"#20 | Posted by REDIAL"

People don't need to be fluent speakers of a language to know the curse words or other derogatory language. I would ask if all Snow Mexicans lack basic common sense - but, then I saw your last election results so I already know the answer.

Maybe the delivery driver called him a cracker - in the reverse situation, liberals would be cheering the outcome.

What I still can't quite understand is that the delivery driver is from West Africa and doesn't speak English - how are these people in our country working? Doesn't justify him getting shot if the whole story is being presented (which it probably isn't) but it is strange.

I am sending the White House a copy of Judge Dredd via express mail as we speak for immediate implementation in deep blue -------- cities. If that doesn't work, he is getting Robocop.

"Depends. Am I holding their stock?
#12 | Posted by snoofy"

You specifically? We all know that you don't have 2 nickels to rub together so no, you don't hold their stock. Who does own their stock? Well, the US .1% probably hold 20% and foreign .1% probably another 10% or so - so, you are again cheering on and enriching the billionaire class that you claim to hate.

"#48 | Posted by Danforth"

I will ask it that right after you admit that you lied. I know you did. Grok knows you did. Even Snoofy knows you did. Hell, YOU know you did. So, just admit it already.

"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.
#47 | Posted by Danforth"

How would ask Grok this question? I guess the wording would go - if the top .1% receive 15% of the tax cuts and own 25% of all the US government debt, if I include interest on the debt will it make their .1% share over 50% in total?

It is just mathematically STUPID and obvious for anyone with common sense.

"Some of the tax cuts for workers already expired."

Which ones specifically - with links.

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

I don't know why you are so stuck on stupid on this. The .1% own 25% of US government debt. As they own LESS THAN 50%, any interest payments the receive vs. the remaining 75% of interest payments going to the 99.9%, makes their total share of the tax cuts DECREASE. This is just basic math -------.

"What you have is an instance of GIGO. And you're the Garbage.
#46 | Posted by Danforth"

Even Snoofy knows you are lying. But again - provide a link that clearly states that the .1% got over 50% of the tax cut as you claims and we can end this discussion. Or, you can simply admit you got caught lying - AGAIN.

"You apparently didn't read the article and it shows.
#2 | Posted by Sycophant"

I read more and more numbers looking good and liberals saying "just wait" as every one of their predicts does not pan out - it sounds exactly like their global warming -------- that even they no longer believe.

"Among those who say the country hasn't made enough progress on racial equality, 49% express doubt that Black people will ever have equal rights with White people, up from 39% in 2020. ..."

Exactly what rights are those that whites have that blacks don't?

I know, I know - experts wrong AGAIN as their doom and gloom fails to materialize. The liberal tears over the country not failing as they dreamed it would continue flowing.

"#42 | Posted by Danforth"

Dude, you are lying. Grok called you a liar - hell, even Snoofy called you a liar. It is okay to just let this go. You were wrong - no shame in that. But, you perpetually lying after being informed is what makes this so sad for you.

""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.

1.) "That's certainly where I got the 83% for the top 1% I've claimed." - which is WRONG
2.) No - you never used the world 'at fruition' - link to your original comment where you stated this because you didn't. Lying is really becoming a habit for you. So, now you owe 2 links.
2.) The projections for 2027 ARE FOR ------- 2027 AND 2027 ONLY NOT IN TOTAL -------.

"...if individual tax cuts expire, leaving corporate cuts that favor high earners."
That's exactly what happened."

They would expire on Dec 31, 2025 -------. Aren't you supposed to be preparing taxes? One would think you would know something so basic for someone preparing taxes.

"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."

It is already Dec 31, 2025? What, are you living in the future now -------? Again, you prepare taxes for a living - how can you not know this?

"No studies specifically claim over 50% for the top 0.1."
Okay, let's do the math. 83% for the top 1%."

Blah, blah, blah - maybe you need to tell Grok, ChatGPT and all the CBO staffers how to do math because you are the only ------- claiming these numbers.

"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?"

This argument does not help your cause at the top .1% only own 25% of the total federal debt - thus, by including interest payments, THE NUMBER GOES DOWN. Taking any addition savings in which the top .1% owns less than 50% bring their percentage overall DOWN. But, with someone so math challenged, I should not surprised you don't get this.

"I stand by my math.
#42 | Posted by Danforth"

Of course you do - you have no issue lying even having been completely debunked. I think you owe Laura an apology - she is going to be heartbroken.

""So, you are up - did Danforth lie?"
Sure, why not?
Tell us.
What hinges on Danforth lying.
#41 | Posted by snoofy"

Accountability - it matters otherwise what is the point of debating?

"#39 | Posted by REDIAL"

Well, well - the Canuck Cuck chimes in. How about you answer the question:

Because rarely do we ever have an issue so irrefutable. When Grok says "No reputable or disreputable sources claim that the top 0.1% received more than 50% of the Trump tax cuts." - it becomes non-debatable. It is an established fact.

if you doubt that here is more from Grok:
"Yes, if someone has seen my answer and read the data (e.g., from the Tax Policy Center or Joint Committee on Taxation) that clearly shows the top 0.1% received ~10-15% of the Trump tax cuts, not over 50%, and they continue to state the false claim, they are lying. This is because they are knowingly and intentionally spreading a falsehood despite having direct evidence of the truth. Such behavior indicates deliberate deception, fitting the definition of a lie."

So, now we get to see if you liberals can think rationally and admit the truth, or continue to lie simply because the lie was stated by someone on your team.

So, you are up - did Danforth lie?

Yes or No will suffice.

"#43 | Posted by ClownShack"

I only hope that your life story will have a redemption arc. I know you are at a low point where you are depressed and feel like a failure. Things can get better if you make better choices. I believe in you.

"Of all the hills to die on, what makes this one so irresistible?
#37 | Posted by snoofy"

Because rarely do we ever have an issue so irrefutable. When Grok says "No reputable or disreputable sources claim that the top 0.1% received more than 50% of the Trump tax cuts." - it becomes non-debatable. It is an established fact.

So, now we get to see if you liberals can think rationally and admit the truth, or continue to lie simply because the lie was stated by someone on your team.

So, you are up - did Danforth lie?

Yes or No will suffice.

"a legend in your own mind, and nowhere else.
#35 | Posted by Alexandrite"

Let's test this - you have seen all the debate on the Danforth's comment that ' the .1% received over 50% of Trump's tax cuts' - he still stands by that comment today.

After this - do you acknowledge that Danforth is lying?

A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

"#41 | Posted by ClownShack"

Jesus loves you. Also, I truly want you to be successful in life. So, it is up to you and the choices you make. I truly hope you start to make better ones. Regardless, I wish you happiness and success even if that won't come through your current way of life.

"#33 | Posted by LampLighter"

There has never been a more thorough takedown of a claim on this website than what I have demonstrated debunking Danforth's lie that the top .1% received more than 50% of the Trump tax cut. I supplied link after link, logic, basic math, and even AI. It is not up for debate that his statement was a lie - it has been proven as such. And yet, no admission from him that it was a lie. There is no point for me to repeat that process now - I have proven my credibility repeatedly on this site through both my links and admission and corrections to data that I posted that was not correct. So, cry more -------.

"#31 | Posted by LampLighter"

Cry more -------. Your next post that adds actual information to the discussion will be your first.

"Stopped reading there.
#37 | Posted by ClownShack"

That is where the tears got you, huh? Well, come back tomorrow and try reading it again. Always remember - Jesus loves you and all people have worth. Even you.

"#28 | Posted by LampLighter"

Keep holding your breath waiting for it.

"#25 | Posted by LampLighter"

As I already explained, I am not playing your game for the exact reason I already stated. In the case of Danforth - it is the most clear cut case possible of someone lying and being called out for it with actual links and evidence. And yet, still no admission that he lied. So, why should I waste my time posting links? Learn to use Grok and answer your own questions.

Grok prompt (to give Danforth the benefit of the doubt): "are there any links, reputable and even disreputuable, to claims that the top .1% received more than 50% of the trump tax cuts?"

Grok Answer:
Disreputable or Unsubstantiated Claims
I searched for less reliable sources, including posts on X and fringe websites, to identify any claims that the top 0.1% received over 50% of the TCJA benefits. The closest I found was a 2017 X post claiming the top 0.1% received "nearly 40%" of the cuts, but this lacks supporting evidence and is not from a credible source. No posts or websites explicitly claimed a figure above 50% for the top 0.1%. Even partisan outlets critical of the TCJA, like some progressive blogs, tend to focus on the top 1% or corporate benefits rather than isolating the top 0.1% with such a high share.

Conclusion
No reputable or disreputable sources claim that the top 0.1% received more than 50% of the Trump tax cuts. Reputable estimates place their share at 10-15%, with the top 1% receiving 20-25% in most years. Even less reliable sources, like X posts, don't reach the 50% threshold, with the highest unsubstantiated claim being "nearly 40%." If you'd like me to explore specific outlets or dig deeper into raw tax data, let me know!

But Danforth knows better according to him. So, prove Grok and I wrong and post your link -------.

Grok Prompt: "are there any links to claims that the top .1% received more than 50% of the trump tax cuts?"

Grok Response:
"I couldn't find any credible claims from reputable sources stating that the top 0.1% received more than 50% of the Trump Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) benefits. Most analyses, such as those from the Tax Policy Center, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, estimate that the top 0.1% received around 10-15% of the total tax cuts, with the broader top 1% receiving roughly 20-25% in most years. Some sources, like a 2017 X post, claimed higher figures (e.g., the top 0.1% getting nearly 40%), but these are not substantiated by rigorous studies and appear exaggerated.

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 if individual tax cuts expire, leaving corporate cuts that favor high earners. However, this applies to the top 1%, not the top 0.1%, and is a future scenario, not a current reality. No studies specifically claim over 50% for the top 0.1%. If you want me to dig deeper into primary data or specific claims, let me know"

So, again - THIS IS NOT EVEN DEBATABLE - Danforth just lied. The only question up for debate is: Why does Danforth continue to lie? Afraid his reputation with Laura will be sullied? Hates to lose? Or just plain out too stupid to know he lied?

"#19 | Posted by LampLighter"

You need to look no further than this current exchange with Danforth

1.) Factually he is wrong
2.) I have provided all the links in the past that prove he is wrong
3.) HE even knows he is wrong

Yet, he will not admit to being wrong. So, what is the point for me providing you -------- with link after link? It changes nothing for you.