"If Trump loses (and it is impossible to know right now) it will be because of people who do not yet contribute to the country substantially - people in their 20's who are in entry level positions or still live in their parents basement, and the old school generation who are now retired and/or about to."

Well, with the first part of your statement it's obvious because the fact that Slojoe told us he would raise his taxes and those voters don't care. For the second part it's because we began to get Slojoed in the mind and don't remember how we biatched when we had to pay a lot of taxes.

I can't fathom how or why anyone would want to vote for someone who screams at us that he will raise taxes. Wow, now that's taking TDS to a stratospheric level. So sad.

What happens when those people who are supposed to pay those taxes figure out that they can make the same money with a lot lower taxes somewhere else?

Timing is everything I guess... I just saw some interesting (and as unbiased an assessment as I can trust) of projected GDP, unemployment, total debt and Inflation projections based on who wins the election and a trickle down based on Reps holding Senate or not. Unfortunately, I cannot reproduce the info as it was a presentation for which the slides have not yet been furnished.

It confirms sort of what I have suspected for a long time - it doesn't really matte who wins. Overall indicators will be roughly the same and trend the same regardless - it is based on the policies that each candidate have stated for the future.

The only significant difference was the total of the national Debt. Both go up, but the Dem platform goes up significantly more than the Republican plan. The difference? Jobs - from infrastructure which includes travel infrastructure, green initiatives etc....

The other most significant policy difference was lowering eligible medicare age from 65 to 60. I am not sure how I feel about that - wouldn't you incentivize people to retire earlier? Most people work until 65 because of health care - my boss is 61 and that is the only thing keeping him at work now. He has plenty of money to retire on, but the cost of self insurance for 4 years is rigoddamdiculous so he is waiting it out for at least 3 more years of not the entire 4 years.

(10-28-2020 08:48 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  These aren't the same Democrats Clinton led

This is a huge difference. Clinton had some lefties, he also had the "yellow dog" Democrats.

But now? The "yellow dog' is all but gone, replaced by socialists/marxists. And the few 'moderate lefties' have been getting bulled by their own party to go more and more further left.

I never thought I'd say this, but i miss Tip O'Neills and Lieberman's of the democrats world (Hell, at one point, I'd have even included Schumer in that list, but somewhere along the way he became another hack).. but they would at least show the cajones to push back if someone went too far on their own side of the aisle

(10-29-2020 09:35 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 08:48 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  These aren't the same Democrats Clinton led

This is a huge difference. Clinton had some lefties, he also had the "yellow dog" Democrats.
But now? The "yellow dog' is all but gone, replaced by socialists/marxists. And the few 'moderate lefties' have been getting bulled by their own party to go more and more further left.
I never thought I'd say this, but i miss Tip O'Neills and Lieberman's of the democrats world (Hell, at one point, I'd have even included Schumer in that list, but somewhere along the way he became another hack).. but they would at least show the cajones to push back if someone went too far on their own side of the aisle

These aren't the same leaders that Clinton was. Even Bill is not the same person he was as President Bill. He's been pushed left with the rest of the party.

I've said before that if Hillary had been elected, I figure there was about one chance in 100 that she would listen to Bill, and about one chance in 100 that Bill would go back to being President Bill instead of current far-left Bill. That would give Hillary about one chance in 10,000 of being a decent president. And that laps the field against the rest of the horses in the democrat stable, particularly the Trojan one that is now running.

(10-29-2020 10:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-29-2020 09:35 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 08:48 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  These aren't the same Democrats Clinton led

This is a huge difference. Clinton had some lefties, he also had the "yellow dog" Democrats.
But now? The "yellow dog' is all but gone, replaced by socialists/marxists. And the few 'moderate lefties' have been getting bulled by their own party to go more and more further left.
I never thought I'd say this, but i miss Tip O'Neills and Lieberman's of the democrats world (Hell, at one point, I'd have even included Schumer in that list, but somewhere along the way he became another hack).. but they would at least show the cajones to push back if someone went too far on their own side of the aisle

These aren't the same leaders that Clinton was. Even Bill is not the same person he was as President Bill. He's been pushed left with the rest of the party.

I've said before that if Hillary had been elected, I figure there was about one chance in 100 that she would listen to Bill, and about one chance in 100 that Bill would go back to being President Bill instead of current far-left Bill. That would give Hillary about one chance in 10,000 of being a decent president. And that laps the field against the rest of the horses in the democrat stable, particularly the Trojan one that is now running.

He would have been too busy dusting off the old rendezvous points throughout the WH to have time to advise her anyways....

Just imagine all the pu$$y he would get in the White House now without being bothered with having to do all that work?

(10-29-2020 12:22 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  He would have been too busy dusting off the old rendezvous points throughout the WH to have time to advise her anyways....
Just imagine all the pu$$y he would get in the White House now without being bothered with having to do all that work?

Given the choice of that or Kamala the ****, I'm willing to look the other way on Bill.

(10-29-2020 03:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-29-2020 12:22 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  He would have been too busy dusting off the old rendezvous points throughout the WH to have time to advise her anyways....
Just imagine all the pu$$y he would get in the White House now without being bothered with having to do all that work?

Given the choice of that or Kamala the ****, I'm willing to look the other way on Bill.

Agreed - I was not picking on Bill... I am jealous