Liberals are quick to defend the US Constitutional rights for illegal, wife beating illegal gang members and other assorted rapists and murders - but them defending the US Constitutional rights for law abiding US citizens is a bridge too far for them.
#19 | Posted by ScottS

Who are you talking about? Be specific or STFU, cultist.

Did they catch it in time? Spread to the bones doesn't sound good.

I mean if the ------ can send Millions to the Biden's why not gift an airplane? He can keep the plane and have it be a part of his Presidential Library.
#37 | Posted by Bluewaffles

The former never happened. If it had, Biden would have been removed. Further, you were so upset about the mere idea that Biden was being gifted millions in cash it would only be consistent of you if you were also upset about Trump receiving this gift.

Whoops! You should swallow it.

The perception of the U.S.-China trade deal as a "win" for Trump or a concession to China depends on the perspective and source:

- U.S. Government and Trump's Framing: The White House and President Trump are portraying the agreement as a historic win for the United States. The administration highlights the reduction of Chinese tariffs, the elimination of retaliatory measures, and a path toward increased market access for American exports as evidence of a successful negotiation that benefits U.S. businesses and workers[5].

- Chinese Perspective: In China, state media and the public see the deal as a victory for Beijing. Chinese commentators emphasize that their firm stance resulted in the U.S. rolling back steep tariffs (from 145% to 30%) while China made minimal concessions, mostly retracting retaliatory tariffs. Chinese social media is celebrating the outcome as evidence that China did not yield to U.S. pressure[1].

- Independent and Market Analysis: U.S. and international analysts note that the Trump administration retreated from its highest tariffs, which were causing economic strain domestically. The deal is viewed as a pragmatic pause to avoid further economic pain rather than a clear-cut win for either side. Some experts argue this is more of a tactical retreat by the U.S., as the administration had previously insisted tariffs would not be reduced without substantial Chinese concessions, which have not fully materialized[2][3].

- Wall Street Reaction: Markets responded positively, with stocks rallying on the news, as the agreement reduces the risk of a recession and restores trade flows, at least temporarily. However, the underlying issues in the U.S.-China trade relationship remain unresolved, and the deal is seen as a temporary measure rather than a definitive victory[4].

While the Trump administration claims a win, Chinese officials and much of the independent analysis suggest the U.S. made significant concessions to de-escalate the trade war. The agreement is best described as a mutual de-escalation that both sides are spinning as a victory, but with China widely seen as having secured favorable terms with minimal concessions[1][2][3][5].

Too many LIBERALS.
#5 | Posted by ScottS

"REEEEEEEEE!!"

Hahaha! JFC you're dumb. Swallow it.

both of which usually applies to these ------- liberals whining about how they cannot pay.
#9 | Posted by ScottS

Sounds like the description says more about your bias than theirs. Nice self-own, cultist.

#19 | Posted by fortfisher

Pfffffffft! HAHAHA! You're displaying cult-like mentality. Nice self-own, cultist.

Ol' Marge just wants attention...and money. Both of which she knows she'll get by playin' this embarrassing hand.

Why are Pres Trump's top officials using these insecure apps?
#3 | Posted by LampLighter

You and I know the answer. You and I also know the only reason you're asking the question is in hopes a cultist MAGAt might provide their own answer.

#29 | Posted by ScottS

They've all lied. But not nearly to the degree as Trump. Are you willing to acknowledge this basic fact?

let's see what you say after the appeals decision comes in.
#68 | Posted by fishpaw

No way to tell.

FISHPAW:

The claim that "Trump was deprived of his due process rights under the constitution in his NY trial" is not fully accurate based on available information.

Due Process and Jury Instructions:
- In the New York trial, Judge Juan M. Merchan instructed the jury that they must reach a unanimous verdict on Trump's guilt regarding the key elements of falsifying business records and intent to conceal a crime. The jury was allowed some flexibility only in deciding which specific unlawful means Trump used, but unanimity was required on the core charges. This means the jury had to agree unanimously that Trump committed the crime, preserving his Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial and due process[3].
- Some claims circulating on social media suggested the jury did not need to be unanimous, but these have been debunked as misrepresentations of the judge's instructions[3].
- A legal analysis noted that there were concerns about the jury instructions potentially being legally defective, which could implicate Sixth Amendment rights, but the official court documents do not conclude that Trump was deprived of due process outright; rather, motions and appeals are part of the ongoing legal process[2][4].

While there are legal arguments and motions challenging aspects of the trial procedure, the official judge's instructions required a unanimous verdict on the essential elements of the charges, meaning Trump's constitutional right to due process was upheld in that regard. Assertions that he was deprived of due process rights in the New York trial are therefore inaccurate or at least not supported by the court's instructions and rulings as of now[3][4].

(con't)

Based on scientific evidence from multiple studies, most claims presented in the query are not accurate. While no pandemic mitigation measure was perfect, research shows that social distancing, lockdowns, and vaccines demonstrated measurable effectiveness in reducing COVID-19 transmission and severe outcomes. Claims attributing mass casualties to vaccines or suggesting worse outcomes among vaccinated individuals contradict the empirical evidence.

When evaluating statements about public health measures, it's critical to rely on peer-reviewed research, systematic reviews, and data from established health institutions rather than unsubstantiated claims that circulate without scientific verification.

(con't)

Vaccine Efficacy and Safety

The claim that "the vaccine didn't work or stop transmission, but killed a half million Americans" contains multiple inaccuracies.

Regarding transmission, a rapid review of 43 studies found "evidence across 13 transmission studies (all observational, all variants) that fully vaccinated index cases transmitted COVID-19 to their contacts less than unvaccinated index cases"[4]. For example, there was a 62% reduction in transmission to high-risk contacts from fully vaccinated individuals with the Pfizer vaccine compared to unvaccinated individuals[4].

The review also found that "when looking at the vaccination status of contacts rather than index cases, there was an 80.0% reduction in COVID-19 transmission from index cases (of any vaccination status) to fully vaccinated compared with unvaccinated other household members"[4].

Concerning the claim about vaccines causing deaths, a fact-check directly addressed similar assertions, finding them false. While excess mortality data did show 1.1 million more deaths than expected historically during the pandemic period, attributing these to vaccines is unsupported. According to the data source itself, "We don't currently have information regarding cause of death to determine what caused the excess deaths"[6]. Public health experts attribute most excess deaths to COVID-19 infections themselves and other pandemic-related factors, not vaccines.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is often cited in such claims, but as the CDC explicitly states: "A report to VAERS does not mean that a vaccine caused an adverse event"[5]. The system accepts all reports regardless of causality, serving as an early warning system rather than confirmation of vaccine effects.

Comparative Outcomes in Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated

The claim that "the vaccinated are 20% more likely to get COVID-19, and 6x as likely to be hospitalized, and are over-represented in death statistics" is contradicted by research evidence.

A study examining real-world outcomes found that "ED encounters/hospitalizations related to COVID-19 were 96% lower in fully vaccinated patients compared to unvaccinated patients"[7]. This demonstrates substantially reduced risk of severe outcomes among vaccinated individuals, directly contradicting the claim of increased hospitalization risk.

The scientific evidence consistently shows that vaccination reduces COVID-19 severity, hospitalization risk, and mortality compared to being unvaccinated.

(con't below)

You guys are ------- brainwashed or retarded.
#36 | Posted by HeliumRat

The irony in your post is absolutely rife. And yes, I just looked ALL of it up:

Evaluating COVID-19 Prevention Claims: A Scientific Assessment

This post examines a series of claims about COVID-19 mitigation measures and vaccines, systematically evaluating each assertion against available scientific evidence. The statements in question contain several inaccuracies and mischaracterizations about masks, social distancing, lockdowns, and vaccines that contradict the scientific consensus documented in peer-reviewed research.

Mask Efficacy

The claim that "masks don't work" is not fully supported by the evidence. While one meta-analysis did suggest that "the efficacy of COVID-19 prevention did not statistically significantly differ with using surgical masks and using no face masks"[1], this represents just one study with specific parameters. It's important to note that this finding was limited to surgical masks rather than all mask types (such as N95 respirators), and contradicts the broader body of research on respiratory protection during the pandemic.

Social Distancing Effectiveness

The assertion that "social distancing was science fiction" is directly contradicted by research evidence. A prospective study of 2,120 participants found that individuals' social distancing behavior strongly predicted whether they contracted COVID-19 over the following four months. Specifically, "an increase of one SD on the virtual behavior measure of social distancing was associated with roughly a 20% reduction in the odds of contracting COVID-19"[2]. This relationship remained consistent regardless of whether researchers considered only laboratory-confirmed cases or also included suspected cases.

The study authors concluded: "The findings offer clear support regarding the efficacy of practicing social distancing...What the individual does matters. It surely matters at the 'collective' level, reducing transmission within the community-the very aim of officials' social distancing directives and pleas. However, engaging in social distancing also carries with it clear and relatively immediate benefits for those who comply, leading to a reduced likelihood of contracting the disease for that specific individual"[2].

Lockdown Impact

The claim that "lockdowns were worse than useless" contradicts research findings. A comprehensive study found that "lockdowns at the beginning of COVID-19 pandemic reduced the spread of infection by an estimated 56%"[3]. The same research estimated that "if all governors did not issue any lockdowns until April 23, 2020, the number of cases would have been five times higher by April 30, 2020"[3].

While the study acknowledged economic tradeoffs-including impacts on GDP (-5.4%), employment (-2%), consumer satisfaction (-2%), and consumer spending (-7.5%)-it demonstrated that lockdowns were effective at their primary purpose of reducing disease spread[3]. This represents a nuanced cost-benefit relationship rather than lockdowns being "worse than useless."

(con't below)

Is Stephen Miller an improvement over Waltz?

In other words, the statement in question contains some elements supported by economic data but also includes exaggerations and value judgments that cannot be verified through economic statistics alone. While certain components of the economy showed positive growth in Q1 2025, the overall GDP figure was negative, contradicting the claim that "every measure" is positive.

The impact of imports on GDP calculation is significant as claimed, though the specific dynamics are more complex than suggested. The prediction about future reversals lacks supporting evidence in the current data. Finally, while government spending did decline and contributed negatively to GDP as stated, the normative assessment of this as positive represents a value judgment rather than an economic fact.

The Q1 2025 GDP report presents a mixed economic picture with areas of strength in private domestic demand alongside challenges from trade and government sectors, all against a backdrop of rising inflation indicators.

However, the characterization that "every measure" is positive overstates the case. The economy as a whole contracted as measured by real GDP, which is generally considered the broadest measure of economic activity[3]. Additionally, inflation indicators showed concerning upward movement, with the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index increasing 3.6%, up from 2.4% in the previous quarter[1][2].

Import Dynamics and GDP Calculation

The statement claims "GDP number was suppressed by 5% due to inventory builds on imports." This claim contains elements of truth but requires clarification.

According to the data, net exports did indeed contribute negatively to GDP growth at -4.83 percentage points[4], which is close to the "5%" figure mentioned. The BEA specifically notes that the decrease in real GDP "primarily reflected an increase in imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP"[1].

The BEA explains that within imports, "the increase primarily reflected an increase in imported goods, led by consumer goods, except food and automotive (mainly medicinal, dental, and pharmaceutical preparations, including vitamins); and by capital goods, except automotive (mainly computers, peripherals, and parts)"[2].

Regarding inventory investment, the BEA notes: "The largest contributor to the increase in investment was private inventory investment, led by an increase in wholesale trade (notably, drugs and sundries). The estimates of private inventory investment were based primarily on Census Bureau inventory book value data and a BEA adjustment in March to account for a notable increase in imports"[2].

Future Reversal Claims

The statement asserts that the negative impact on GDP "reverses in the coming months." None of the search results provide forward-looking projections or evidence to support this claim of future reversal[1][2][3][4]. Economic forecasting involves significant uncertainty, and the available data focuses on reporting past performance rather than making predictions.

Government Spending Impact

The statement correctly identifies that cuts to government spending contributed to the GDP decline. Government consumption expenditures contributed -0.25 percentage points to GDP growth[4]. The BEA specifies that "the decrease in government spending reflected a decrease in federal government spending (led by defense consumption expenditures) that was partly offset by an increase in state and local government spending"[2].

Whether this decline in government spending is "a good thing" as claimed is a normative judgment that involves economic, fiscal, and political considerations beyond what can be evaluated with purely economic data.

#5

Analysis of U.S. Economic Statement: GDP Decline in Q1 2025

The recently released U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data provides important context for evaluating claims about the Q1 2025 economic performance. The statement in question contains several assertions about the U.S. economy that require careful examination against official economic data. This analysis will evaluate each claim using the latest GDP advance estimate and related economic indicators.

Overview of Q1 2025 GDP Performance

The advance estimate from the Bureau of Economic Analysis shows that U.S. real GDP decreased at an annual rate of 0.3% in the first quarter of 2025, following a 2.4% increase in the fourth quarter of 2024[1]. This represents the first contraction in the U.S. economy in three years[3]. The decrease primarily reflected an increase in imports (which subtract from GDP) and a decrease in government spending, partially offset by increases in investment, consumer spending, and exports[1].

The component breakdown reveals a more nuanced picture than the headline figure suggests:
- Personal consumption expenditures contributed +1.21 percentage points (though down from Q4 2024)[4]
- Gross private domestic investment contributed +3.60 percentage points (up from Q4 2024)[4]
- Net exports of goods and services contributed -4.83 percentage points (down from Q4)[4]
- Government consumption expenditures contributed -0.25 percentage points[4]

Examining the "Real Economy" Components

The statement claims that "every measure which points to the real economy is green." This assertion requires careful scrutiny against the actual data.

While the overall GDP figure was negative (-0.3%), several underlying components did show positive growth. Consumer spending increased, contributing positively to GDP growth despite a deceleration from the previous quarter[1][2]. The BEA reports that "real final sales to private domestic purchasers," which combines consumer spending and gross private fixed investment, increased by 3.0% in Q1, slightly higher than the 4th quarter's 2.9%[2].

I'll take it even a step further.

There is no direct equivalent "civil crime rate" for U.S. citizens that matches the act of unauthorized entry into the country, because most civil violations by citizens (like parking tickets or tax penalties) are not tracked in the same way as immigration violations. Entering the U.S. without authorization is a civil offense under immigration law, not a criminal one, and is unique to non-citizens.

When comparing actual criminal offenses, multiple studies and arrest data show that undocumented immigrants have significantly lower rates of criminal activity than native-born citizens across a wide range of crimes, including violent and property offenses[5][1][6]. In Texas, native-born citizens are over twice as likely to be arrested for violent crimes and over four times as likely for property crimes compared to undocumented immigrants[5].

Again, there is no meaningful "civil crime rate" for U.S. citizens equivalent to unauthorized entry, and on standard criminal metrics, undocumented immigrants offend at lower rates than native-born Americans[1][5][6].

City leaders are clearly concerned about sudden strains on local services, no fnkcin' chit sherlock, that's a real short-term issue when lots of people arrive at once. But overall, research shows undocumented immigrants contribute more to the economy and pay billions in taxes, helping fund those same services.

Regarding crime: entering without authorization is a civil, not a criminal, offense. When it comes to actual crime rates (like theft or assault), studies consistently show undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit these crimes than native-born Americans.

So, while local challenges exist, the broader evidence doesn't support the idea that undocumented immigrants are a drain or a crime risk.

Swallow as many times as needed until it settles.