If you'll notice, Texas isn't arresting anyone returning from Las Vegas for gambling.

Nothing like double-standards to reveal the weakness of your standards.

" Have you realized you f'ed up AGAIN"

What a riot.

Feel free to explain how extending expiring tax cuts while running a deficit budget doesn't require Trillions more borrowing added to the deficit. Actual Math only.

This should be fun.

" tax cuts don't cost money"

Yes they do, when you're running a deficit budget.

Extending the TCJA tax cuts will force America to borrow TRILLIONS more, mostly to give to the world's wealthiest 1%.

If you don't understand the concept, it's because you're using Republican Math instead of Actual Math.

"You are also pretending to be clairvoyant when you say " similar intentions"."

You're joking, right?

The rioters were LITERALLY chanting to hang the Vice President. You're gaslighting.

Take the L, moron.

" The Biden DOJ was extremely aggressive in its prosecution of J6ers."

They were also extremely aggressive in the prosecution of BLM protest lawbreakers, as they should be.

"I knew you had a fatal flaw in your equivalence "

Hey dumfuq, the "flaw" (in your mind) was in the after-occurances.

The ACTIONS made them would-be assassins. That moniker is applied BEFORE the courts swoop in.

You're just too much of a coward to admit what you already admitted, indirectly, upthread.

" a lack of anyone being charged tells me that the J6ers were not would be Pence assassins."

A barometer you NEVER use for the BLM protests.

Double-standards, again.

"show how goalposts were moved."

Easy.

You had specific barometers. When they were all met, you added guilt in a courtroom as one of the NEW requirements.

That's a textbook example of "moving the goalposts".

"Let's see: Pleads guilty vs no one charged, much less found guilty of attempted murder of Pence. Your equivalence sucks "

What a riot. Your equivalence changes with courtroom outcomes, not similar actions, similar intentions, or similar fatalities (at least to the intended targets.) What a putz.

You got caught. Just take the "L"...unless you'd rather keep digging.

"And you STILL haven't answered my question.'

Of course I have; I said it was serious the last time you brought it up. And the time before.

Meanwhile, you're caught using OBVIOUS double standards.

Oh, and another part of your barometer:

"It's impossible to know if he would have acted if given the opportunity. One thing is for certain, any actual attempt to get close to Kavanaugh would have been met with the use of deadly force"

I only changed the two bolded words. Otherwise, 100% the same.

I rest my case, two-face.

"Name for me any J6er charged with attempted murder of Pence."

Put those goalposts back where you found them.

But keep tap dancing, rather than admit the obvious. I could use a laugh!

Your barometer, upthread, was "grabbed weapons, went to target"...until I proved the J6 rioters did the same, and worse.

As I've exposed, AGAIN, if you didn't have double-standards, you'd have no standards at all.

"I don't recall anyone entering the capitol building with firearms."

"I had the courtesy to answer yours"

When? "impossible to tell" isn't an answer; it's bullschiitttt.

Were the J6 rioters hunting Nancy Pelosi "would-be assassins"? Were the ones chanting "Hang Mike Pence"?

You've already shown your double standards, the only ones you seem to have.

"I don't recall anyone entering the capitol building with firearms."

Keep doing research.

"As for the chanters ... ..impossible to know."

Huh? They gathered weapons (like the assassin), they went to where they knew the target would be (like the assassin)...

About the only things different were the J6 folks didn't turn around when they saw Marshalls, and the J6 attempted assassins didn't decide against it and turn themselves in.

But thanks for showing your double-standards, for all to see.

"Far less seriousl"

I didn't ask degree; I asked if you consider them "would-be assassins".

"Shocking that a would be assassin targeted Brett Kavanaugh."

Do you consider the J6 mob chanting "Hang Mike Pence" as would-be assassins?

" Trust in legacy media is at a historic all time low. That's failure and it's 100% self inflicted."

Don't sell yourself short. You deserve a lot of the credit.

You come here daily and lie, then you cite sources that purposely leave out the salient part, or you'll leave it out, for partisan political purposes.

You should be happy with this accomplishment. You helped build that!

Now be the Proud Boy we all know you are!

"When it comes to economics you are pretty bad."

You're joking, right?

Look at the economy Trump was handed the first time, versus the dumpster fire he handed off.

Similarly, look at "envy of the world" economy Biden handed to Trump, and the schittshow he's turned it into since.

Now go ahead...enlighten us regarding your economic theories.

" I've watched the last several years democrats weaponizing the courts against Trump."

Then it should be easy to point out at least one example of lawfare.

Can you? Can you point out any of Trumps 91 indictments, which you or I could do without fear of legal repercussions?

That's the barometer for weaponization.

" the 9.5% they received directly "

OMFG. You're conflating the PERCENTAGE tax cut with the AMOUNT realized, dumfuq.

I'm done with your moron math. Your garbage sources are leading you to garbage conclusions.

"I am perfectly fine with holding tax rates exactly as they are today so long as it is accompanied by a 20% across the board cut in government spending."

Well, the latter isn't going to happen, so we're going to have to borrow those trillions, PLUS INTEREST. Now...are you FOR this tax bill, or AGAINST it?

"I think this position is entirely reasonable - which is why Democrats will reject it."

Pick up a history book, ffs. Republicans rejected it, when Dubya and Cheney reset America's fiscal sights from Surplusville to Debtsylvania.

"I just gave you the link "

And, once again, your link isn't what you think it is. It completely leaves out foreign investors. They got 15% of the tax cuts...more than American workers got.

Why is it EVERY bit of math you barf up is incomplete or misleading???

I'm done with your GIGO conclusions. You're clearly feeding garbage into the AI prompts.

"Are you FOR it, or AGAINST it?"

I can't get a single Republican to go on record. Why won't those deficit hawks state whether or not borrowing $4 Trillion to give over half to the world's wealthiest 1% is a GOOD idea, or a BAD idea?

I mean, if you're borrowing money to pay your bills every month, that's not good...but if a subscription for $50/mo is expiring, well, renewing it while you're running a deficit budget represents 100% new borrowing.

" you lied,"

I told the truth. You didn't understand the math. You still don't.

And it's still not my fault.

Back to the issue at hand: The richest get the bulk of the tax cuts, all newly borrowed debt. Are you FOR it, or AGAINST it?