" You can't honestly claim that today's pushback on transgender issues is purely religious or driven by hate."

Well, those are the two options, aren't they?

Either God told you, or you decided to make them the least of your brethren all by yourself.

Which is it?

"nor men who practice homosexuality,"

There's a HUGE disagreement on whether that says what you claim it does, or if it refers to the selling of young boys into sexual slavery.

But it's easy to target gays, so...

" Quoting scripture out of context ".

That's not out of context at all. The same section of Leviticus which "condemns" homosexuality, also condemns cutting certain sections of your hair, planting two crops in the same field, shellfish, and shirts of multiple fabrics.

Another section allows slavery, and it used to be cited to justify said human bondage.

How about if you pick up a history book? Because you're coming across as a Cafeteria Christian.

" Maybe you should get out and find out for yourself "

What? Go to a church which not only treats someone as the least of their brethren, they go out of their way to CREATE a least of their brethren?!?

No thanks; I'd rather go to a Christian church.

"I spent years attending a conservative church, and not once did I hear a word about transgender people."

How about gay people? Ever a peep?

"It pits claims of discrimination against the right to practice one's faith."

The Bible allows slaves, provided they're from a neighboring country, and the slaveowner doesn't "rule over them ruthlessly".

Do I have a right to practice that belief? Let's assume I fervently hold that religious position.

Or-and go with me here-does it seem more like the adherent is looking for a justification for their (biblically forbidden) judgement?

"you have no issue lying"

Tell us again how SS is a Ponzi scheme, and not an equilibrium equation.

Ask Grok if you need help.

"you clearly didn't ask Grok to include the back portion of the equation"

Why is that?

Do you NOT understand the equation, or did you purposely leave out the interest on the new borrowing?

Ignorance, or Intellectual Dishonesty? Those are the only two choices.

" They would expire on Dec 31, 2025"

Some of the tax cuts for workers already expired. And they made the corporate tax cuts permanent.

Also, you clearly didn't ask Grok to include the back portion of the equation ... which only works if you're paying ZERO interest.

What you have is an instance of GIGO. And you're the Garbage.

"We better check his tats."

Who needs to? We can always Photoshop it later, amirite?

Another turn of the macro dial:

There are roughly 3000 billionaires in the world, with an average net worth of $5.3 Billion. That a different world for tax savings than at $800,000.

"A common misconception arises from projections for 2027, where the Tax Policy Center noted that the top 1% could receive up to 82.8% of benefits..."

That's certainly where I got the 83% for the top 1% I've claimed. "At fruition" is the phrase I've always used.

"...if individual tax cuts expire, leaving corporate cuts that favor high earners."

That's exactly what happened.

"However, this applies to the top 1%, not the top 0.1%, and is a future scenario, not a current reality"

That must be an old publication. The tax cuts for workers expired. The tax cuts for corporations were made permanent. EXACTLY what was warned.

"No studies specifically claim over 50% for the top 0.1."

Okay, let's do the math. 83% for the top 1%.

The top .1 of 1% IS INCLUDED in that group. It takes roughly $800K/yr to qualify for the world's wealthiest 1%. It takes $2.8 million a year to qualify for the top .1% . But we know $3 million is peanuts to A LOT of billionaires, and there aren't small-dollar differences at this level: someone can make $1 billion, or $2 billion, and they're still in the .1%.

So, regarding the tax cuts, they get the largest chunk, of course. The wealthiest .1% get 60% of the top portion...60% of 83% is right around 50%.
Now add that to THE BACK END of the equation, where INTEREST is paid on that debt. The stated cost of $1.8 Trillion is more like $2.3 Trillion with interest. I believe the world's wealthiest gain the most on that side of the equation as well. Add it all up, and the top 1/10th of 1% got over half the cost of the TCJA tax cuts.

Here's a question for all to ponder: If you're running a deficit budget, and you either write new, or renew expiring tax cuts, does 100% of that represent newly borrowed money?

And since it does, is the total cost the upfront cost only, or the cost of the loan AND the interest to pay it back?

I stand by my math.

"ask him to provide it or admit that he lied"

The only thing I'll ever admit is you're too stupid to understand the equation you're discussing.

"You made the claim that the .1% received over 50% of the Trump tax cuts and I asked your to support that with a link."

Then I linked the Trump tax code. It's right there.

Then I looked further into your article: it only covered Americans. Foreign investors were left out, and they got over 15%. We know that, because American workers got 15%, and Foreign investors got MORE.

Finally, the equation used (just like they're doing again, now), only counts the Front End of the equation, the $1.8 Trillion borrowed. It completely left out the money earned as interest on that new debt, making the total closer to $2.3 Trillion. Call me crazy, but I'm assuming the folks with the most assets saw most of the interest, just like in real life.

Add it all up. Not just the cherry-picked numbers. Not just Americans, and just the front-end costs. THE WHOLE EQUATION.

Like I said, links don't mean a damn thing, if your analysis sucks.

"For what it's worth, I attended commitment ceremonies back when I was part of the gay lifestyle"

For what it's worth, what did you tell the attendees at YOUR commitment ceremony?

"I am the only one on this website that actually supplies links to back up my data."

What a riot.

You're the moron who tried to link vaccines with death (stating the vaccines "resulted" in many deaths), and linked to the VAERS site for proof. Trouble was, your link SPECIFICALLY WARNED against morons like you, stating they'd investigated EVERY QUESTIONABLE DEATH, and only the two known cases from the J&J vaccine had resulted in death, to that point.

Another time, you boasted about a village which was COVID-free, despite only having 9.8% of their populace vaccinated. It turned out you were misreading commas vs. periods with European reporting, and the vax rate was 98%.

Having links doesn't mean having proof; especially when your analytic skills suck.

"Like when the Dish ran away with the Spoon!"

Let's just say, they weren't Forkin' around!

"Men worship women."

Only if they can control them.

" They worship the -----."

Only if they can control them.

"Marriage is still only between a man and a woman and always will be no matter what the courts say about it"

Congress also said.

Just look at the 1040 for proof; it's the "Married, Filing Jointly" section.

"I don't believe gay marriages are sanctioned by the Bible."

It falls under the same condemnation as poly-cotton shirts, fresh haircuts, and shrimp cocktail.

"The number of those 2.1 million people that are here illegally should be zero. "

Let's say you get your way. That means most of the harvestable food will rot in the fields. Is that your goal?

And is your ultimate goal that Americans will become so hungry, they'll TAKE the harvest jobs? And show up?

Is all THAT the goal...just so Elon can get another tax cut???

"When illegals are not allowed to be in the country, whether the employer wants to hire them no longer matters."

You'd have a point...if the hirers weren't advertising in Spanish, in Mexico.

"I am not saying don't jail employers. I am 100% for that too"

The folks you vote for don't feel that way. in fact, aren't most of these, say, meat-packing plants in Republican counties with Republican Sheriffs, where the Republicans members of the Chamber of Commerce are the largest contributors to the Republican Sheriffs' re-election campaigns?

We've got one poster, in a red county and a red state, who does business with the hirers...and everybody knows the illegals work there.

"GOP to Pay for Trump Tax Cuts With Sales of Public Land"

All due respect, the headline is incorrect. It should be:

GOP to Use Sale of Public Land to Justify TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS in New Borrowing for Tax Cuts

Maybe it was the character limit....

"It is no longer debatable"

But is it sensible?

Will it be considered wise, once harvests fall short, and food prices spike? That's an obviously observable outcome.

And will Trump take responsibility? Or will the bad results be Biden's fault?

How far back do you want to go?

"As far as you're honest."

Annnnnd, he couldn't even go there.