₦airaland Forum

cococandy:
Joke of the century.

You might need to change you news sources if you never heard about the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

Recent floor votes on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act in the House and Senate show strict party-line splits, with Republicans voting in favour and Democrats voting against.

1.
January 2025 House Vote (Passed)
In the 119th Congress, the House passed the bill (H.R. 21) on January 23, 2025.

Total Vote: 217 "Yea" to 204 "Nay".
Republicans: All present Republicans (216) voted Yea.
Democrats: 204 Democrats voted Nay. 1 Democrat voted Yea and 1 Democrat voted Present.

2.
January 2025 Senate Vote (Blocked)
In the Senate, Republicans attempted to advance the bill (invoke cloture) on January 22, 2025, but failed to reach the required 60 votes.

Republicans: Voted unanimously Yea to proceed.
Democrats: Voted unanimously Nay to proceed, successfully blocking the measure.

3.
January 2023 House Vote (Passed)
In the 118th Congress, the bill (H.R. 26) passed the House on January 11, 2023.

Total Vote: 220 "Yea" to 210 "Nay".
Republicans: 219 Republicans voted Yea. None voted against it.
Democrats: 210 Democrats voted Nay. Only 1 Democrat (Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas) voted Yea, and 1 Democrat (Rep. Vicente Gonzalez of Texas) voted Present.

4.
February 2020 Senate Vote (Blocked)
An older Senate vote to invoke cloture on the bill (S. 311) fell short of the 60-vote threshold with a 56 to 41 outcome.
Republicans: 53 Republicans voted Yea.
Democrats: 41 Democrats (and Independents who caucus with them) voted Nay. 3 Democrats (Senators Bob Casey, Doug Jones, and Joe Manchin) broke from their party to vote Yes



By now you should know I just don't make any comments without some background information.

Any evidence? Sex education should be compulsory in schools. Not indoctrination by groomers.

GracieX3:
Unfortunately, your republican party does not believe in sex education to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

I didn't know about that.
In some African countries you can't do that. Mother's who drop their children at their deadbeat father's work places have been charged in court.

tctrills:
Have you heard of Safe Haven Laws in the US?
Once you hand your baby to a staff member at a designated location (hospital, fire station, or police station), your legal responsibility ends immediately.

So you are not forced to care for the child if you don't want to.
The excuse that the mother is left without option is false.

Let's face the fact, mothers who kill their babies are murderous and wicked. Simple.

99% of them have no good reason to do so.

Obrigardo:
I still doubt that he has daughters. He wouldn't be online on a forum subset everyday banging his head against the wall or echoing in the void.
I think he is one jobless 30'something year old guy working in a phone repair shop.

It’s not possible to have a daughter and stand behind/worship a sex offender and a pdf. It’s not possible..

It’s not possible to have a daughter and fight against every initiative that supports the female child..

It’s not possible!!

Not a terrorist at all 🙄

Let me make it clear to you. IDGAF what you think about abortion

You don’t get a say. Don’t like it? Oh well too bad.

basilico:
You might need to change you news sources if you never heard about the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

Recent floor votes on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act in the House and Senate show strict party-line splits, with Republicans voting in favour and Democrats voting against.

1.
January 2025 House Vote (Passed)
In the 119th Congress, the House passed the bill (H.R. 21) on January 23, 2025.

Total Vote: 217 "Yea" to 204 "Nay".
Republicans: All present Republicans (216) voted Yea.
Democrats: 204 Democrats voted Nay. 1 Democrat voted Yea and 1 Democrat voted Present.

2.
January 2025 Senate Vote (Blocked)
In the Senate, Republicans attempted to advance the bill (invoke cloture) on January 22, 2025, but failed to reach the required 60 votes.

Republicans: Voted unanimously Yea to proceed.
Democrats: Voted unanimously Nay to proceed, successfully blocking the measure.

3.
January 2023 House Vote (Passed)
In the 118th Congress, the bill (H.R. 26) passed the House on January 11, 2023.

Total Vote: 220 "Yea" to 210 "Nay".
Republicans: 219 Republicans voted Yea. None voted against it.
Democrats: 210 Democrats voted Nay. Only 1 Democrat (Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas) voted Yea, and 1 Democrat (Rep. Vicente Gonzalez of Texas) voted Present.

4.
February 2020 Senate Vote (Blocked)
An older Senate vote to invoke cloture on the bill (S. 311) fell short of the 60-vote threshold with a 56 to 41 outcome.
Republicans: 53 Republicans voted Yea.
Democrats: 41 Democrats (and Independents who caucus with them) voted Nay. 3 Democrats (Senators Bob Casey, Doug Jones, and Joe Manchin) broke from their party to vote Yes



By now you should know I just don't make any comments without some background information.

bayelsaowei:
It’s not possible to have a daughter and stand behind/worship a sex offender and a pdf. It’s not possible..

It’s not possible to have a daughter and fight against every initiative that supports the female child..

It’s not possible!!

You obviously don't know maga logic.

There is apparently a thing they call "good intent of a wrong act" that they use to avoid their own dissonance and justify their own hypocrisy.

cococandy:
Let me make it clear to you. IDGAF what you think about abortion

You don’t get a say. Don’t like it? Oh well too bad.

Hard to explain to some that 'my choice' excludes their opinion, so best not bother as you advise.

GracieX3:
And dumping the child to a stranger who will not likely love them as a parent is better? F4cking up the child for life is better huh?

My dear, this is your most anyhow argument.
You mean a mother should kill her baby because she is afraid to give it to strangers.
So to you, killing is the better option?
Again who told you that adopted kids are not loved? Where did you get that from?
In are society today, we are very comfortable handling our kids to strangers. We all use nannies, we take our kids to school and hand them over to complete strangers in the name of education.
But when it comes to given the child a chance to life, you bring up this stranger excuse.
This is the worse point you have made today.

Would you kill someone or hand him over to a stranger who is better equipped to take care of him.

I don't even see your argument here.

basilico:
I didn't know about that.
In some African countries you can't do that. Mother's who drop their children at their deadbeat father's work places have been charged in court.

This is for the US

tctrills:
My dear, this is your most anyhow argument.
You mean a mother should kill her baby because she is afraid to give it to strangers.
So to you, killing is the better option?
Again who told you that adopted kids are not loved? Where did you get that from?
In are society today, we are very comfortable handling our kids to strangers. We all use nannies, we take our kids to school and hand them over to complete strangers in the name of education.
But when it comes to given the child a chance to life, you bring up this stranger excuse.
This is the worse point you have made today.

Would you kill someone or hand him over to a stranger who is better equipped to take care of him.

I don't even see your argument here.

Go and look up how the foster care system has f4cked up children in the USA. From sexual abuse to domestic abuse to emotional abuse.

Do you know what it is to grow up without parental love? To grow up with other children who see you as competition and not siblings?

Who told you that strangers are better equipped to take care of a dumped child?

GracieX3:
Go and look up how the foster care system has f4cked up children in the USA. From sexual abuse to domestic abuse to emotional abuse.

Do you know what it is to grow up without parental love? To grow up with other children who see you as competition and not siblings?

Who told you that strangers are better equipped to take care of a dumped child?

The foster care system is not perfect, the adoption system is not perfect, even growing up with your biological parents is never perfect but to think that killing the child is the solution, how does that make sense?

Actually, I know from firsthand experience of kids that grew up outside their biological parents and it was the best thing that ever happened to them.

Any woman contemplating killing her seed is not equipped to be a mother given up that child is s much better option.

Now, hope you know that foster care is different from adoption?
I am advocating for adoption not foster care.
The US has more than enough parents waiting, hoping and praying to make these kids theirs.

You seem to think adoption is worse that abortion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtyPVFmVQCA

GracieX3:
Go and look up how the foster care system has f4cked up children in the USA. From sexual abuse to domestic abuse to emotional abuse.

Do you know what it is to grow up without parental love? To grow up with other children who see you as competition and not siblings?

Who told you that strangers are better equipped to take care of a dumped child?

I have answered you above but here is some interesting stats.
~48–52% of all black women in the US have killed there unborn.
That half the black women in the US have the mind to take human life. This is a wasted generation.
Do you wonder why they have the worst families.
Do you wonder why black society is a mess?
A society that kills its own even before birth.
I hope you are not surprised to find out that black on black murder in the US is by far the highest.
From birth, these people have learnt that it is ok to kill your own.

tctrills:
Abi
If the more than 6 trillion black Américai has gotten in entitlement benefits changed nothing, that shows this is not a money problem

QUESTION: IS THE CLAIM THAT BLACK AMERICANS HAVE BEEN GIVEN SIX TRILLION IN ENTITLEMENT BENEFITS TRUE AND IF SO, WHATS THE TIMELINE, AND WHO GOT THESE FUNDS AND ON WHAT BASIS?

GEMINI: The claim that Black Americans specifically have been "given $6 trillion in entitlement benefits" is a mischaracterization of broader figures frequently cited in debates over U.S. welfare policy. There is no official government record or peer-reviewed study that confirms a $6 trillion figure allocated exclusively to Black Americans.

Instead, the "$6 trillion" figure likely stems from a confusion of several distinct data points related to total national spending, specific asset valuations, or recent federal deficit increases.

1. The Likely Origins of the "$6 Trillion" Figure
The specific number $6 trillion appears in two very different contexts within recent economic discourse, neither of which represents an "entitlement payout" to Black Americans:

Total Black Household Wealth: According to data from the Federal Reserve, the total assets held by Black American households (including real estate, pension entitlements, and savings) reached approximately $6 trillion in 2022 (HBCU Money, 2023). This represents the collective net worth and private savings of the population, not government spending.

Recent Federal Deficit Claims: Economic critics, such as those at the Heritage Foundation, have argued that the Biden administration's policies added roughly $6 trillion to the national deficit through various spending bills (Ditch, 2023). These funds were allocated across the entire U.S. population for infrastructure, COVID-19 relief, and climate initiatives, rather than being targeted specifically toward one racial group.

2. Historical Context of Welfare Spending
If the claim is intended to refer to "The War on Poverty" (launched in 1964), the numbers are much larger, but also population-wide:

Total Spending: Research by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation estimated that the U.S. spent approximately $22 trillion on means-tested welfare programs between 1964 and 2014 (Rector, 2014).

Demographic Distribution: While African Americans are disproportionately represented in certain means-tested programs due to higher poverty rates, they have never been the sole or primary recipients of the total expenditure. For example, in most years of the program's history, White Americans have constituted the largest single racial group receiving SNAP (food stamps) and Medicaid benefits.

3. Basis and Eligibility
Federal benefits in the United States are not distributed on the basis of race, as that would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Instead, funds are distributed based on:

Financial Need: Means-tested programs like TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) or Medicaid require recipients to fall below specific income thresholds.

Age and Contribution: "Entitlements" like Social Security and Medicare are based on age and the amount of payroll taxes an individual has paid into the system over their working life.
------------------
cc: GloriousGbola / basilico / Ijebos / cococandy

basilico:
I'm one of the most outspoken on abortions and child transitions.
On transitions I have been very clear, those who promote it are child groomers hiding in plain sight.

You don't match that with your affiliations. You don't.
You are anti-family, and pro-perdofilya no matter what you point out here

Your affiliation speaks volume, mr man.

bayelsaowei:
It’s not possible to have a daughter and stand behind/worship a sex offender and a pdf. It’s not possible..

It’s not possible to have a daughter and fight against every initiative that supports the female child..

It’s not possible!!

May heaven bless your gentle soul.

How I respond now to you? . You only know me from what I post here
Your type forms a stupid conclusion then sticks by it.
Then wants everyone else to agree with you.

bayelsaowei:
It’s not possible to have a daughter and stand behind/worship a sex offender and a pdf. It’s not possible..

It’s not possible to have a daughter and fight against every initiative that supports the female child..

It’s not possible!!

cococandy:
Let me make it clear to you. IDGAF what you think about abortion

You don’t get a say. Don’t like it? Oh well too bad.

I proved it to you democrats to a man refused to pass a law protecting the child born out a failed abortion. On 4 occasions democrats refused to explicitly grant that child any right to life.

I have nothing good to say about abortion.

tctrills:
I have answered you above but here is some interesting stats.
~48–52% of all black women in the US have killed there unborn.
That half the black women in the US have the mind to take human life. This is a wasted generation.
Do you wonder why they have the worst families.
Do you wonder why black society is a mess?
A society that kills its own even before birth.

Your issue with abortion is rooted in religious doctrine. By the way, are you Catholic?

I hope you are not surprised to find out that black on black murder in the US is by far the highest.
From birth, these people have learnt that it is ok to kill your own.

Has it ever occurred to you that the very term "black on black" is a peculiarity that shows bias? Because no one goes around talking about "white on white" or "latino on latino" that much. It is a usage specifically designed to tell a particular narrative about what is in truth simply higher violence in poorer demographics, which is standard everywhere in the world.

basilico:
How I respond now to you? . You only know me from what I post here

Your mind is on display here.

And yes, it is frankly incomprehensible for anyone who is a father of daughters to support or defend those who assaulted and abused under age girls as many of you Trumpists have.

GracieX3:
Go and look up how the foster care system has f4cked up children in the USA. From sexual abuse to domestic abuse to emotional abuse.

Do you know what it is to grow up without parental love? To grow up with other children who see you as competition and not siblings?

Who told you that strangers are better equipped to take care of a dumped child?

So it's better to love a child so much you kill it because it might face problems in foster homes?

Try the same question to Grok which strives to be as fair as possible unlike Gemini which is liberally biased.
Grok says not exactly but

DeepSight:
QUESTION: IS THE CLAIM THAT BLACK AMERICANS HAVE BEEN GIVEN SIX TRILLION IN ENTITLEMENT BENEFITS TRUE AND IF SO, WHATS THE TIMELINE, AND WHO GOT THESE FUNDS AND ON WHAT BASIS?

GEMINI: The claim that Black Americans specifically have been "given $6 trillion in entitlement benefits" is a mischaracterization of broader figures frequently cited in debates over U.S. welfare policy. There is no official government record or peer-reviewed study that confirms a $6 trillion figure allocated exclusively to Black Americans.

Instead, the "$6 trillion" figure likely stems from a confusion of several distinct data points related to total national spending, specific asset valuations, or recent federal deficit increases.

1. The Likely Origins of the "$6 Trillion" Figure
The specific number $6 trillion appears in two very different contexts within recent economic discourse, neither of which represents an "entitlement payout" to Black Americans:

Total Black Household Wealth: According to data from the Federal Reserve, the total assets held by Black American households (including real estate, pension entitlements, and savings) reached approximately $6 trillion in 2022 (HBCU Money, 2023). This represents the collective net worth and private savings of the population, not government spending.

Recent Federal Deficit Claims: Economic critics, such as those at the Heritage Foundation, have argued that the Biden administration's policies added roughly $6 trillion to the national deficit through various spending bills (Ditch, 2023). These funds were allocated across the entire U.S. population for infrastructure, COVID-19 relief, and climate initiatives, rather than being targeted specifically toward one racial group.

2. Historical Context of Welfare Spending
If the claim is intended to refer to "The War on Poverty" (launched in 1964), the numbers are much larger, but also population-wide:

Total Spending: Research by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation estimated that the U.S. spent approximately $22 trillion on means-tested welfare programs between 1964 and 2014 (Rector, 2014).

Demographic Distribution: While African Americans are disproportionately represented in certain means-tested programs due to higher poverty rates, they have never been the sole or primary recipients of the total expenditure. For example, in most years of the program's history, White Americans have constituted the largest single racial group receiving SNAP (food stamps) and Medicaid benefits.

3. Basis and Eligibility
Federal benefits in the United States are not distributed on the basis of race, as that would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Instead, funds are distributed based on:

Financial Need: Means-tested programs like TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) or Medicaid require recipients to fall below specific income thresholds.

Age and Contribution: "Entitlements" like Social Security and Medicare are based on age and the amount of payroll taxes an individual has paid into the system over their working life.
------------------
cc: GloriousGbola / basilico / Ijebos / cococandy

Obrigardo:
You don't match that with your affiliations. You don't.
You are anti-family, and pro-perdofilya no matter what you point out here

Your affiliation speaks volume, mr man.

Why you like to lie?
God have mercy upon you.

DeepSight:
QUESTION: IS THE CLAIM THAT BLACK AMERICANS HAVE BEEN GIVEN SIX TRILLION IN ENTITLEMENT BENEFITS TRUE AND IF SO, WHATS THE TIMELINE, AND WHO GOT THESE FUNDS AND ON WHAT BASIS?

GEMINI: The claim that Black Americans specifically have been "given $6 trillion in entitlement benefits" is a mischaracterization of broader figures frequently cited in debates over U.S. welfare policy. There is no official government record or peer-reviewed study that confirms a $6 trillion figure allocated exclusively to Black Americans.

Instead, the "$6 trillion" figure likely stems from a confusion of several distinct data points related to total national spending, specific asset valuations, or recent federal deficit increases.

1. The Likely Origins of the "$6 Trillion" Figure
The specific number $6 trillion appears in two very different contexts within recent economic discourse, neither of which represents an "entitlement payout" to Black Americans:

Total Black Household Wealth: According to data from the Federal Reserve, the total assets held by Black American households (including real estate, pension entitlements, and savings) reached approximately $6 trillion in 2022 (HBCU Money, 2023). This represents the collective net worth and private savings of the population, not government spending.

Recent Federal Deficit Claims: Economic critics, such as those at the Heritage Foundation, have argued that the Biden administration's policies added roughly $6 trillion to the national deficit through various spending bills (Ditch, 2023). These funds were allocated across the entire U.S. population for infrastructure, COVID-19 relief, and climate initiatives, rather than being targeted specifically toward one racial group.

2. Historical Context of Welfare Spending
If the claim is intended to refer to "The War on Poverty" (launched in 1964), the numbers are much larger, but also population-wide:

Total Spending: Research by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation estimated that the U.S. spent approximately $22 trillion on means-tested welfare programs between 1964 and 2014 (Rector, 2014).

Demographic Distribution: While African Americans are disproportionately represented in certain means-tested programs due to higher poverty rates, they have never been the sole or primary recipients of the total expenditure. For example, in most years of the program's history, White Americans have constituted the largest single racial group receiving SNAP (food stamps) and Medicaid benefits.

3. Basis and Eligibility
Federal benefits in the United States are not distributed on the basis of race, as that would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Instead, funds are distributed based on:

Financial Need: Means-tested programs like TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) or Medicaid require recipients to fall below specific income thresholds.

Age and Contribution: "Entitlements" like Social Security and Medicare are based on age and the amount of payroll taxes an individual has paid into the system over their working life.
------------------
cc: GloriousGbola / basilico / Ijebos / cococandy

My brother, when you use AI, learn to conduct deep research. Dont worry, I will do it for you.

Since the launch of the "War on Poverty" in 1964, the US has spent over $26 trillion on anti-poverty programs, with total expenditures potentially reaching higher depending on whether state-level contributions and specific program definitions (such as medical vs. cash aid) are included. Current federal spending alone exceeds $1 trillion annually.

Now, on total entitlement benefits, the US has spent $193 trillion

Now the question is, what percentage has gone to the blacks? This is where we apply AI.

[url]Grok[/url]

Around 23-26% of recipients (and a similar share of spending) in major US means-tested welfare programs go to Black Americans, who make up roughly 13-14% of the total US population.
Key Data (Recent Years, e.g., ~2019–2023)

Combined safety net programs (Urban Institute analysis of ~59 million recipients): Non-Hispanic White ~43%, Hispanic ~26%, Black ~23%.
SNAP (food stamps): White ~35-42% (non-Hispanic White lower, around 35-37%), Black ~25-28%, Hispanic ~16%. Blacks are overrepresented relative to population share.
Older or multi-program data (e.g., SNAP + TANF + housing) sometimes shows higher Black shares for specific overlapping benefits, but the broad pattern holds: Whites are the largest group by raw numbers, Blacks are disproportionately represented.

Spending (dollars) tracks recipient shares closely because benefits are allocated per eligible person or household (with adjustments for household size, income, etc.). There is no comprehensive official breakdown showing a dramatically different spending percentage. Black households are overrepresented among recipients due to higher participation rates in programs like SNAP, Medicaid, and TANF, driven by factors such as higher poverty rates, single-parent households, and urban concentration.

ChatGPT

There isn’t a single percentage for “all U.S. welfare” going to any one group, because “welfare” isn’t one program—it includes things like food assistance (SNAP), healthcare (Medicaid), and cash aid (TANF), and each has different data.

Breaking it down (to understand it properly)
1) Food assistance (SNAP)
Black recipients: about 26–27%
White recipients: larger share overall
2) Cash welfare (TANF)
Black recipients: about 27–28%
3) Healthcare (Medicaid)
Black recipients: about 23%

This completely corresponds with Grok. Blacks get more than 23% of all welfare.


Gemini

Program, Black Recipients (%),
SNAP (Food Stamps),~25%,
TANF (Cash Assistance),~28%,
Public Housing,~45%,

This again shows that blacks get nothing less than 23% of all welfare


Now, let's use the lowest figure, 23%. Calculate 23% of 26 trillion

The result is 5.98 trillion

This represents the lowest possible amount blacks get from welfare.
I am usually not wrong with the stats and figures

basilico:
So it's better to love a child so much you kill it because it might face problems in foster homes?

Fetus is not a child.

basilico:
Try the same question to Grok which strives to be as fair as possible unlike Gemini which is liberally biased.
Grok says not exactly but

1. The argument can equally be made that Grok is right wing

2. What you attached from Grok affirms that the data came from Heritage Foundation (and we know who they are) and secondly that its not race based but need based.

tctrills:
My brother, when you use AI, learn to conduct deep research. Dont worry, I will do it for you.

Since the launch of the "War on Poverty" in 1964, the US has spent over $26 trillion on anti-poverty programs, with total expenditures potentially reaching higher depending on whether state-level contributions and specific program definitions (such as medical vs. cash aid) are included. Current federal spending alone exceeds $1 trillion annually.

Now, on total entitlement benefits, the US has spent $193 trillion

Now the question is, what percentage has gone to the blacks? This is where we apply AI.

[url]Grok[/url]

Around 23-26% of recipients (and a similar share of spending) in major US means-tested welfare programs go to Black Americans, who make up roughly 13-14% of the total US population.
Key Data (Recent Years, e.g., ~2019–2023)

Combined safety net programs (Urban Institute analysis of ~59 million recipients): Non-Hispanic White ~43%, Hispanic ~26%, Black ~23%.
SNAP (food stamps): White ~35-42% (non-Hispanic White lower, around 35-37%), Black ~25-28%, Hispanic ~16%. Blacks are overrepresented relative to population share.
Older or multi-program data (e.g., SNAP + TANF + housing) sometimes shows higher Black shares for specific overlapping benefits, but the broad pattern holds: Whites are the largest group by raw numbers, Blacks are disproportionately represented.

Spending (dollars) tracks recipient shares closely because benefits are allocated per eligible person or household (with adjustments for household size, income, etc.). There is no comprehensive official breakdown showing a dramatically different spending percentage. Black households are overrepresented among recipients due to higher participation rates in programs like SNAP, Medicaid, and TANF, driven by factors such as higher poverty rates, single-parent households, and urban concentration.

ChatGPT

There isn’t a single percentage for “all U.S. welfare” going to any one group, because “welfare” isn’t one program—it includes things like food assistance (SNAP), healthcare (Medicaid), and cash aid (TANF), and each has different data.

Breaking it down (to understand it properly)
1) Food assistance (SNAP)
Black recipients: about 26–27%
White recipients: larger share overall
2) Cash welfare (TANF)
Black recipients: about 27–28%
3) Healthcare (Medicaid)
Black recipients: about 23%

This completely corresponds with Grok. Blacks get more than 23% of all welfare.


Gemini

Program, Black Recipients (%),
SNAP (Food Stamps),~25%,
TANF (Cash Assistance),~28%,
Public Housing,~45%,

This again shows that blacks get nothing less than 23% of all welfare


Now, let's use the lowest figure, 23%. Calculate 23% of 26 trillion

The result is 5.98 trillion

This represents the lowest possible amount blacks get from welfare.
I am usually not wrong with the stats and figures

You want to teach me to use AI and yet your question framing was useless.
At all events, the fact remains that there is no race-based distribution. Where blacks get more, its because there are more poor blacks.
THAT SAYS ENOUGH.

I will not bother asking you to retract your lie that blacks have been dashed six trillion in welfare.

DeepSight:
Your mind is on display here.

And yes, it is frankly incomprehensible for anyone who is a father of daughters to support or defend those who assaulted and abused under age girls as many of you Trumpists have.

I have spent years detailing how the democrats went after Trump. A huge coordinated effort led by the intelligence community, democrat party , establishment Republicans like McCain and Bill Barr, social media giants, mainstream media , liberal prosecutors, judges and juries .

Why won't democrats reveal what the saw in the unredacted Epstein releases.
As to the E Jean Carroll case , she was funded by Reid Hoffman the bosom Epstein buddy. New York state specifically passed a law New York Adult Survivors Act on 2022
granting any woman with claims of sexual assault to file suit within a year , which allowed her to file .

As to Stormy Daniels case , the case was only possible after DOJ sent it's third top employee to deputize Alvin Bragg. Bragg was pressured to reopen the investigation after his immediate predecessor had dropped it

basilico:
Why you like to lie?
God have mercy upon you.

Do you defend Trump on the Epstein matter?

DeepSight:
Do you defend Trump on the Epstein matter?

I don't believe there is any evidence to tie him to Epstein crimes. Period.
There is something you may not know. On the floor of congress or Senate a member can make any accusation with no legal repercussions.
They have seen unredacted documents of what was released.. None of them has ever said anything. Tell me why.