For you hard-core Microsoft users, what could that corporate monstrosity possibly do to you that would make you FINALLY say "they've finally crossed the line! I am done!"?

Microsoft started out (in the PC context) providing a good command line based OS called MS-DOS that mostly just did what a simple OS should: provides some basic functionality to allow applications to run with a bit of system abstraction so the same code could run on systems with varying hardware configurations and sparing developers from having to code everything to-the-metal.

When the Mac threatened to up-end their world, Microsoft provided a crappy (but in-color) alternative they called "Windows" which eventually grew-up to be what a modern OS should be (the aforementioned hardware abstraction, but now aided by drivers etc) and the support for multi-tasking with the OS managing the shared resources. With Windows 3.11 they finally finished the move to a modern OS by adding networking support.

Follow-on updates were generally nice gradual improvements most users CHOSE to upgrade to as people moved up to Windows NT, Windows 95, Windows 2000 etc always getting better graphics, stability, support for new hardware and newer standards, etc.... until Windows XP, Up until this moment, nobody FORCED customers to do anything, they CHOSE to move to newer versions because the newer versions offered enough value to convince them to part with their money... it was a good value proposition. With XP Microsoft started requiring the OS to "phone home" to the Mothership (but only for installation). This was the moment Microsoft made it clear THEY were in control of your PC... since it had to phone home to authorize the install, this meant that at some future time (which did indeed arrive) they could shut off the authorizing systems and you would no longer be able to re-install that version which you had purchased and if you wanted to keep using your PC you would be FORCED to buy a newer version.

THIS was the dividing line in time. From this point on, Microsoft went full-on arrogant and presumed THEY own your PC and THEY can jerk you around.

With every subsequent release of Windows, Microsoft has FORCED people to upgrade, FORCED hardware obsolescence (driving countless tons of perfectly good electronics into landfills), FORCED software incompatibilities (new OS version -> new Microsoft app version -> new Microsoft app file formats...) and made the OS phone-home more invasive. When they started snooping on keystrokes and mouse movements, people got over the shock pretty quickly and continued using the newer versions like some sort of dysfunctional drug addicts encountering a new side-effect. Now with forced online accounts, "cloud" storage/backups (oooooh, it's so FLUFFY!) people are losing sensitivity to who has their data and where it's stored and who might access it....

Just where is the limit on how evil Microsoft can go before people say "nope. This far, but no further"???

I'm personally disgusted by how much of corporate America (and particularly governments and Medical facilities) have gone along with all of this to the point where HIPAA and even Constitutional rights are no longer in-force. When governments and medical facilities put your private and sensitive info into systems running Windows and constantly phoning home to the Microsoft Mothership and servers, just where is the guarantee of security and privacy? Just what redress is available if any of it is compromised, and will anybody even know if it is compromised? Do people at Microsoft or in government even acknowledge that such things ARE "compromises" when they become design features? Just how secure is YOUR data in a Microsoft cloud if a very powerful and important Microsoft customer (the US government? China's communist party?) demands Microsoft grant them access? Certainly Microsoft values those big customers more than it values YOU and possibly your small business. Are YOUR small business's intellectual property secrets safe and secure on a Windows PC tethered to the Microsoft Mothership and how do you know if Microsoft is accessing that info for its own use, or to sell/trade it to some more important [to THEM] entity like the Chinese or Indian government?

NONE of these things were possible on good old MS-DOS. All of these things are possible on Windows 11. When will people decide to break the habit, free themselves from the addiction, and get clean?

1. Who made it "the Gulf of Mexico"? Why did somebody arbitrarily naming it for Mexico (Mexico does NOT own it, and the US has more coastline with it) make it a fixed and unchangeable thing to you? It was actually refreshing to see Trump call this one out. There was never a good reason to call it the "Gulf of Mexico", and in this era where China is trying (on the global stage) to set a precedent that they can demand the world recognize their ownership of the body of international water traditionally called "The South China Sea" simply because the word "China" is in the title, Trump's action sets up a whataboutism for all those in the spineless international diplomacy arena (who would likely immediately fold in the face of China) to have to face. The fact that his challenging of a stupid old thing nobody had ever codified into law (thus leaving it as only a goofy tradition) has suddenly made people within whose heads he clearly resides go completely whacko was just a bonus.

2. Freedom Fries... ahhh yes, so after a few years you finally get the joke? Too bad so many on your side of the aisle spend so much time working themselves into a froth of outrage and are unable to see when the Bad Orange Man is just kidding around. He's not really that hard to understand; you guys used to not react this way back in the decades when he was a Democrat.

3. "extrajudicial murder"? Really wanna go there? Were you outraged when Bill Clinton distracted the nation during the Monica Lewinski affair by bombing an aspirin factory in Sudan? Were you fine with Obama droning an American citizen to death? The Council on Foreign Relations (hardly some pro-Trump outfit) says "The 542 drone strikes that Obama authorized killed an estimated 3,797 people, including 324 civilians." I think that about does it for being hyper-freaked-out over ANY "extra-judicial murder[s]" by Trump.

4. "Hypernationalistic renaming of bodies of water"? Just what the hell is the difference between renaming something and hypernationalistically renaming it? And just why the hell is it OK to name it for the nation of Mexico, but some fundamental challenge to planetary norms to name it for America (which, by the way, is a term that not only applies to the USA, but also generically to "the Americas", which INCLUDES Mexico, Panama, Venezuela, etc). Why is it some freak-out thing to have somebody rename a thing (oooh, without an international committee at the UN!) but NOT the same problem when somebody names it in the first place without said international thingamajig? Do you have ANY evidence that renaming a body of water has EVER lead to either World War III or the re-instatement of the military draft in the history of the human race?

Oh, I get it. Orange Man Bad!!!! Mental illness is the new norm!

Seek professional help, there seems to be a real estate developer and former reality TV guy living in your head.

throw some gas on it to put it out!

Yeah... that's the sort of thinking at play here: [1] Identify a problem and then [2] propose a "solution" that seems great to a simpleton but which would actually make things far worse. There's simply NO situation in which unionizing a set of workers makes quality and quantity and price get better for the consumer or average citizen. Unionized auto workers in the US famously produced higher car prices and lower quality cars. Unionized government workers produced the world's worst "consumer experience" which is why a visit to the DMV is considered and example of hell on Earth...

At the margins, unionization can produce improved worker conditions for SOME workers SOMETIMES. It generally helps the less-productive and less-capable workers stay employed and get higher pay than their work would justify as they ride on the coat-tails of the better employees who fall victim to the propaganda that they need to unionize and all "stick together". The primary problem is this: Unionization is simply incapable of defeating the basic economic laws. If economic conditions require a reduction of labor costs, then pay and benefit reductions or job losses are going to happen, no matter what a union says. If the labor cuts are not implemented, then the entity doing the employing will eventually fail and all the jobs will be lost. The only exception is government workers, where economics are not really at play because things like tax increases are available (a forced infusion of new funds). This is a big reason why so many formerly-great and iconic businesses who at one time unionized are no longer in existence or are now a shadow of their former selves. Ask the retirees of any unionized company who (long after retiring on their supposedly good benefits provided by those union contracts) how they felt when the benefits were reduced and their old unions agreed to it as part of some later negotiation...

The solution (assuming there IS one) is NOT to unionize, but to change the laws and regulations applied in the marketplace that lead to the conditions that cause people to WANT to unionize. If we assume that the problems we seek to address are not a normal marketplace thing driven purely by natural and desirable market forces that we should find better ways of coping with, then those problems should be viewed as systemic and those require policy changes across the entire marketplace and NOT unionization which warps a segment of the marketplace in un-sustainable ways.

Americans are often goaded into thinking this is a good idea by people pointing to certain European countries where (they are told) unions have made a workers' paradise... but they're often mislead about the down-sides. Americans would not likely accept the low growth rates, high tax rates, and mountains of rules and regulations that would accompany copying that model, and it would not actually work anyway given that it's based in-part on an economic lie; those European economies have all floated on a subsidy from the American taxpayer for about 8 decades as American workers paid for much of the dense of Europe, and paid higher prices for thing like medications as the American consumer bore the weight of the R&D costs (which were held off of the prices paid across the Atlantic). As Margaret Thatcher once said, the problem is that sooner or later you run out of others' money.

How many of us are going to want to fly on planes piloted by people of this upcoming generation, cross over bridges designed by engineers who graduated using these brain crutches, and be operated upon by doctors who had an AI help them pass their exams and who can remember nothing of what they supposedly learned?

If people thought Orwell was painting a dark picture of the future, they ought to realize he was probably an amateur and things are likely going to be far worse, and in a way even he did not see coming...

This entire problem was launched with a lie. That lie was being pushed already in the 1980s and it was very effective with the CEOs of many companies who seemed eager prove the old communist prediction true (that capitalists would sell the communists the rope with which they (the capitalists) would be hanged.).

The lie was: "Huang questioned the wisdom of policies that cost America one of the world's largest markets. " (the bold part).

When the Chinese started telling American CEOs that they (China) were the most populated nation on Earth and the yet the least already exploited as a consumer market, American execs went nuts; the ones who'd already achieved marketplace saturation in the West started projecting higher sales to investors based on the idea that there were massive numbers of Chinese consumers who would soon become customers. Lobbyists pushed politicians to drop obstacles to business with China and a bi-partisan drive lead the Bush41 admin to push for trade with China (Remember: Bush41 had been a US ambassador to China and had gone a bit native as many ambassadors do). When Bush left office, the supposedly opposite admin of Bill Clinton finished the political lift needed and got China admitted to the WTO. Older people here will remember, and younger ones can look up, the scandals of the 1990s when the Clintons and then Vice President Al Gore were found to be entangled with illegal Chinese money coming from oddball characters like "Jonnie Chung" and doing fund raising in Chinese monasteries (as though a bunch of Asian Monks were awash in cash...) as American businesses "accidentally" leaked American tech (including ballistic missile guidance tech (look up Hughes and Loral) to China. Every time somebody noticed the negative effects of the Jobs and tech going to China, it was treated as a surprising accident and politicians on both sides of the aisle, pushed by money from the same lobbyists, kept advancing policies to "increase trade" to supposedly help companies get access to those imaginary Chinese consumers (who, in actuality had no surplus cash to use to buy Western stuff). It was always hinted at (to the US voters) that the politicians were doing something to "crack down" with Democrats pretending to care about the job losses (as THEY pretended to be pro-worker) and Republicans pretending to be security-minded (as THEY pretended to be "defense hawks"). American companies eagerly exported their jobs to China to lower labor costs and improve profit margins (foolishly teaching China how the tech worked as a necessary step of course) all the while telling stock holders that the imaginary Chinese consumer market would soon provide an amazing boost in revenues.

The thing is, that long-promised massive Chinese consumer market was never there, and never going to be there. By the time the average Chinese citizen would have enough expendable income to spend buying stuff that was more than just the basic necessities, the Chinese "companies" which had geared-up to make all the Western stuff and now knew how to make it would be making those items themselves and the average Chinese person would buy from their own local vendors, while the benefits of scaled-up production would make the Western equivalent products (also made in China) too expensive in comparison.

There were people who saw this coming and warned the people of the Western countries, but they were generally shut-down and labelled "bigots" as a combination of Chinese operators and those drooling American executives who could see nothing but those supposedly eager future Chinese customers joined forces both in lobbying the politicians and in pushing messaging in the media. This problem has been a long time in the making and the "establishment" politicians of BOTH American parties are every bit as much to blame ad the greed heads in the corporate executive suites.

Western executives should hang his head in shame, resign, and give back all their fabulous salaries benefits and stock options. They have all FAILED their companies, their industries, and their nations. Their employees have seen this... often THEY were forced to train their foreign replacements as their jobs were "outsourced" to China and these execs ordered their people to train China to make their products and hand over the design documents. The past several decades have seen the West infested by a tsunami of executive incompetence as idiots who loved to golf and fly on executive jets demonstrated levels of foolishness not seen in a thousand years... they've made "fiddling while Rome burns" look good in comparison.

If you as an exec in a Western nation with Western workers and infrastructure politics and economics cannot easily out-perform a top-down managed communist dictatorship in quality, innovation, and price then you are a failure. No pile of sheepskins stamped with "MBA" is a match for a competitive spirit, a passion to learn and innovate, and a firm grasp on how to motivate and mobilize a western workforce in a market-driven free society.

On November 9th of 2016 he publicly claimed the stock markets were plunging in response to Trump's 1st election, and in projecting when the markets would recover said "a first-pass answer is never" - anybody who listened to this guy and panic-sold their stocks missed out on a great bull market as the Dow under Trump went from about 19000 to about 31000. Krugman let his personal animus towards the Bad Orange Man and his opposition to the POLITICAL policies infect his economic analysis/predictions and it probably cost a lot of his supporters a lot of cash, thus exposing a hazard in blindly following a credentialed "expert", particularly one you believe in because his politics align with yours.

This same guy beclowned himself praising Biden for his hands-on economic successes.

He always wants people to call him a "Nobel Prize winning economist", but even here he is being a bit dishonest. In his will, Alfred Nobel established five prizes: [1] physics, [2] chemistry, [3] physiology or medicine, [4] literature, and [5] peace. Note: there is NO Nobel Prize in Economics in that list. In 1968, the Central Bank of Sweden invented a "Prize in Economic Sciences" and handed a pile of money to the Nobel Foundation and asked them to administer the prize along side the Nobel Prizes. This is the award Krugman won - the Central Bank of Sweden's Prize in Economic Sciences. It is NOT a prize the late Alfred Nobel created or funded. If Trump created a prize in "Biglyness" and handed a pile of cash to the Nobel people and convinced them to administer it, there would not suddenly be a "Nobel Prize in Biglyness"

I do not allow any computers in my business that hold important data to touch the internet. If the newest bloatware OS from Micro$oft is no longer going to allow even installation without an online account, then that OS is now banned from my company.

I'd already mostly moved off of Microsoft with their endless cycles of new versions that do not support old hardware (driving new hardware purchases to replace completely functional hardware which, presumably, I'm supposed to toss straight into the landfills). Every new version since XP seems to just introduce more junk I do not need, while requiring higher clock rates, more memory, and more disk space just to be as fast as before, eliminates compatibility with perfectly functional but suddenly "obsolete" peripherals, and pushes newer versions of the installed applications, which in-turn introduce newer versions of file formats that force more business-wide upgrades to avoid incompatibilities between desktops... in a never-ending cycle that provides more money for MS and the other vendors but no actual benefit for the person spending all that money - me.

Am I the only one who sees no actual benefit in the desktop changes that have occurred since the very nice and clean Windows2000 UI?

Is it somehow odd that I see the artificial push to make everybody landfill mountains of perfectly functional hardware just because Microsoft needs a new infusion of cash from another upgrade cycle as something less that "green"?

Have we reached a point where everybody is so used to data breaches, ransonmware, etc that nobody cares any longer that the biggest companies are turning everything into spyware, paranoid licensing schemes, and pay-to-keep-running extortion machines that make data security impossible?

Now, if only Linux and BSD would find a way to better support a lot of the peripherals Microsoft pretends are obsolete, particularly in the printer, plotter, and scanner areas...

Whether you love Trump or Despise him, the simple fact is that his presence in the political arena broke the brains of a lot of people and the results have produced a number of spin-off effects. Some people see Trump and see a patriotic successful businessman, others see him as a rude, ignorant, uncultured fascist. People in this latter category, discarded all traditions in a reaction to him, seeing themselves as defenders of civilization and their every action as justified. People who supported Trump saw the others as going insane. We developed two dramatically different worldviews while looking at the exact same ink blot.

After Trump descended the golden escalator in 2015, the permanent political class in government went insane and decided to throw out all the old rules in an effort to block his election, then prevent his being sworn-in, then destroy his administration, then try to eliminate his legacy, and then try to keep him from getting back into power. Nearly every person in the top levels of corporate media in the US has ties to people in these un-elected government positions, so the "mainstream media" in the US jumped into the effort and threw their credibility onto the flaming altar of their politics. This was not sustainable, as the public (even many of those politically aligned with the effort) began to see very big holes and fallacies exposed in the narratives being pumped.

We had major news outlets repeating stories over and over again about "Trump Russia Collusion" with formerly-respected journalists getting fired after being caught lying on air about basic facts. On-air talent and print reporters were routinely telling people Trump was going to be convicted of major crimes, up to and including treason, and that he'd be in an orange jump suit in prison. As this was happening, actual government reports were spilling-out proving the infamous "Steele Dossier" was just a pile of made-up garbage put together by a British spy and his Russian spy buddies while on the payroll of the Clinton campaign and it was never going to lead to any successful prosecution. This angered the right, who saw the media falsely attacking Trump and lying about him, but it ALSO angered the left who felt they'd been mislead and had their hopes dishonestly raised. This was a big bi-partisan failure for the press.

COVID was all tangled-up in the Trump fight and probably had an even bigger impact. Initially, the Trump people bragged the new experimental vaccines were available in record time, but the press down-played the vaccines and even advanced the anti-Trump narrative that they could not be trusted because they were developed under Trump. After Biden got in, the press flipped the narrative to be that the vaccines were perfect and every person had to be REQUIRED to take them and the Biden admin was making sure they were free as a great national health project. People were told to not, mask, then to mask, then to double-mask, and to "social distance", etc. Every new pronouncement was pushed by the media who were NOT doing their traditional job of being skeptical and asking hard questions. As the government lines about masks, vaccine effectiveness, booster effectiveness, etc kept changing the press just kept acting as a cheerleader, and ended-up looking positively Orwellian as they pseudo-facts and narratives kept shifting with nary an acknowledgement that anything had changed. Instead of the press looking into the arguments of critics, the press helped the government suppress any critics and any contrary information. Now that we know how messed-up all those narratives were and what a disaster those vaccines were, including that they were largely developed BEFORE the outbreak and the pharma people were less than honest with both the Trump and Biden admins, it leads to even more questions about the role of the press and whether it can be trusted at all.

The loss of press credibility is like a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Journalists would love to blame it on politicians using them as a punching bag, or failures of the public to understand them, or any number of other things, but what they need is a healthy dose of introspection. They went full-on partisan and sold out all their principles in the process, abandoning even the most-basic ideas of journalism- and everybody can see it; It cannot be unseen. They could not correct themselves at the time because they'd started with an already heavy political bias but then discarded anybody whose politics were impure, so they lost the in-the-room counter arguments and voices that might have cause them to return to skepticism and more balanced reporting. At the peak of the anti-Trump hysteria, NOBODY in the news rooms was a person who saw the inkblot differently from the rest, so there was no brake handle on the runaway train car. They'll only recover credibility when they come clean and admit to what they did, and bring people back into the newsrooms who are not in the same groupthink. I'm not holding my breath on that one and do not see any path for the press to recover.

Higher CO2 content in atmosphere -> more plant growth -> more deep green viewed from above = "darker"

That's just a place to look. We'll figure it out; it's certainly not some grand cosmic magic.

You rant about fossils...so what. That has NOTHING to do with the argument, unless you are now claiming we have the fossilized remains of every single jay that ever existed and can, therefore prove that this is the very first instance of a naturally-occurring hybrid between a blue jay and a green jay in the history of the planet. You lack every single bird's remains, and therefore your argument is completely unrelated to what I said.

All of your religious ranting about the true faith of AGW also has no bearing on what I posted; Climate change can be real (as I believe... the climate has NEVER been static) and it can be human-drive (as you clearly believe) and it STILL has zero bearing on what I posted. The truth of climate change and any causes has nothing to do with whether this is the first-ever such naturally occurring hybrid.

You folks who are ideologically focused upon "climate change" or the Bad Orange Man, or related stuff need to calm down, get a grip, and start noticing that not every damned thing on the internet is an offense to your religion. Some things are just stand-alone arguments and can be discussed without dragging-in mental illness. I was simply pointing out that the article is deceptive and seems to try to convince the reader that something unprecedented has happened, and that it is tied to a current pet theory (perhaps tied to politics, or grant funding, or popularity in the faculty lounge... I did not ho into that) but that there's no way to actually know if this is unprecedented, and that it's therefore silly to even tie it to the current scientific cause celeb.

As to geologic science... I took several courses way back in my university days, purely out of self-interest and in preference over fluffier optional subjects, so I'm perfectly comfortable with it as a science. I also have a family friend who is a geologist by profession. So, no, I don't think the field is voodoo, it's a solid field and it's more critical more human activities than most people understand. I do however object to ANY field of science being abused for ideological purposes, or anybody in a field abusing science while grinding a personal axe. In that strain, I have no issue at all with most of the field, but DO object when people take something like climate data estimated from core samples and place it into the same chart with data from satellites etc with ZERO common calibration and then claim to be able to work in tenths of a degree of temperature precision. THAT is not science at all, and that behavior would have earned a person a grade of "F" on a paper back when I was taking science courses. When climate studies became a big thing and a place government and NGOs were pouring buckets of money, it affected science, in my opinion, very negatively. A whole generation of science people found ways to tie their work to climate and thus got access to all those revenue streams. It's precisely the effect the late President Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address right after the bit about a growing "military industrial complex", and not surprisingly is a part of the speech the modern political left never plays/watches/reads.

It's always interesting when we see a thing for the first time and (hopefully) properly document it, and perhaps even study it. This expands human knowledge and who knows what future benefit may come from the new information.

Sadly, it comes to us wrapped improperly in the propaganda of "climate change" alarmism. By dragging climate change into it, we're all supposed to see it as a warning sign of an impending apocalypse and it's likely intended to end-up as an argument in the related political fights. As with all the "hottest day ever recorded" or "most snowfall in 24 hours ever recorded" or any related headline, it exposes a larger truth about just how insignificant it is. The Earth has been orbiting the sun for [presumably] about 6 billion years [plus or minus whatever adjustments scientists will come up with in the future] and humans have been making scientific records of climate and of various plant and animal species for a REMARKABLY small part of that time. We have global climate data [and therefore, RECORDS] for something like 1/60000000 of the Earth's history and data on plants and animals of the entire world for even less of that. Indeed, we're STILL discovering species we never knew existed. Our records are simply INSIGNIFICANT in the big picture.

So, yes, we apparently have "the first DOCUMENTED wild hybrid between a blue jay and a green jay" (that's nice), but that's NOT the same thing as "the first wild hybrid between a blue jay and a green jay" (a complete unknowable). This is not even CLOSE to definitive... probably 99.999% of all blue and green jays have never been seen by humans, as for most of the planet's history most of the planet was unexplored and most of the birds were unseen by humans.

for you. If they can drop all borders, get everybody onto a universal electronic currency, institute a global tax on the middle class, and do away with pesky stuff like the US Constitution with its Bill of Rights (rights granted to individuals by a creator which government may not mess with, rather than rights lent to people by a government), then everything will be a constant drumbeat of race-to-the-bottom rhetoric by rich elites who have no intention of joining average folks in their new status at the bottom.

Don't want to work 7 days per week? Too bad, there are people in China who will do it!

Don't want a 15 hour work day? Too bad, there are people in some place in Africa who will!

Don't want to surrender a kidney so a rich guy can recover from drowning his in liquor? Too bad, there are prisoners in China having theirs harvested.

Don't want to eat bugs? Too bad, there are others who will!

There's literally no end to this evil. Klaus Schwab has famously told young people that, in the future, "you will own nothing and you will be happy". What this type of jerk is NOT saying is that you may not BE happy but you will say you are in order to avoid time in the gulags. The other thing they don't want you to notice is that THEY will not own nothing; they plan to own EVERYTHING and be actually happy as they lord over you like the kings and slave owners of old.

Separate states within a nation serve the same VITAL role as separate nations within the world.... FIREWALLS. When a bad idea gets taken for a trial run in one state, it can ruin that state but other states might avoid (and hopefully learn from) the error. Similarly, bad ideas can sink a nation and oppress its people, but the damage can be limited to that nation, and the presence of other nations provides places for humanity (and better ideas) to endure. Should the globalists idiots ever succeed, a single bad idea might sink the entire human race and nobody would be able to escape to a better place. These people and their ideas are the most dangerous and toxic humanity has ever come up with; they must be resoundingly defeated.

They invent NOTHING

They build NOTHING

They improve NOTHING

They just loot and pillage and strip companies, damaging suppliers, employees, and customers of already mature businesses somebody else created, then they spit out the husk hoping that some poor chumps with their retirement funds invested in poorly-run 401Ks will buy the wreckage and lose their money.

The people who build and run these outfits are soul-free maggots who pretend they are somehow adding value and efficiency, but the past several decades are the proof that this is not so. These are the insufferable selfish jerks whose bad-faith actions are routinely and unfairly attributed to ALL businesses and to all free market operators. Think: Mitt Romney, who pretended that looting businesses was the same as building businesses and who identified as an "entrepreneur". They are fundamentally destructive, but they're probably giving lots of "campaign contributions" [*cough* bribes] to politicians of all parties in order to prevent any real clamp-down on their dastardly practices.

Here's a chart from 2010 to 2021 (a bit down the page) which will suit this argument well. You can find others going back to the seventies if you like and it will not help your assertion a bit. I'm using the short table for ease. Surely we can all agree (for the current purposes) with the left that Trump, the Bad Orange Man(TM) is the WORST PRESIDENT EVER and thus his era would have the most draconian cuts those evil Republican scum ever implemented, right? Well LOOK AT THE TABLE. Gaze upon the massive reduction in education spending during his 1st term (2017-2020)!!!

Oh, goodness gracious, (or Golly!, or WTF?) pick your expression to align with your politics....

Yep. That's right. Education spending goes up and up and up every year no matter who is in the White House and no matter which party has the Presidency, or the Congress, or the state Governorship, etc. (well, technically, it dipped a bit during one presidency of the post 1970s... Barack Obama's, but it was not by much and probably did not matter at all) Education spending is the single most-popular normal government spending, other than social security and medicare, in the country and BOTH parties just keep increasing it. The constant chorus that Republicans "gut education spending" (like, presumably, some sort of fish...the imagery is probably useful) is just a huge political lie that works really well for the left when it energizes the teachers to get out there and support Democrat political candidates.

I'm not pointing this out because I think the Republicans are any better on education (I do not believe they are). I'm pointing it out because I believe that Objective reality matters and we CANNOT have honest debates and CANNOT get to any good solutions if we cannot all at least start from a common set of FACTS. I also think we've had enough extreme rhetoric lately, and we all ought to tap the breaks on it - it leads to incredibly dark places. No matter how much we each might like it, we DO NOT each get our own truths.