JCauto

So now that I thoroughly rebutted your points, you ignore the substance and move back to the original "thought" as if nothing whatsoever had been discussed. I suppose you never did have any intention of honest debate, you're just here to troll. Boring.

This was your assertion, that there are "many" recorded attacks and deaths in Thailand. I googled Thailand and "death by water buffalo". Found two, one in February 2023, the previous one in 2004. Is that "many recorded attacks and deaths"? You made the assertion, where is your evidence?

Well, that explains your reasoning - you should go better into Comedy, Mel Brooks is a good model to follow if the 200-year old man is your schtick. Your response to my explanation that the problems that underlie the African-American community are the product of two hundred plus years of discrimination and systemic racism was to identify new people from abroad who haven't been disadvantaged in this way and asking why they're doing so well despite sharing similar genetic characteristics. Thanks for clearly proving my point. You might consider catching up on the latest research and understanding that's come out since the quill and inkwell lost their predominant place in the writing world.

The court struck down the use of an existing Act passed by Congress covering "emergencies" as the basis for his Executive Action on student loans. It is likely the Biden administration will try to use other legislation as the basis for their intended actions.

No fact provided? Did you click on the links? The first one is the opinion piece that is pro-Trump and contains pretty much nothing but opinion without factual verification - it's the one supporting your side, not mine. . The second one, called "Distributional Analysis of the Conference Agreement for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" contains hardly any opinion at all. It has pretty much nothing but facts and estimates of the tax changes resulting from the act. This is why it's so tedious to "debate" with the Right - you are completely comfortable with blatantly lying in response to a reasonable post in order to characterize it as the opposite of what it is. As to your points: "The poor do not pay income taxes" - that's not true unless you're going to get sophist about "income". With the various taxes applied at state and federal level, the poorest pay around 11-12% in tax. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-does-federal-tax-system-affect-low-income-households "The rich pay a disproportionate amount of all taxes" - that's true, it's called "progressive taxation" and is a widely accepted principle used in pretty much every liberal democracy in the USA and Europe, with Estonia being the only exception I'm aware of (they apply a flat tax). The legal question was not whether it is legal for the President to use money to selectively pay off student loans, it was about the Act he used as the basis for the cancellation and whether that specific act (used for "emergencies") would apply to the student loan repayment issue. There will be another attempt using other legislation to find other ways. But this was never the legal question that was ruled on.

Yes, because everyone knows that victimization of black people ended immediately and completely once slavery was abolished. Did you just wake up from a 200 year coma?

This is the most laughable argument ever. You're basically saying "the government should not be able to pass any laws that result in benefits to anyone unless EVERYONE receives similar benefits". This basically means the government cannot pass any laws affecting the budget. I argued previously about how this would ALSO invalidate the Trump tax cuts (which were substantially larger) and provided the evidence. Have you any rebuttal to that?

https://itep.org/faulty-fact-check-on-tax-breaks-for-the-rich-and-corporations/ If you want to look at the article that the pro-Trump guy used to "make his case", this is the link: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/distributional-analysis-conference-agreement-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/full It's pretty clear. Surprised you challenged something that's widely understood to be true.