Joe Biden Was NOT running the country

  • Thread starter Thread starter GuyFree
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 385
  • Views: 6K
  • Politics 

Scarborough will NEVER live this down. He didn't just defend Biden's mental health he FU'ed anyone who felt otherwise. Total loss of credibility. It will go on his tombstone.

Oh, and he alluded to the fact that he spent several hours speaking with Biden. In the spring of 2024 there was no way Biden could intelligently speak for several hours.
 
Scarborough will NEVER live this down. He didn't just defend Biden's mental health he FU'ed anyone who felt otherwise. Total loss of credibility. It will go on his tombstone.

Oh, and he alluded to the fact that he spent several hours speaking with Biden. In the spring of 2024 there was no way Biden could intelligently speak for several hours.
You literally have no idea of that last assertion. My uncle has Parkinson's with Lewy Dimentia. There are some days when he has no idea what is going on AT ALL. There are other days when he is as lucid as could possibly be for the entire day or days at a stretch.

As for things that people will NEVER live down. You all who support Trump better hope that isn't true because you absolutely will come to a day where you will personally hope that people do let you live it down once you see the totality of his destruction.
 
California supports itself and the welfare states... you particularly should be thankful rather than trying to hate on your sponsor.
Au contraire. My two states, Georgia and Florida, are also "donor" states - sending more tax revenue to the US than they receive in benefits. According to the April 2025 publication by USAFACTS, Georgia has a +14B surplus with Florida having a +17B surplus.
 
I can laugh at the more extreme of MAGA and their devotion to Trump
In what world do you live in that you are not extreme MAGA? The fact alone that you want/receive a lot of Trump swag should be enough to tip you off that you're extreme MAGA. And let's not even get into the fact that you see yourself as some Trump whisperer who can always explain away all the stupid and crazy shit Trump says and does by telling us all your interpretations of what he really means/thinks.
 
In what world do you live in that you are not extreme MAGA? The fact alone that you want/receive a lot of Trump swag should be enough to tip you off that you're extreme MAGA. And let's not even get into the fact that you see yourself as some Trump whisperer who can always explain away all the stupid and crazy shit Trump says and does by telling us all your interpretations of what he really means/thinks.
In what world do you live in where you can't tell if a poster is obviously joking about receiving Trump swag as a Christmas gifts from family members? I was making fun of all the "Trump watches" and "Trump sneakers" that are being offered for sale.

The extreme MAGA I was referring to are the folks who wait for 9 hours or so in the blazing heat to attend one of his rallies, covered head to toe in Trump paraphernalia waiving Trump flags. These folks boycott Fox News because it's too liberal.

Otherwise, I have no issue being labeled ultra MAGA.
 
Au contraire. My two states, Georgia and Florida, are also "donor" states - sending more tax revenue to the US than they receive in benefits. According to the April 2025 publication by USAFACTS, Georgia has a +14B surplus with Florida having a +17B surplus.


The Rockefeller chart is extremely detailed and goes back a decade. I didn't realize that NC was one of the top recipient states. #4 in terms of balance of payments (that is, fourth best in mooching). Probably FEMA plus NSF/NIH?
 
Au contraire. My two states, Georgia and Florida, are also "donor" states - sending more tax revenue to the US than they receive in benefits. According to the April 2025 publication by USAFACTS, Georgia has a +14B surplus with Florida having a +17B surplus.
That failing movie industry, according to trump, in Georgia probably helps.
 
In what world do you live in where you can't tell if a poster is obviously joking about receiving Trump swag as a Christmas gifts from family members? I was making fun of all the "Trump watches" and "Trump sneakers" that are being offered for sale.

The extreme MAGA I was referring to are the folks who wait for 9 hours or so in the blazing heat to attend one of his rallies, covered head to toe in Trump paraphernalia waiving Trump flags. These folks boycott Fox News because it's too liberal.

Otherwise, I have no issue being labeled ultra MAGA.
Yea Right GIF
 
Here is the article Ramrouser is referring to if anyone is interested. USAfacts is Steve Balmer's (Microsoft) site:

But it's only considering "federal obligations to the states," which is not at all the same thing as federal outlays per state.

I know, shocking that you and Rammy have little ability to read data tables.
 
And lots of military bases.
Yeah. I would assume that has something to do with it. I'm sure another difference between the two different sources are how they account for federal outlays. How do you account for a sailor's salary when he is on a ship in the South Pacific that is based in Japan? How do you account for a check that goes to a company who is based in Delaware when the work was done in Iowa? I suspect there are a million little things like that which would tend to move the numbers around pretty dramatically depending on how you classify these things.
 
Last edited:
I think you also run into a problem with these types of metrics when you have a mobile population. It's not uncommon for people to earn their money in places like New York and Massachusetts and then retire in Florida.

So with that pretty common scenario, the federal government is going to collect taxes in those northern states and then send an awful lot of money to people in the form of social security and Medicare to their new home in the Sun belt. So while it's absolutely true that citizens in a place like Arizona are going to receive a lot of entitlement payments from the government, I wouldn't call that an issue that needs correcting.
 
I think you also run into a problem with these types of metrics when you have a mobile population. It's not uncommon for people to earn their money in places like New York and Massachusetts and then retire in Florida.

So with that pretty common scenario, the federal government is going to collect taxes in those northern states and then send an awful lot of money to people in the form of social security and Medicare to their new home in the Sun belt. So while it's absolutely true that citizens in a place like Arizona are going to receive a lot of entitlement payments from the government, I wouldn't call that an issue that needs correcting.
It's a pointless metric anyway for the purposes people tend to use it. I live in a deeply giver county in a taker state. I'd a million times over rather live here than in any of the taker counties in this state. I like visiting those places but they're takers for a reason, and those reasons make me not particularly interested in living there.

My only objection is when taker states/regions/counties try to gain inequitable electoral advantages over their giver counterparts. And yes, I'm aware that's enormous part of the GOP's agenda over the last 40 years, which is one of the main reasons I find that party so contemptible.
 
It's a pointless metric anyway for the purposes people tend to use it. I live in a deeply giver county in a taker state. I'd a million times over rather live here than in any of the taker counties in this state. I like visiting those places but they're takers for a reason, and those reasons make me not particularly interested in living there.

My only objection is when taker states/regions/counties try to gain inequitable electoral advantages over their giver counterparts. And yes, I'm aware that's enormous part of the GOP's agenda over the last 40 years, which is one of the main reasons I find that party so contemptible.
I understand why they went with the electoral college system but it does need to be changed and there's not a realistic mechanism for making it happen in today's political climate. It needs to get 3/4 of the state legislatures and no state is going to realistically vote for less representation. So you need to get 38 States to vote for a different way to allocate representation, that would indeed favor them, but for most of them, would not favor their political party. Very frustrating.

"Rotten boroughs," which was the extreme misallocation of representation in Parliament, was indirectly one of the issues that led to the American revolution.
 
I think you also run into a problem with these types of metrics when you have a mobile population. It's not uncommon for people to earn their money in places like New York and Massachusetts and then retire in Florida.
That's irrelevant when you're comparing economies. Saying that Arizona doesn't pay as much in tax as it gets in benefits isn't a moral indictment of the state, let alone its people. It just makes clear where the country's wealth is produced. Which also isn't morally superior, for a number of reasons.

Understanding the geographic redistribution of wealth in the country is primarily useful for swatting down the bullshit from the right about how California and New York are so terribly governed. Literally those states subsidize the moronic critiques of them from GOPers in states that are barely first world.
 


Not an official Trump sure but notable for the churn among MAGA for someone to punish …
 
Back
Top