Old McDonald said:
Jack Boyette said:
Old McDonald said:
Jack Boyette said:
Old McDonald said:
Jack Boyette said:
Old McDonald said:
Jack Boyette said:
The economy and immigration are heavily correlated, genius. Illegals depress wages and increase housing costs for these Hispanics.
what's next, illegals are to blame for the iran war, gas prices, and tariffs too?
Wait…are you disputing what I said? Or not? That's a deflection because you can't.
Do illegals use gas? What do you think their use of gas here does to the price of gas here?
This is why you vote for Democrats; you have absolutely zero concept or basic economics.
The hilarious part of all of this is that the economy is better under Trump - despite the war, tariffs, etc. - than it was under the demented dumbass you voted for. This has been stated multiple times here and yet you continually ignore disputing it. Why?
We know why.
hmm let's test this theory and compare january 2025 to today
unemployment: 4.0% then, 4.1% now
CPI: 3% then, 3.4% now
real gdp growth: 2.3% then, 1.5% now
brent crude: $76 then, $100 now
sounds like fake news to me, perhaps hispanic voters in texas are right to sour on republicans on the economy
Why don't you compare the entire timeline of that pile of **** you voted for? Not the post election uptick that happened because they were finally out on their f'n ass?
it's the same if you compare october 2024 to today. fact of the matter is, the economy is worse on the headline metrics today than it was when trump was elected, largely due to trump's own policies, and it isn't exactly a secret voters are angry with him over it. it's a major reason why this senate race is close and not a slam dunk for the republican candidate.
Buddy, no matter how but you dodge my direct question it will be obvious everyone that you're dodging the direct question your cherry picking dates. Everyone here knows that the economy by every measure was worse under Joe Biden, and it was under the first Trump presidency, as well as this one thus far the Trump policies you were referring to the war, and Iran tariffs are long term strategic goals that have a greater purpose than short-term electability. surely you can comprehend a world where leaders I'll be it against their own self interest when it comes to being reelected do things for the greater good hopefully you understand that and hopefully you want leaders who do that. But you're a democrat so I can see why you wouldn't think that way or have any feelings about the long-term success of America. You're talking about a country trying to build a nuclear weapon to murder us all. You're talking about countries that have taken advantage of us for years with their tariff policies and yet you shutter at the idea that one of our presidents would finally have the nerve to push back, knowing what we offer the world in a relative sense.
It's absolutely incredible that you believe these things but again the party that you vote for makes all the sense in the world, considering that you do.
there's a lot wrong in your reasoning here, but to address it would derail the thread. to steer this back to the senate race: republicans won the trifecta in 2024 on the backs of voters who wanted a reversal of the economic turbulence they experienced during the pandemic years. trump's policies directly reversed the economic improvement trend he inherited, and that's a major reason why he and his surrogates (paxton included) are currently finding themselves playing defense in what were safe republican seats just two years ago.
I don't disagree with your statement. Trump's decision to engage Iran at the time he did can be debated on the timing and urgency, though I do think that it is a definite "address it now, or face it later" type of situation. But, there's no denying he spent considerable political capital acting when he did.
And, his $5,000 for every adult American, though a normal Trumpism and ultimately going nowhere, was ill advised in that it's given Democrats an easy layup to criticize the economic fallout that would result from such a large expenditure.
The good news is that Trump is not running for Senate. Paxton is, and I doubt he's going to be duped into defending Trump when he's got so much fertile ground of shining light on Talarico's words, actions, and votes, as well as highligting his own policy priorities.
