with Trump.

The rate of inflation was 2.9% at the Biden-Harris handoff to Trump. In 2025 it was 3.0%. You know which one is higher, right?

So where were these "huge economic gains" in the USA under Trump vs the Envy of the World Economy he inherited from Biden-Harris? And, again, please be specific with a link, a chart, anything.

441 days into Donald Trump's term
GDP grew at 0.7% per year in Q4. Inflation is at 3.0%. The unemployment rate is 4.3%. The S&P 500 is up 8.8% since he took office.

https://www.economist.com/interactiv...racker/economy

Wages grew in March, but more slowly than they have in years.
The danger is that inflation will overtake wage growth, which would mean Americans overall would have less money for discretionary spending.

https://www.marketplace.org/story/20...-have-in-years

He said slowing wage growth makes sense in a slow job market.

Gross hires are very low by historical standards, and so its very hard for people to go and find a better-paying job on the open market, Zhao said.

The bigger concern isnt that wage growth is slowing its that its slowing while inflation is creeping up, said economist Courtney Shupert at MacroPolicy Perspectives.

Thats a hit to disposable income and a hit to consumer purchasing power, she said.

Trump has Americans missing Biden's economy. No, really.
A new Harvard CAPS/Harris survey found more than half of U.S. voters think the economy is worse under Trump than it was under Biden. And 62% blame the current state of the economy on Trump, not Biden.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...g/89422748007/

Trump can shout that the economy is roaring and America is the hottest country in the world until he's more orange than usual in the face, but it's clear that, like cheap MAGA merchandise, nobody's buying it.