President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
You said everyone will blame Trump. I specified that "everyone" also includes MAGA so it's not everyone. You then asked if Trump is that powerful. I said he is. Now you're implying you were being hyperbolic the entire time. Having a third of the population believing a cult leader's bullshit is relevant. He would have never been elected (especially the second time) if there isn'
Trump supporters aren’t people so they don’t fall under the set of “everyone”
Anyway, if you want to be pedantic why even go to Trump supporters? I mean if we want to get into a universal quantifier, you could just say “well what about a hermit who has no contact with the outside world, would they understand Trump is responsible”? lol
But sure I concede that not literally everyone will understand it. Good one bro.
Trump supporters aren’t people so they don’t fall under the set of “everyone”Anyway, if you want to be pedantic why even go to Trump supporters? I mean if we want to get into a universal quantifier, you could just say “well what about a hermit who has no contact with the outside world, would they understand Trump is responsible”? lolBut sure I concede that not literally everyon
What is this bullshit and lame ass strawman? If we remove all Trump supporters from any data, there's nothing to discuss.
Tariffs are NOT inflationary. If Americans spent 100% of their income on products A, B, C & D, we import 80% of the product A that we consume from Italy and 40% of B from Mexico and we decided to place a tariff on Italy & Mexico what happens? Americans would start producing more of product A & B, other countries would start producing more of A & B to trade us and product A & B
LOL... NOT in capital letters lol....
What is this bullshit and lame ass strawman? If we remove all Trump supporters from any data, there's nothing to discuss.
That part was a joke. I already conceded to your rather silly correction, and was pointing out how if you’re taking issue with a nonliteral use of the word “everyone” you could just point out people who don’t know anything about politics whatsoever, including people in other parts of the world.
Obvious enough to me that you weren’t really semantically confused by the word “everyone” and how I was using it.
That part was a joke. I already conceded to your rather silly correction, and was pointing out how if you’re taking issue with a nonliteral use of the word “everyone” you could just point out people who don’t know anything about politics whatsoever, including people in other parts of the world.Obvious enough to me that you weren’t really semantically confused by the word “every
Fukk all that backpedaling bullshit.
Nuts and bolts: Of the 20 million on ACA, the majority are MAGA. When they're paying a couple of hundred percent higher in premiums with higher deductibles, they will not blame Trump if he comes up with a reason for why it's not his fault. It doesn't matter how ridiculous the reason is. They believe he has put out eight wars.
Fukk all that backpedaling bullshit.
Nuts and bolts: Of the 20 million on ACA, the majority are MAGA. When they're paying a couple of hundred percent higher in premiums with higher deductibles, they will not blame Trump if he comes up with a reason for why it's not his fault. It doesn't matter how ridiculous the reason is. They believe he has put out eight wars.
“Of the 20 million on ACA, the majority are MAGA.”
Really? Where’d you get those numbers from?
“Of the 20 million on ACA, the majority are MAGA.”
Really? Where’d you get those numbers from?
Is this you wanting to split hairs on whether deep red states on the ACA is not necessarily MAGA?
Is this you wanting to split hairs on whether deep red states on the ACA is not necessarily MAGA?
I don’t even know that the states are deep red. The stat I saw is that 77% of ACA marketplace enrollees*** are located in red states.
Take texas as an example. 56% of the 61.5% of eligible voters voted for Trump. That’s pretty deep red. Yet that means only 34% of eligible voters in Texas actually voted for Trump. That’s not counting the people who are ineligible to vote, like noncitizens and people under 18. In 2024, 7.5 million people under the age of 18 lived in Texas. Which means they are about 25% of the state.
So yeah, unless you have the data telling us what the political affiliation is of people with insurance subsidized by the ACA, I’m not really sure why I would assume what you’re assuming. It’s not “splitting hairs” at all.
I don’t even know that the states are deep red. The stat I saw is that 77% of ACA marketplace enrollees*** are located in red states.Take texas as an example. 56% of the 61.5% of eligible voters voted for Trump. That’s pretty deep red. Yet that means only 34% of eligible voters in Texas actually voted for Trump. That’s not counting the people who are ineligibl
Obviously it's polling data. Polling data that is easy enough to find and that politicians have referenced when discussing the ACA, so I'm guessing you're in the "muh fake polls, brah," camp, yeah?
Of course they are. When you impose a broad sweeping tax on goods and parts for goods, prices increase.
As for the rest of your post, we live in 2025, not 1725.
And they think ACA is different from Obamacare.
Things blowing up for Dirty Don. Wonder what he'll do to cause a distraction. Watch out Venezuela!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c2dr3z9e...
You Know Trump will call the BBC fake news after their magical unethical edit in that documentary and yes I know the e-mails are real and damaging
So?
The emails were from the Epstein Estate's release of documents. Nothing to do with the BBC.
edit: Yeh they deserve it.
What polling data is that? Or are you one of those “source: dude, trust me” people?
What's up? I'm talking about the KFF polling data from June that Jefferies and other Dems use when speaking about how the ACA is split 45/35/20 between R/D/I.
So?
The emails were from the Epstein Estate's release of documents. Nothing to do with the BBC.
edit: Yeh they deserve it.
Can't wait to hear people tell me that this is another witch hunt like Russia, Russia, Russia was in 2016 and how I get to tell them that Trump campaigned on releasing the Epstein files.
Can't wait to hear people tell me that this is another witch hunt like Russia, Russia, Russia was in 2016 and how I get to tell them that Trump campaigned on releasing the Epstein files.
On a practical political level, I don't believe these emails are significant. In order to move the needle for Trump supporters on something Epstein-related, I think you would need an indisputably authentic video of Trump having sex with someone he knew was 17 or under or violently assaulting someone 18 or over. Nothing less would suffice.
Emails that suggest Trump knew some of Epstein's victims and knew Epstein was interested sexually in underage girls definitely are not enough to move the political needle.
C'mon, man! You calling Lake a liar??
Cliffs: Over half of ACA enrollees live in Red Congressional Disticts.
Of course. Let me Google that for you.
On a practical political level, I don't believe these emails are significant. In order to move the needle for Trump supporters on something Epstein-related, I think you would need an indisputably authentic video of Trump having sex with someone he knew was 17 or under or violently assaulting someone 18 or over. Nothing less would suffice. Emails that suggest Trump knew some
For sure. And with Trump posting AI videos of himself flying Air Force bombers dumping diarrhea on people and him playing keyboards in Journey, there is no video they would ever accept as being genuine.
I mean KFF, the date, and data the Dem leader of the House references, it's pretty fukking easy to find.
But here you go:
Of course. Let me Google that for you.
For sure. And with Trump posting AI videos of himself flying Air Force bombers dumping diarrhea on people and him playing keyboards in Journey, there is no video they would ever accept as being genuine.
I mean KFF, the date, and data the Dem leader of the House references, it's pretty fukking easy to find.
But here you go:
Yes it was. I found it in about five seconds and posted a link.
What's up? I'm talking about the KFF polling data from June that Jefferies and other Dems use when speaking about how the ACA is split 45/35/20 between R/D/I.
Can't wait to hear people tell me that this is another witch hunt like Russia, Russia, Russia was in 2016 and how I get to tell them that Trump campaigned on releasing the Epstein files.
The bolded is literally false.
That stat does not say or imply or suggest that 45% of ACA enrollees and/or recepients are Republicans.
Different context bro. The context is those folks who buy their own insurance.
