"I want to give you credit for your last comment though.
- It was a damn good comment, one of the best I've seen from you in ages."

And that's a very high bar!!

Foxy writes: "The following link explains why we should be concerned:

http://politico.com/news/2024/02/25/second-trump-term-00140488"

I can never quite decide who are the biggest fools here - the people who write this gumph or the people who fall for it. But given that Foxy falls for it every time I think I have my answer.

For example, Foxy tells us that Trump will institute an abortion ban. Oh noes...what a disaster. Of course if you read the article, even in its moronosity it doesn't say that. Trump has said that the issue is a state issue following the overthrow of Roe v Wade. and he's said that he might support bans on abortion after 16 weeks - the exact same policy as applies in that well know nightmare state called France. But to the misanthropes of the left that Foxy is so enthralled to, any ban on killing a 35 week old foetus is to be abhorred.

Still if Foxy can convince herself that information from the IRS and the Bureau of Labor Statistics is not reputable, she can convince herself of anything.

Donald Trump is widely regarded by historians and
political scholars as one of the worst presidents
the US has ever had.

Just Google things like - "What Trump did in office,"
and "Was Trump really as bad as all that?" and
start reading.

There are over 2 billion websites on the internet with some having enormous numbers of articles - Wikipedia for example has around 7 million articles alone. So perhaps as many as 1 trillion articles.

So when someone who is incapable of forming their own opinions runs to Google or some other (better!!) search engine to ask "Was Trump really as bad as all that?", they are very likely to find someone who'll tell them what they want to hear. But that is the diametric opposite of how research, let alone critical thinking, is done.

When people are prepared to reject information from reputable organisations like the IRS and label it disreputable simply because it tells them something they don't want to hear....well, they just reveal their lack of interest in the truth.

_________________________________________________________________

A bit more on the flight of the working class to Trump....

http://www.amazon.com/Wall-Streets-War-Workers-Destroying/dp/1645022331

"Democrats have unarguably lost the longstanding support of millions of urban and rural workers, and Leopold points out how party leaders have been wrong about the assumption that the white working class is becoming less progressive and motivated to abandon the Democratic Party by reactionary positions on divisive social issues."

The book is a cry from a Democrat for a change in America to try to stop the working class being marginalised by the elite with the warning that not only might it, the working class, abandon capitalism but it might abandon democracy as well.

Trump is the US democracy's last best hope.

Long-standing and wealthy democracies like the United
Sates are remarkably resilient to the challenges that
confront them. However when elected leaders are backed
by personalist parties - they are often successful
in dismantling institutional checks on their power
whether from the legislature or the courts.

The personalist nature of the Republican Party
(now the Trump Party) means that if Trump were
to win again he's unlikely to face pushback from the
party on any issue. All signs indicate that Trump, if
re-elected is likely to pursue an authoritarian power grab.

Personalist parties help elected leaders undercut the
protective guardrails. Because the Republican Party has taken
a personalist turn under Trump's spell democracy in the
US would suffer should Trump win a second term.

Foxy opines: "Because the Republican Party has taken
a personalist turn under Trump's spell democracy in the
US would suffer should Trump win a second term."

This article from The Conversation.com writes:
"Because the Republican Party has taken a personalist turn under Trump’s spell, democracy in the U.S. would suffer should Trump win a second term."

(http://theconversation.com/why-trumps-control-of-the-republican-party-is-bad-for-democracy-221828)

Unsurprisingly, pretty much everything she wrote was lifted holus-bolus from the article. She just can't help herself, trying to look erudite by plagiarising others.

Like I said, if you run off to Google asking "Please tell me what I want to hear" you'll get a satisfying answer.

Unsurprisingly she couldn't find anyone to tell her why the IRS data I previously showed was wrong, so she just decided to call the entire organisation disreputable.