IrishLass

Sounds like you would've preferred a more viable Democratic candidate to vote for in the presidential election. Oh well!

Liberals are really out of their element with anything that doesn't involve transgender surgeries.

Splashed into the Hudson with a missing tail and missing rotor. The thing seemed to be falling apart midair. Maybe it hit something? Horrible way to go, it smashed into the water upside down, killing two parents, three kids and the pilot.

Looks like another missed campaigning opportunity for Kamala. The "manufacturing boom."

I don't see why, half the liberals fled there after the 2016 election, and the rest followed after 2024.

Are you suggesting inner city Americans don't use banks? Could be.

So they both "cut them" AND they "only have the power to make recommendations?" Which is it?

Seems to me you're using the term 'taxpayer' when you mean 'people who buy things.' If so, 'taxpaying' is irrelevant.

Taxpayer money? What? Like the waste DOGE is going after. How are tariffs related to 'taxpayer money?' The tariffs are being charged on foreign goods. What tax money are you talking about?

Don't forget gender surgeries for kids that'll mess them up for life! And 'trans' biodudes in women's bathrooms, sports and lockerrooms.

You can only hope.

Interesting! I'm sure there's a reason.

Your response shows me exactly why the Dems lost. No problem!

If you're that upset about how things are going, do you ever look back at the election (from a Democratic perspective) and wish the party had run a more serious candidate? Instead of handing the nomination to someone who was clearly not suited for the job? Do you wish Biden had stepped aside much earlier in the process? It really seems to me that they decided early on that Trump was unelectable due to 'being a felon,' and as far as candidates they said, 'oh well we'll just run her,' and get some 'first woman of color president' points since ANYONE could've beaten Trump. That's how the strategy looked to me.

Again, you're talking about welfare and social security as if they're similar things. They're not.

They should definitely look into waste and fraud there.

You have to think bigger in terms of Trump's overall goals. You don't know that the current 'tariff policy' is part of a long-term anything.

Roundabout is the one calling social security "welfare." I am telling him it is NOT welfare. We've paid into it. There are people who DON'T pay into it and DON'T receive social security.

Well if you need it explained in even SIMPLER terms: welfare is for the poor.

It is not need-based. It comes from taxes calculated based on what you've earned throughout your working life and have paid into the system toward retirement. That seems like a pretty basic thing for you to not know.

The side effects will be impressive. With luck, not permanent.