When you cut taxes but don't cut spending then you just create debt...and for what reason...because Trump didn't have the stones to cut spending?

And while we are on the subject, remember the world's greatest economy created by Herr Trump. You should, he boasted about it constantly, only when you use debt and continued government spending a central part of your growth equation the paltry amount of growth Trump achieved (bearly above Obama and you clowns called him the worst of all time) was done with smoke and mirrors [Donalds continual lies] and unnecessary debt.

Now, I have no problem with any of what you mention above but one of the first regulations that Trump cut was to allow Coal companies to start dumping their slag [loaded with mercury and other heavy metals] into streams and rivers where we get our drinking water and use for recreation. And Trump did so purely for political reasons, to score points with the dead and dying coal industry. As for illegals, is there a line of Americans wanting to work in the fields or roof a house when it's 100 plus outside because of global warming? What about maids or childcare or landscapers or any of the hundreds of jobs that "Americans" have turned their backs on? And you're a conservative, who every time there is an attempt to increase wages you're there to push them back! You're seriously going to tell me that you're worried about low wages? What an absolute joke!

As for tyrant: look at the 2020 election and the lies that Trump spread leading up to and past voting. Isn't that tyranny to try to disenfranchise 81 million people simply because you lack the stones to admit that you lost? And if January 6th wasn't the act of a tyrant then sadly you people don't know what a tyrant is...

A radical and baseless legal theory could upend the country’s most essential democratic process.
By Thomas Wolf and Ethan Herenstein

Members of the supreme court’s conservative supermajority just last week took the next step in a little-noticed, but extremely dangerous, project: attempting to jam into law a radical misinterpretation of the Constitution’s elections and electors clauses, which, if successful, would create electoral chaos across the country. Before next summer, and well in advance of the 2024 presidential election, the Court could strip state courts and state constitutions of their ability to check and balance state legislators when they make laws for federal elections, giving partisan majorities near-total control over how voters cast ballots and how those ballots are counted. And it would make the current Court—which already has a horrible track record on voting rights—the ultimate judge of whether the legislatures’ actions are legal.

The notion at the core of their project—the so-called independent-state-legislature theory—is on the fringes of American jurisprudence, so far out there that its few proponents have struggled to dredge up even the barest scraps of case law and history to substantiate it. But its supporters on the Court seem to believe they’ve found a shortcut around all of that with a case named Moore v. Harper, which they’ve just added to the Court’s docket for its term starting this fall.

The appeal traces back to this February, when the North Carolina Supreme Court undid an extreme partisan gerrymander of the state’s congressional map that would have given Republicans a large advantage in races for House seats. Several Republican state legislators asked the Supreme Court to restore the biased map for this spring’s primary elections. Their emergency filings claimed that the North Carolina state supreme court didn’t have the power to even review the legislatively drawn congressional map, despite the fact that the map violated several guarantees in the state’s constitution, because, in their view, neither state courts nor state constitutions should have a say in how federal elections are run.

If the legislators’ theory sounds radical, that’s because it is. It’s based on a stark misreading of the constitutional provisions that assign responsibility for regulating federal elections. Those clauses give that power to the “legislature” of each state (while reserving to Congress the ultimate power to set the rules). Fixating on the term legislature, proponents of the theory insist that the clauses grant exclusive and nearly unlimited power to those legislatures to run federal elections. The ordinary checks and balances of democracy—such as executive officers vetoing laws and courts reviewing and striking down the legislature’s acts—fall by the wayside. The theory would create a vacuum of lawlessness in the most dangerous of places: elections.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/07/how-supreme-court-could-upend-integrity-our-elections/670472/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20220711&utm_term=The%20Atlantic%20Daily

Liberty, I believe 85% of the scientists that are studying the problem. There is the possibility that the worlds scientists are all wrong, but I doubt it. It looks like the real deal to me. How else can you explain the data of increasing temperatures all over the globe, terrible droughts, melting glaciers, and loss of habitat of cold water species?
What has to happen before you see what is clearly in front of us? Maybe the start of growing pineapples in Alaska? The heartland of North America turning into a desert? How about buying beach front property in Indiana?