Are poorly worded headlines the real fake news?

[OddBeMe]

This one's amazing. Literal contradiction IN the header.

And the cuts aren't really true either.

[ProbablyClueless]

I think so! Journalists do all kinds of snaky stuff with headlines and burying the lead.

The example I always come back to was this story about a charity golf tournament that Trump hosted. It's a super normal practice that organizations host charity events and then use the proceeds to pay for a port of the event and give the rest to charity.

The journalist who wrote the story posted the headline that Trump used money from his charity gold tournament to pay for the event, which is true. And then at the very bottom of the story, she included that this was a totally normal business practice, which is also true. Nothing about the story was actually a lie.

The deception was the misrepresentation she was trying to make in the headline. By writing that headline the way she did, she implied Trump's action was a problem, even though she never actually says it. It's very slimy.

[goaded]

How much went to charity?

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded That's a great question. I'm not really sure. Around a million, I would imagine. Those golf tournaments are high profile, high visibility events. Lots of companies like to buy advertising, sponsor players, that kind of thing.

[goaded]

You know Trump regularly takes money from charities, right?

"Trump’s campaign claimed the day he launched his campaign in 2015 that he had given $102 million to charity in the previous five years, but he only reported $735,238 in cash donations and $26.8 million in land and non-cash gifts during that period, according to tax records obtained by the Times."

"Trump’s largest cash donation, according to the Times: $400,000 he received for his 2011 Comedy Central roast that he gave to his own Trump Foundation, which shuttered in 2018 amid allegations from New York State’s attorney general that he used it to illegally benefit his business and political interests."
www.forbes.com/.../

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded You know absolutely everyone under the Sun does that, right? Oprah didn't get directly compensated for supporting Kamala Harris; her production company just got a big ass check for hosting and producing events.
www.msn.com/.../ar-AA1tXUhe

[goaded]

You know that's nothing like the same thing, right? There's no charity involved, there's nothing that says Oprah took the money.

'I did not take any personal fee,' she said. 'However the people who worked on that production needed to be paid. And were. End of story.' www.dailymail.co.uk/.../...celebrity-payments.html (A right wing rag, by the way.)

Trump says he's giving money to charity, then spends it on himself.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded Those situations are nearly identical.

She doesn't need to take a "personal fee;" she owns and gets paid by the company. A payment to the company is a payment to her. And there WAS a charity involved; it's campaign fundraising.

[goaded]

Not really, and she didn't get "paid by the company". Campaigns aren't charities, they run under different rules that include requiring them to pay for events, otherwise it's a payment to the campaign.

If Trump runs and event and half the money goes to his company and half goes to his "charity" that he uses as a slush fund, that's not the same thing. There's an obvious pattern (with court cases highlighting it), that includes over charging the government for secret service accommodation and even golf carts.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded You lost, buddy. It's okay.

[goaded]

Wasn't it you I was pointing out that that's a familiar tell that the opposite is the truth?

For the cases to be similar, Oprah would have had to take all the money raised, either through her company or a personal "charity" slush fund. She did not. The Trumps did.

"For more than a decade, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has operated in persistent violation of state and federal law governing New York State charities. This pattern of illegal conduct by the Foundation and its board members includes improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law."

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded You did say that to me, yes. There are times when that's the case. Your's is not one of those times.

[goaded]

Only if Oprah owned the beneficiary of the even (she didn't, that was VP Harris), and if she'd taken a fee for the event (she didn't). Trump ran "charity" events that paid his business and donated to a so-called "charity" whose only beneficiary was Trump.

"For more than a decade, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has operated in persistent violation of state and federal law governing New York State charities. This pattern of illegal conduct by the Foundation and its board members includes improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law."

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded Even if what you're saying was totally and indisputably true; it doesn't change the fact that everything you claim Trump was doing wrong is extremely normal behavior and is standard operating procedure.

[goaded]

No, it's not. Not what prompted the lawsuit:

"For more than a decade, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has operated in persistent violation of state and federal law governing New York State charities. This pattern of illegal conduct by the Foundation and its board members includes improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law."

I can't tell if the article you're talking about was about normal practice because you've never said who wrote it.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded Legal complaints allege whatever they want to allege. It doesn't mean that what they're saying has substance. And the particular case you're referencing, they couldn't establish that Trump did what they accused him of. The argument relied on such a novel theory of law that even the most liberal lawyers say that no one has ever interpreted the law that way before.

[goaded]

"A judge Thursday ordered President Donald Trump to pay $2 million to an array of charities as a fine for misusing his own charitable foundation to further his political and business interests." apnews.com/general-news-united-states-government-7b8d0f5ce9cb4cadad948c2c414afd57

I think you're thinking of a different case.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded Oh no. I'm thinking about the right case.

[goaded]

Really? You're thinking of the one where "Trump also admitted in the agreements to directing that $100,000 in foundation money be used to settle legal claims over an 80-foot flagpole he had built at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, instead of paying the expense out of his own pocket."?

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded Yup. That's the very one!

[goaded]

The one where he admitted to arranging for the charity to pay $10,000 for a 6-foot portrait of him and also agreed to pay back $11,525 in foundation funds that he spent on sports memorabilia and champagne at a charity gala?

That was a perfectly normal lawsuit against someone who abused his position.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded Aaaaaaaaand that's why I'm telling you that you're totally off base; no one who wasn't Donald Trump would have been sued for that. To the extent what he did was wrong, it was extremely normal behavior that everyone does. And to the extent it was illegal, what happens to federal campaign funds isn't even subject to New York state laws. .

That was not a perfectly normal lawsuit at all

[goaded]

Yes, they would.

cbs6albany.com/.../man-arrested-for-allegedly-stealing-donations-meant-for-ms-charity
www.hrmagazine.co.uk/.../age-uk-finance-manager-jailed-for-fraud-after-stealing-460k
wnyt.com/.../
troopers.ny.gov/.../state-police-arrest-valley-falls-man-allegedly-stealing-money-charitable-organization
www.wisn.com/.../63352971
www.gbnews.com/.../ex-bank-worker-jailed-stealing-thousands-charity-donations-fund-lavish-lifestyle
www.abc12.com/.../...f-11ef-9d69-e76ba346b432.html
appleinsider.com/.../apple-employees-fired-over-charity-donation-matching-fraud

The Trump difference is that he could afford lawyers to keep him out of prison.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded So let's say I play along with your notion that what Trump did was illegal. We come back to the second point: the extent to which what he did was illegal, what happens to federal money is not subject to New York election laws.

If you're in Nebraska and you violate New York traffic laws, you don't get brought to justice in New York because New York traffic laws don't apply to Nebraska roads. You can violate New York traffic laws all day in Nebraska. As long as you aren't also violating Nebraska laws, it's not a problem.

[goaded]

"play along with your notion"? I'm just stating what courts said (and Trump admitted).

New York is part of the United States, last time I checked. What's your point? It was NY charity laws Trump was breaking.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded My point is that New York STATE election laws apply to state elections, not to Federal elections. FEDERAL election laws apply to federal elections.

New York is a part of the United States, but no state has the power to speak on behalf of the federal government.

[goaded]

And what, exactly, does that have to do with state charity laws?

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded Excellent question, Goaded. That's precisely the point. Trump is accused of misusing charity funds to further his own political interests in a federal election,

That doesn't have anything to do with state charity laws.

[goaded]

It does, in that you're not allowed to use charity funds on yourself, whether it's a portrait or political contributions.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded Not when the money was being given for the purpose of conducting a Federal election. And again that brings us back to the first point: this is EXTREMELY NORMAL BEHAVIOR. It's just how business is done.

[goaded]

You're definitely talking about a different case. It's normal behaviour to exceed the speed limits some times, it's still illegal.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded Nope... You and I are 100% definitely, without a single doubt talking about the exact same case. I even read back through the messages and articles to make extra sure.

[goaded]

OK, so who was the judge?

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded Judge Scarpulla

[goaded]

OK, you claimed: "The argument relied on such a novel theory of law that even the most liberal lawyers say that no one has ever interpreted the law that way before."

What was that, then?

"Among other things, Trump acknowledged in a legal filing that he allowed his presidential campaign staff to coordinate with the Trump Foundation in holding a fundraiser for veterans during the run-up to the 2016 Iowa caucuses. The event was designed “to further Mr. Trump’s political campaign,” Scarpulla said."

They were New York state laws Trump was breaking.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded And now we're back to the second point: this is for a United States Presidential race, not a New York state electoral race. Even if Trump violated New York Election laws, that doesn't matter because New York doesn't preside over federal elections. New York is not the only state where the Presidential race occurs; which is why we have Federal election laws.

[goaded]

So you don't understand how federal elections work? They're run by the states, under state and federal laws. Trump broke state election and charity laws. He was fined millions for it.

Again, you claimed: "The argument relied on such a novel theory of law that even the most liberal lawyers say that no one has ever interpreted the law that way before."

What, specifically, do you mean by that?

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded What I specifically mean by that, as I have said multiple times, is that federal election finances, despite what you mistakenly believe, are not subject to individual state laws. transition.fec.gov/.../fed_state_law_brochure.pdf See the top of page 2.

[goaded]

New York charities ARE subject to state law, and they're not allowed to be combined with political organisations.

"As a director of the Foundation, Mr. Trump owed fiduciary duties to the Foundation, pursuant to N-PCL § 717; he was a trustee of the Foundation’s charitable assets and was thereby responsible for the proper administration of these assets, pursuant to EPTL § 8-1.4. A review of the record, including the factual admissions in the Final Stipulation, establishes that Mr. Trump breached his fiduciary duty to the Foundation and that waste occurred to the Foundation.

Mr. Trump’s fiduciary duty breaches included allowing his campaign to orchestrate the Fundraiser, allowing his campaign, instead of the Foundation, to direct distribution of the Funds, and using the Fundraiser and distribution of the Funds to
further Mr. Trump’s political campaign."

embed.documentcloud.org/.../

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded And now we're back to point 2 again. As you yourself stated; CHARITIES HAVE NOTHING TO DO CAMPAIGN FINANCES. Trump's "charity" was raising money for his campaign. These were election funds. Full stop.

You will never "have a point" about this. What you are arguing is in defiance of the law. You're just wrong.

[goaded]

Tell that to the judge, jury, lawyers. There wasn't even an appeal because Trump admitted breaking the law. This insistance that you know better than the professionals, even the ones on Trump's side, is ridiculous.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded I can make that insistence because I am one of the professionals. Trump didn't appeal it because appealing it wasn't worth the time or money, not because he didn't have an argument.

[goaded]

Uh huh, sure you are. And $2 million isn't worth an appeal.

[ProbablyClueless]

@goaded Litigation is expensive. And $2M isn't a particularly large amount of money by Federal Election Finance standards.

[lightbulb27]

we are in huge trouble because of lies, fake pictures, BS, crapola, and people just being wrong. Frankly, you could have a 'war of the worlds again'... aka Orson Wells radio show, and most people be clueless as to the truth. With all this tech, we've screwed our selves.

Lookup the quotes from Carl Sagan... he foresaw that as well.

We're F'd! If you have hope in this world, then I'd like to know where you are getting it from.

[exitseven]

Schools do not teach basic English skills like sentence structure, punctuation and spelling. Editors are also victims of the same lousy curriculum.

[OddBeMe]

Very true.

[goaded]

More outright lies from the right

[NathanDavis]

news... doesn't mean journalism anymore...

it's been over a decade since that changed... lol

[goaded]

Since the creation of Fox News and right wing talk radio, in fact. Reminds me of this:

Interesting... so where there's no real info, Trump landslide? ↗

[NathanDavis]

@goaded let's not pretend like it is only one side...

we are both way smarter than that

[goaded]

Are we? There's the whole "we report, you decide"/"both sides"/"he said, she said" attitude, but the left has never had anything like Fox News, let alone OANN. They're all owned by corporations or billionaires, and that makes them all lean right, if only by failing to cover certain topics (like money in politics that gets spent by the billion on media advertising).

[NathanDavis]

@goaded that is because the far right is open about it

the left are hypocrites about it... just different tactics

you might have a political leaning so your approach biased

but I don't have any political leaning at all... so I don't have an issue with pointing out the wrongs on both sides

[OddBeMe]

@goaded i really hate that. It should be actual ratios. So if it's climate change story talk to 100 scientists and the 1 oil paid scientist who disagrees

[goaded]

"the left are hypocrites about it... just different tactics"
No, I think that's just your version of "both sides".

Both sides don't try to overturn elections.
Both sides don't foment hate towards minorities.
Both sides don't deny global warming.
Both sides don't increase the deficit when times are good (and the economy can stand to reduce it).
Both sides don't claim every one of the other side is an extremist.
Both sides' journalists don't outright lie to their viewers. (See the image of Fox News claiming Newsom cut firefighting budgets when he'd actually doubled them and massively increased fire prevention efforts in my opinion.)

[NathanDavis]

@goaded I would like to see you make a similar list of what the extremists those who hijack the left ideals ( as the far right does with conservatives) do wrong, and very wrong...

[goaded]

That's the point: both sides don't. How about you have a try?

Most of the things the right think where the left is very wrong are simply treating people with respect and dignity.

Did you read about Courtney Gore? She ran for school board on a far-right platform then was delighted when she found no evidence that students were being indoctrinated by the district’s curriculum. The right didn't care, they had their narrative and were going to stick with it.

How about an example of the left doing something like taking the name of a graduate level course (CRT) and purposely twisting it to mean pretty much "anything we don't want to hear about black people"?

[NathanDavis]

@goaded as I thought... one sided bias

that's not my approach in life... and I am not interested on taking sides, especially a side that does not represent me at all... like the far-right is

[goaded]

No, it's not "one sided bias". If you want to convince me I'm biased to one side instead of to truth, come up with half a dozen examples of Democrats denying science, trying to overturn elections, or anything similar.

[NathanDavis]

@goaded maybe you should look up what bias means... lol

[goaded]

You implied I was biased to the left/Democrats. Don't you have any examples of where Democrats did something bad that would prove me wrong? Or explain how bias towards truth and facts is a bad thing.

[NathanDavis]

@goaded if you only point the wrongs of one side... and refuse to see the wrong on your side

then yes, that is 101% bias approach

[goaded]

I don't refuse to see them, I asked you to show them to me. You didn't. Can you?

[NathanDavis]

@goaded in order to prove you are not biased... you must recognize them yourself

but you don't even want to try it... hence

bias

[goaded]

No. That's just bullshit. To prove I am biased (rather than demanding I prove a negative), you have to provide examples of my supposed bias.

[NathanDavis]

@goaded you refuse to exercise accountability... and recognizing flaws... lol

that's one sided, and that's biased too

[goaded]

No, that's the same bullshit as last time. To prove I am biased (rather than demanding I prove a negative), you have to provide examples of my supposed bias.

[NathanDavis]

@goaded you are the living example of bias

[goaded]

No, because you have not proved it in the slightest. To prove I am biased (rather than demanding I prove a negative), you have to provide examples of my supposed bias.

[goaded]

Or, I suppose, you could explain how:
Both sides do try to overturn elections.
Both sides do foment hate towards minorities.
Both sides do deny global warming.
Both sides do increase the deficit when times are good (and the economy can stand to reduce it).
Both sides do claim every one of the other side is an extremist.
Both sides' journalists do outright lie to their viewers.

I'll wait.

[NathanDavis]

@goaded and I could easily do it with each of these points, but what for?

as soon as I do... you will bat for your side and argue or refuse to see either

because, that's how sided bias works... lol

[goaded]

If you "could easily do it" (proving me wrong), why don't you?

Explain how:
Both sides do try to overturn elections.
Both sides do foment hate towards minorities.
Both sides do deny global warming.
Both sides do increase the deficit when times are good (and the economy can stand to reduce it).
Both sides do claim every one of the other side is an extremist.
Both sides' journalists do outright lie to their viewers.

To prove I am biased (rather than demanding I prove a negative), you have to provide examples of my supposed bias.

I'll wait.

[NathanDavis]

@goaded I just told you why...

because it is futile... lol

[goaded]

That's a lie. It's because you can't. Obviously.

[NathanDavis]

@goaded yeah... obviously... lol

[goaded]

If you could, you would. Instead you'll spend time avoiding acknowledging the facts.

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

@NathanDavis
I'm surprised to see you saying that you're not leaning anywhere politically, I don't believe it's humanly possible to do that unless living outside of society. Though I do recall you have a thing for eternal nights, now, so are you in or out of society? 😏

[goaded]

@Maybe_Maybe_not Apparently, it's easy to prove me wrong, and that:

Both sides do try to overturn elections.
Both sides do foment hate towards minorities.
Both sides do deny global warming.
Both sides do increase the deficit when times are good (and the economy can stand to reduce it).
Both sides do claim every one of the other side is an extremist.
Both sides' journalists outright lie to their viewers.

But I'm not seeing it.

[NathanDavis]

@Maybe_Maybe_not I truly don't have any political affiliation, no

I have never voted either... Mexico or the USA

if you were to make a list of 20 political policies on each side, I am sure I would agree and disagree with both sides

I am not a centrist either...

simply put, I have never liked to reduce one of the most complex and complicated things in life to a single leaning... left or right

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

@goaded relax lol, Nathan isn't willing to play that one specific game. But I can try playing. By both sides you're referring to USA only?

[NathanDavis]

@Maybe_Maybe_not I'm dual national of the USA and Mexico only... I am aware and informed of most politics around the world, but I definitely do not hate myself too much to bother with it... lol

but yes... in most countries, politics play in a very similar way... those in control, keep the people out of control

[goaded]

@Maybe_Maybe_not Obviously. It's the next Nazi Germany.

[NathanDavis]

and... here we go, the Nazi word comes out to play... lmao

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

@NathanDavis
I can believe you have no affiliation, that is common after all, especially in a bipartisan scenario. Though you do relate to ideologies, don't you? If not parties then values, ideologies, worldviews, there has to be something political somewhere in how you're looking at the world

[goaded]

Yes, but only because it's appropriate. You still haven't shown that:

Both sides do try to overturn elections.
Both sides do foment hate towards minorities.
Both sides do deny global warming.
Both sides do increase the deficit when times are good (and the economy can stand to reduce it).
Both sides do claim every one of the other side is an extremist.
Both sides' journalists outright lie to their viewers.

[goaded]

Oh, and they pretend to be neutral.

[NathanDavis]

@Maybe_Maybe_not yes... of course, I do have values, but these are my own, and they are not politicized

yes, I do have what, one could call part of an ideology, but I don't fly it as a political flag either

worldviews I have many, but also, I have perspective rather lining myself to a group/tribal approach to them

I am more into individualism, than the modern concept of "democracy"

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

@NathanDavis
Let me analyze this speech...

"More into individualism than tribes"
"no vote"
"those in control, keep the people out of control"

I identify you as an anarchist lol. What do you think about gods and masters? 😏

[NathanDavis]

@Maybe_Maybe_not no sir... I'm the manager all Karens want to speak to...

I don't do disorderly

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

@NathanDavis
Oh I'm a very quiet anarchist myself, but all right, sir manager lol

[NathanDavis]

@Maybe_Maybe_not the French sure know how to take those streets... lol

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

[Sevenpointfive]

things happen and it's reported on. that report isn't "news" the fact that it happened is. i don't really pay much attention to the story. i'll read it but you can smell the bullshit

[seeyounexttuesday]

It'll be great when DOGE does real cuts.

[OddBeMe]

What are you wanting cut?

[seeyounexttuesday]

We can start with DOE and the IRS.

[OddBeMe]

And how will highways and police be funded?

And public schools be maintained?

[seeyounexttuesday]

state government as it always is.

[OddBeMe]

And the red states that have will have no funding after your cuts?

[seeyounexttuesday]

You do understand the worst schools are in blue states, right?

[OddBeMe]

Man you must love being wrong all the time.

[seeyounexttuesday]

State test scores are in for Chicago Public Schools, and fewer than 1-in-3 students could read and fewer than 1-in-5 do math at their elementary grade level in 2024.

It was worse for the district’s 11th graders: fewer than 1 in 4 could read and math scores dropped nearly a percentage point from 2023.

23 Baltimore schools have zero students proficient in math, state test results reveal

New York City public schools
In winter 2024, only 33.6% of students from kindergarten through 10th grade scored proficient on reading assessments
In grades three through eight, only 49.1% of students scored proficient or better on the state English language arts exam in 2024
Black and Latino students fare even worse than other students

In the 2023–2024 school year, 43.1% of students in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) met the state's reading proficiency targets.

[OddBeMe]

And yet they still beat the Bible belt

[seeyounexttuesday]

not really tho.

[OddBeMe]

I can't argue with stupid. I could look up individual districts too but that's not how stats work

[seeyounexttuesday]

Well yeah it is. There's no blue states, there are only blue counties, and they should be judged for their schools' performance accordingly. Which is abysmal.

[OddBeMe]

So... when the stats are against you... redefine states to "blue counties" you're a joke.

[seeyounexttuesday]

You can try to change the subject as much as you want, but these schools in dem-run areas are abject failures. Like most things dem-run.

[OddBeMe]

So if it's a dem run city in a red county and red state... it's still dems fault. What if it's a red city in a blue state? Can I blame Republicans then?

[seeyounexttuesday]

Considering it’s local districts that run the schools, yeah. And none of these failures were prevented by the DoE. So off it goes.

[OddBeMe]

And what makes a city blue? Just the mayor? 2/3 of city council seats? Are Superintendents even party oriented?

you're so blinded by partisan politics your logic is gone

[seeyounexttuesday]

And you’re so far away from reality it’ll be fun watching your idiocy for the next 12 years.

[OddBeMe]

So not even attempting any answers?

[seeyounexttuesday]

The answer is to eliminate the DoE. I told you that.

[OddBeMe]

Logic dodge

[seeyounexttuesday]

There;s nothing to dodge. You claimed red states are failures at education, I proved it’s blue states that fail, and that the doe can go bye-bye. Thanks for playing.

[OddBeMe]

No idiot. You proved a handful of districts are failures. And i asked what makes them blue or red?

[seeyounexttuesday]

The largest districts in the respective states, fucktard. Are NY, CA, IL, and MD blue or red?

[OddBeMe]

Kinda missed my whole q. What makes a school district or city blue or red?

[seeyounexttuesday]

I told you. They're all in blue states, they're run by leftists.

[OddBeMe]

So the superintendent, city council and school board are all blue?

[seeyounexttuesday]

Who knows and who the fuck cares. All your goalpost changing to deny the fact that these democrat run districts in democrat cities in democrat states have horrible school performance won't change the reality.

[OddBeMe]

My point... fuckin genius... is you're putting a partisan spin on education when it has nothing to do with it.

[seeyounexttuesday]

You are the moron who brought up red states, I just proved you were full of shit.

[OddBeMe]

Sure, for funding. Which they get. 10 bucks for every 1 dollar in taxes they generate. Blue states get $1 for every $10 in taxes they generate.

[seeyounexttuesday]

none of that has to do with school performance. Once the DoE is gone, IRS is gone, and money to ukraine dries up, we'll see less money coming out of our paychecks.

[OddBeMe]

Superintendent, and school board has nothing to with school performance. Ok.

And whether a state as a whole voted Dem or Repub does? Or is it the mayor? You're drowning in your non logic and you're asking for an anchor.

[seeyounexttuesday]

blah blah blah. I already proved your BS.

[OddBeMe]

I love it when right wingers run out of logic and claim victory. Means I won.

[seeyounexttuesday]

you won nothing. Because you didn't even put your own scrutiny to your stupid statement.

[OddBeMe]

I'm not the one randomly calling out school districts like an asshole. You're wanting to cut the DoE like a fcking moron. Why don't you cut the Energy dept and let the nuclear silos and plants go unregulated.

[seeyounexttuesday]

You literally did moron.

[seeyounexttuesday]

After the department of education was created our school performance has dropped dramatically.

[OddBeMe]

Alongside our population doubling in size. Seriously, take a statistical analysis class.

[seeyounexttuesday]

so wait, immigrants aren't good for the country?

[OddBeMe]

You think immigrants are why are population doubled? You're not that stupid.

[seeyounexttuesday]

We have a declining birth rate do we not? How does the population double, then?

[OddBeMe]

Omg, you are that stupid. Wow.

[OddBeMe]

I'm sure there's plenty of anthropological analysis online. I'm not your tutor.

[seeyounexttuesday]

from the guy who can't explain why a doubling population leads to failing schools.

[OddBeMe]

Because more people and Reaganomic tax cuts. I love how I have to spell it out for you dumb fucks.

Need me to go over fetuses again?

[seeyounexttuesday]

ah reganomics. That's why schools are failing despite per pupil spending being higher than a lot of colleges.

[OddBeMe]

Compared to what? Pre reaganomics? I only bring up reagan because he started the deficit with tax cuts and repubs took it and ran. The population doubled and funding cut in half. What did you think would happen?

[seeyounexttuesday]

again, per pupil spending is highest its ever been and on par with college tuition and the schools are still failures.