Election Betting Odds
Quote: WizardI think it was episode 2 of season 5 of The Crown, where it was suggested Prince Charles leaked a story to the London Times that the Queen was thinking of abdicating. It was suggested on the show he thought the queen was getting too old and Charles would have been happy at the promotion to king. This would have been around 1995. Anyone know anything about that from the not so distant past?
link to original post
As GenoDRPh pointed out, it's almost certainly fictional. Dame Judi Dench called for Netflix to put some sort of disclaimer on the episode(s) where the discussion between Charles and PM John Major (who also denies it ever happened) takes place. I think Netflix is trying to explain it away by showing where, in its description of the series, it says that it is "a fictional dramatization, inspired by real events."
A moderate republican will have no power under the expected Republican regime but could take the Speakership with the help of the democrats. The Speaker would control the agenda, not the democrats. A moderate republican might end up with 300 or more votes and not owe their Speakship to the fringes of either party.
Quote: WizardI previously said this exercise in free speech would be over after the dust had settled from the primaries. The dust has now settled. I thought we'd have to wait for Georgia, but surprisingly, we don't.
However, for the most part, y'all have been pretty well behaved. I'm going to extend the right to make political statements in this thread only. I'd prefer comments be related to a bet, but it's not required. Remember that other forum rules still apply, especially the one against hate speech.
Carry on with what you were talking about.
link to original post
Ugh. That means the betting part of this thread is pretty much over.
And that's if the app survives another week.
Quote: ChumpChangeRT: Before you delete twitter just because Trump's back, remember, he just tried to murder Republicans 22 months ago and he's going to blow up the Republican party first.
And that's if the app survives another week.
link to original post
About to block you now. Aren’t you the most blocked member here? You have one chance to not sound (r*******).
Trump still remains suspended from Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube because of the January 6th, 2020 insurrection the J6 Committee has been trying to inform you about all year. If Fox News didn't carry it, consider your news source.
. I understand what you are saying. But has it ever happened that the minority party chose the speaker from the majority party? It just seems so implausible. You want to be the speaker when 200 of your colleagues on your side of the aisle now despise you?Quote: billryanYou misunderstand. The Democrats aren't looking for five Republicans to join them, they are looking for a Republican they can vote for.
A moderate republican will have no power under the expected Republican regime but could take the Speakership with the help of the democrats. The Speaker would control the agenda, not the democrats. A moderate republican might end up with 300 or more votes and not owe their Speakship to the fringes of either party.
link to original post
Think this way…. When the Senate was 50-50 did you hear of any possibility of ONE Democrat Senator joining the 50 Republicans to pick a Majority leader?
I think there may be some specific one topic bills that a few Republicans might join with the 210 Democrats, but they will be few and probably unimportant. Plus even if that happens, there is still the Senate filibuster to deal with.
The overall point, which I think you will agree with, is that getting anything passed will be difficult.
Quote: ChumpChangeI blocked Trump on twitter so he wouldn't send his mob after me.
link to original post
If you think I am part of his mob you are mistaken.
Quote: FinsRuleQuote: WizardI previously said this exercise in free speech would be over after the dust had settled from the primaries. The dust has now settled. I thought we'd have to wait for Georgia, but surprisingly, we don't.
However, for the most part, y'all have been pretty well behaved. I'm going to extend the right to make political statements in this thread only. I'd prefer comments be related to a bet, but it's not required. Remember that other forum rules still apply, especially the one against hate speech.
Carry on with what you were talking about.
link to original post
Ugh. That means the betting part of this thread is pretty much over.
link to original post
What's the betting line on the GA runoff?
Quote: MoosetonQuote: ChumpChangeI blocked Trump on twitter so he wouldn't send his mob after me.
link to original post
If you think I am part of his mob you are mistaken.
link to original post
I think of you as more of a One Man Gang than a mob.
Quote: ChumpChangeRT: Before you delete twitter just because Trump's back, remember, he just tried to murder Republicans 22 months ago and he's going to blow up the Republican party first.
And that's if the app survives another week.
link to original post
Donny back on Twitter is probably the last thing most GOP politicians want.
He says he is sticking to Truth Social for now:
https://twitter.com/bestofdyingtwit/status/1594094425843515392?s=46&t=SPMqCI7cAMs5DMRR7Bwptg
His voice doesn’t sound too great. Lots of screaming at the news and throwing ketchup at the wall lately?
Quote: SOOPOO. I understand what you are saying. But has it ever happened that the minority party chose the speaker from the majority party? It just seems so implausible. You want to be the speaker when 200 of your colleagues on your side of the aisle now despise you?Quote: billryanYou misunderstand. The Democrats aren't looking for five Republicans to join them, they are looking for a Republican they can vote for.
A moderate republican will have no power under the expected Republican regime but could take the Speakership with the help of the democrats. The Speaker would control the agenda, not the democrats. A moderate republican might end up with 300 or more votes and not owe their Speakship to the fringes of either party.
link to original post
Think this way…. When the Senate was 50-50 did you hear of any possibility of ONE Democrat Senator joining the 50 Republicans to pick a Majority leader?
I think there may be some specific one topic bills that a few Republicans might join with the 210 Democrats, but they will be few and probably unimportant. Plus even if that happens, there is still the Senate filibuster to deal with.
The overall point, which I think you will agree with, is that getting anything passed will be difficult.
link to original post
You aren't supposed to despise people on the other side of the aisle , you are supposed to work with them. I'd like to think most moderate republicans would rather work with moderate democrats than bomb throwers like matt gaetz or andy biggs.
Quote: ChumpChangeIt would be cool if 10 House GOP patriots chose country over party and elected a Democrat for House Speaker and kept Kevin McCarthy out of the top spot. But all those patriots have left office.
link to original post
If I have to put up with some stupid investigations that the far right wackos want that will be a small price to pay to keep the Democrat ‘let’s see how many more trillions we can spend’ agenda blocked. Trade an investigation of a laptop for a serious attempt to strengthen the border? Sounds good to me.
Someone asked about Warnock/Walker. Warnock around 75%, Walker 25%. I LOVE the adds by Warnock showing Trumppraising Walker. What can the Republicans counter with? Basically showing that Warnock voted for every big spending g bill, every bill making illegal immigration easier, etc…. I think the POWER of seeing the loser Trump will make Warnock a shoo-in.
I’ll give anyone a full percent if they want to take Walker. Meaning Warnock must exceed 50.5% by a vote for me to win.
Quote: ThatDonGuyQuote: TigerWuAnybody got any money on British Royal stuff, i.e., how long Charles will be King, whether he will abdicate or not, date of coronation, etc.?
link to original post
If anybody is taking bets on the date of the coronation, bet the house, the car, and the things on May 6.
Parlay it to "no" on abdicating. Remember how his mother felt about her uncle abdicating, which is one of the reasons she didn't; I think he's the same way. Of course, the problem is, you have to wait until he dies before you can collect.
link to original post
King Charles I and King Charles II didn't have popular reigns. The first was overthrown, imprisoned by Cromwell, and eventually beheaded. The second had both Great plague and Fire of London on his watch.
Quote: ChumpChangeIt would be cool if 10 House GOP patriots chose country over party and elected a Democrat for House Speaker and kept Kevin McCarthy out of the top spot. But all those patriots have left office.
link to original post
So, all the House Democrats are patriots and choose country over party? Riiiiiight.
tuttigym
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: ChumpChangeIt would be cool if 10 House GOP patriots chose country over party and elected a Democrat for House Speaker and kept Kevin McCarthy out of the top spot. But all those patriots have left office.
link to original post
If I have to put up with some stupid investigations that the far right wackos want that will be a small price to pay to keep the Democrat ‘let’s see how many more trillions we can spend’ agenda blocked. Trade an investigation of a laptop for a serious attempt to strengthen the border? Sounds good to me.
Someone asked about Warnock/Walker. Warnock around 75%, Walker 25%. I LOVE the adds by Warnock showing Trumppraising Walker. What can the Republicans counter with? Basically showing that Warnock voted for every big spending g bill, every bill making illegal immigration easier, etc…. I think the POWER of seeing the loser Trump will make Warnock a shoo-in.
I’ll give anyone a full percent if they want to take Walker. Meaning Warnock must exceed 50.5% by a vote for me to win.
link to original post
Unfortunately, that is all the GOP has, and the majority of media will not cover much of it, so whatever revelations come out won't be published and the uninformed will continue to be uninformed.
tuttigym
I think you have that exactly backwards:Quote: SOOPOOIf I have to put up with some stupid investigations that the far right wackos want that will be a small price to pay to keep the Democrat ‘let’s see how many more trillions we can spend’ agenda blocked. link to original post
Budget outlays in billions (Am. Presidency Project)
Obama: 3457, 3603, 3527, 3455, 3506, 3692, 3853, 3982
Trump: 4109, 4447, 6550, 7250
Biden: 6011, 6013 (estimate)
It generally holds true even when you go further back. Reagan *exploded* the budget, then George H.W. Bush pushed it even further. Then modest increases under Clinton, then George W. Bush again exploded it again.
"Downsizing the Federal Government" offers this chart:
That's just spending. When we look at deficits, Republicans fare even worse, because they consistently slash revenues (e.g., tax cuts for the rich). An article from Toward Data Science says that Republicans add more to deficits.
Quote: MichaelBluejayI think you have that exactly backwards:Quote: SOOPOOIf I have to put up with some stupid investigations that the far right wackos want that will be a small price to pay to keep the Democrat ‘let’s see how many more trillions we can spend’ agenda blocked. link to original post
Budget outlays in billions (Am. Presidency Project)
Obama: 3457, 3603, 3527, 3455, 3506, 3692, 3853, 3982
Trump: 4109, 4447, 6550, 7250
Biden: 6011, 6013 (estimate)
It generally holds true even when you go further back. Reagan *exploded* the budget, then George H.W. Bush pushed it even further. Then modest increases under Clinton, then George W. Bush again exploded it again.
"Downsizing the Federal Government" offers this chart:
That's just spending. When we look at deficits, Republicans fare even worse, because they consistently slash revenues (e.g., tax cuts for the rich). An article from Toward Data Science says that Republicans add more to deficits.
link to original post
The large spending by ‘Trump’ was pushed by the Democrats and you KNOW it! Those two last years were of course pandemic years. I don’t care what about what happened in 1959. NOW, the Democrats are quite simply the ‘party of spend’.
Do you actually believe if it wasn’t for Manchin that the Democrats would not have spent a few trillion more?
Puhhhleaseeeee!
Quote: SOOPOO
The large spending by ‘Trump’ was pushed by the Democrats and you KNOW it! Those two last years were of course pandemic years. I don’t care what about what happened in 1959. NOW, the Democrats are quite simply the ‘party of spend’.
link to original post
Good. You say that like it's a bad thing.
I'd rather have Democrats spending a trillion dollars on social welfare programs and public infrastructure than have Republicans spend a billion dollars on investigations into Ben Gazzi and buttery males and broken laptops.
Maybe once we get that $10 billion check from Mexico to pay for the wall we can do something about border security....
Quote: TigerWuQuote: SOOPOO
The large spending by ‘Trump’ was pushed by the Democrats and you KNOW it! Those two last years were of course pandemic years. I don’t care what about what happened in 1959. NOW, the Democrats are quite simply the ‘party of spend’.
link to original post
Good. You say that like it's a bad thing.
I'd rather have Democrats spending a trillion dollars on social welfare programs and public infrastructure than have Republicans spend a billion dollars on investigations into Ben Gazzi and buttery males and broken laptops.
Maybe once we get that $10 billion check from Mexico to pay for the wall we can do something about border security....
link to original post
The check is in the mail!
(or maybe in a box at Mar-a--Lago)
Quote: TigerWuQuote: SOOPOO
The large spending by ‘Trump’ was pushed by the Democrats and you KNOW it! Those two last years were of course pandemic years. I don’t care what about what happened in 1959. NOW, the Democrats are quite simply the ‘party of spend’.
link to original post
Good. You say that like it's a bad thing.
I'd rather have Democrats spending a trillion dollars on social welfare programs and public infrastructure than have Republicans spend a billion dollars on investigations into Ben Gazzi and buttery males and broken laptops.
Maybe once we get that $10 billion check from Mexico to pay for the wall we can do something about border security....
link to original post
And that’s ok for you to think that. Many don’t care about increasing the national debt at all. I just look for honesty. Just say that you think it’s better to spend the trillions more than not. I just hate the silliness of NOW trying to say the Democrats are not the party of ‘spend’.
Quote: TigerWuQuote: SOOPOO
The large spending by ‘Trump’ was pushed by the Democrats and you KNOW it! Those two last years were of course pandemic years. I don’t care what about what happened in 1959. NOW, the Democrats are quite simply the ‘party of spend’.
link to original post
Good. You say that like it's a bad thing.
I'd rather have Democrats spending a trillion dollars on social welfare programs and public infrastructure than have Republicans spend a billion dollars on investigations into Ben Gazzi and buttery males and broken laptops.
Maybe once we get that $10 billion check from Mexico to pay for the wall we can do something about border security....
link to original post
"Billions on investigations" like Russian collusion, Jan 6., impeachments, etc. Then there are the "shovel ready" jobs and projects, paying off blue state pension inequities and debt of state governments fiscal holes. Public infrastructure? Perhaps you can provide us with the accounting of those funds and the actual projects funded.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigym
"Billions on investigations" like Russian collusion, Jan 6., impeachments, etc. Then there are the "shovel ready" jobs and projects, paying off blue state pension inequities and debt of state governments fiscal holes. Public infrastructure? Perhaps you can provide us with the accounting of those funds and the actual projects funded.
tuttigym
link to original post
The REPUBLICAN led Mueller investigation concluded that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" and "violated U.S. criminal law." As a result of the Mueller investigation, several dozen people were charged with crimes and millions in assets were seized. Doesn't sound like a waste of money to me.
The REPUBLICAN led Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in the 2016 election found "an unprecedented level of activity against state election infrastructure" by Russian intelligence as "a trial run ... to probe American defenses and identify weaknesses in the vast back-end apparatus—voter-registration operations, state and local election databases, electronic poll books and other equipment." Furthermore, "the Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multi-faceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election."
Also, "the report concluded that there were significant ties between the 2016 Trump presidential campaign and Russia. In particular, they noted that Paul Manafort had hired Konstantin V. Kilimnik, a 'Russian intelligence officer,' and that Kilimnik was possibly connected to the 2016 hack and leak operation."
And "The Committee report found that the Russian government had engaged in an 'extensive campaign' to sabotage the election in favor of Donald Trump, which included assistance from some members of Trump's own advisers."
Jan. 6 investigation.... HUNDREDS of people have been arrested, charged, and convicted of crimes related to Jan. 6. Don't see how that's a waste of money, either.
Impeachments I'll give you were a bit of a waste; even though Trump was plenty impeachable everyone knew it wasn't going to go anywhere because of all the cowards and greedy sycophants in the Senate.
Again, the truth is exactly the opposite:Quote: SOOPOOThe large spending by ‘Trump’ was pushed by the Democrats and you KNOW it!
link to original post
"By a vote of 51-49, Senate Republicans passed a fiscal 2018 budget right along party lines, with every single Democrat voting against the budget framework, and all Republicans, save for one, voting for it....The measure is estimated to add $1.5 trillion to the deficit over 10 years." (ABC)
And then Democrats took the Senate and spending increased more (under the pandemic, as you note), but even PRE-DEM SENATE, the Republicans were completely outspending Obama. Completely. Outspending. Obama.
Aren't you a physician? Evidence-based medicine and all that? Surely you're not really unmoved by actual evidence?
Good, because my main evidence didn't go back farther than 2008. I added some older evidence because if I didn't, I expected you'd say that Republican overspending vs. Democrats was a recent phenomenon.Quote: SOOPOOI don’t care what about what happened in 1959.
Except all evidence says otherwise.Quote: SOOPOONOW, the Democrats are quite simply the ‘party of spend’.
Depending on the methodology, Republicans are either much worse than Democrats on spending and/or deficits, or certainly no worse than Dems. For example, in this chart a (D) president is on both the best and worst ends of the chart, and (R) presidents are overrepresented on the worst end.
(PFC)Partisan sources cherry-pick or massage the data to make their case. I'm interested in unbiased ones, of course.
“The thing that Trump was most perturbed about [is] me asking him to be my vice president,” Kanye said in one of the videos published on his recently-unlocked Twitter account on Thanksgiving night. “I think that was, like, lower on the list of things that caught him off guard.”
“It was the fact that I walked in with intelligence,” he says.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/kanye-ye-west-releases-bombshell-campaign-video-for-2024-presidential-election-talks-trump-kim-kardashian?via=twitter_page
Quote: MichaelBluejayAgain, the truth is exactly the opposite:Quote: SOOPOOThe large spending by ‘Trump’ was pushed by the Democrats and you KNOW it!
link to original post
"By a vote of 51-49, Senate Republicans passed a fiscal 2018 budget right along party lines, with every single Democrat voting against the budget framework, and all Republicans, save for one, voting for it....The measure is estimated to add $1.5 trillion to the deficit over 10 years." (ABC)
And then Democrats took the Senate and spending increased more (under the pandemic, as you note), but even PRE-DEM SENATE, the Republicans were completely outspending Obama. Completely. Outspending. Obama.
Aren't you a physician? Evidence-based medicine and all that? Surely you're not really unmoved by actual evidence?Good, because my main evidence didn't go back farther than 2008. I added some older evidence because if I didn't, I expected you'd say that Republican overspending vs. Democrats was a recent phenomenon.Quote: SOOPOOI don’t care what about what happened in 1959.
Except all evidence says otherwise.Quote: SOOPOONOW, the Democrats are quite simply the ‘party of spend’.
Depending on the methodology, Republicans are either much worse than Democrats on spending and/or deficits, or certainly no worse than Dems. For example, in this chart a (D) president is on both the best and worst ends of the chart, and (R) presidents are overrepresented on the worst end.
Partisan sources cherry-pick or massage the data to make their case. I'm interested in unbiased ones, of course.
link to original post
I’m interested in the present. There were multi trillion dollar bills that would have passed if Democrats unfettered. Blocked by Republican (and Manchin) intervention. FACTS.
I know you don’t believe that if the Democrats NOW controlled all 3 that they wouldn’t increase spending by trillions more. It’ is essentially their platform!
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: MichaelBluejayAgain, the truth is exactly the opposite:Quote: SOOPOOThe large spending by ‘Trump’ was pushed by the Democrats and you KNOW it!
link to original post
"By a vote of 51-49, Senate Republicans passed a fiscal 2018 budget right along party lines, with every single Democrat voting against the budget framework, and all Republicans, save for one, voting for it....The measure is estimated to add $1.5 trillion to the deficit over 10 years." (ABC)
And then Democrats took the Senate and spending increased more (under the pandemic, as you note), but even PRE-DEM SENATE, the Republicans were completely outspending Obama. Completely. Outspending. Obama.
Aren't you a physician? Evidence-based medicine and all that? Surely you're not really unmoved by actual evidence?Good, because my main evidence didn't go back farther than 2008. I added some older evidence because if I didn't, I expected you'd say that Republican overspending vs. Democrats was a recent phenomenon.Quote: SOOPOOI don’t care what about what happened in 1959.
Except all evidence says otherwise.Quote: SOOPOONOW, the Democrats are quite simply the ‘party of spend’.
Depending on the methodology, Republicans are either much worse than Democrats on spending and/or deficits, or certainly no worse than Dems. For example, in this chart a (D) president is on both the best and worst ends of the chart, and (R) presidents are overrepresented on the worst end.
Partisan sources cherry-pick or massage the data to make their case. I'm interested in unbiased ones, of course.
link to original post
I’m interested in the present. There were multi trillion dollar bills that would have passed if Democrats unfettered. Blocked by Republican (and Manchin) intervention. FACTS.
I know you don’t believe that if the Democrats NOW controlled all 3 that they wouldn’t increase spending by trillions more. It’ is essentially their platform!
link to original post
You still have to look at the return. For instance, someone can try to convince me it is cheaper to let infrastructure fail, rather than spend the money to keep it intact.
One party would rather give tax breaks than do anything that doesn't give an immediate benefit to their voter base. Not that both sides don't fail somewhat in that aspect. But I'd say it's a 70/30 split. And I know which way I favor the split.
Quote: SOOPOO
I’m interested in the present. There were multi trillion dollar bills that would have passed if Democrats unfettered. Blocked by Republican (and Manchin) intervention. FACTS.
I know you don’t believe that if the Democrats NOW controlled all 3 that they wouldn’t increase spending by trillions more. It’ is essentially their platform!
link to original post
"Would have...."
"If....."
"Blocked...."
So your conclusion that the Democrats are the "party of spend" is based on hypothetical situations that never happened??
Wow, that's got to be the ULTIMATE in cherry-picking. You're seriously going to ignore Every. Single. Former president and congress, and consider only the *current* president and current Congress?Quote: SOOPOOI’m interested in the present.
link to original post
But even that's disingenuous, because be honest: Did you only *suddenly* decide that "Democrats are the party of spend" with the current president and congress, or more likely, have you believed and said that "Democrats are the party of spend" for decades now? I'm guessing the latter.
The evidence is clear: historically, Dems have have generally *not* pushed deficits higher then Republicans, and often it's been the exact opposite. If you won't even acknowledge this then you're not being honest. And until you do, there's really no point in debating.
Quote: TigerWuQuote: SOOPOO
I’m interested in the present. There were multi trillion dollar bills that would have passed if Democrats unfettered. Blocked by Republican (and Manchin) intervention. FACTS.
I know you don’t believe that if the Democrats NOW controlled all 3 that they wouldn’t increase spending by trillions more. It’ is essentially their platform!
link to original post
"Would have...."
"If....."
"Blocked...."
So your conclusion that the Democrats are the "party of spend" is based on hypothetical situations that never happened??
link to original post
Yes. They 100% would have passed those gigantic spending bills if they could have. Of that there is NO doubt. If you can’t understand that there is no reason for me to keep this conversation going.
Rx has an answer which at least is based on the facts. He admits that the Dems were/are going to do this big spending, but feels (the infrastructure part) is worth it.
I am not saying we do or do not need or could use the stuff in the infrastructure bill. All I am saying is I would go about spending in a different way. First, I’d figure out how much we can reasonably collect in taxes and fees and whatever. THEN I would tailor my spending to match that.
If you want to do it the other way that’s ok too. Figure out what we need to spend and tax accordingly. If you believe in what the Dems ‘need’ to spend the tax revenue would need to go up by TRILLIONS.
You should see some of the provisions in the infrastructure bill that will ‘combat racism in highways’. Please spend less!
Quote: MichaelBluejayWow, that's got to be the ULTIMATE in cherry-picking. You're seriously going to ignore Every. Single. Former president and congress, and consider only the *current* president and current Congress?Quote: SOOPOOI’m interested in the present.
link to original post
But even that's disingenuous, because be honest: Did you only *suddenly* decide that "Democrats are the party of spend" with the current president and congress, or more likely, have you believed and said that "Democrats are the party of spend" for decades now? I'm guessing the latter.
The evidence is clear: historically, Dems have have generally *not* pushed deficits higher then Republicans, and often it's been the exact opposite. If you won't even acknowledge this then you're not being honest. And until you do, there's really no point in debating.
link to original post
Great. Since I won’t acknowledge that, feel free to not debate me because there is no point, as you say. I stand by my EASILY visible point. TODAY, the Democrats want to spend TRILLIONS more than the Republicans. FACT.
Why do I have the feeling you will still want to debate even though there ‘is no point’?
Quote: SOOPOO
Great. Since I won’t acknowledge that, feel free to not debate me because there is no point, as you say. I stand by my EASILY visible point. TODAY, the Democrats want to spend TRILLIONS more than the Republicans. FACT.
link to original post
They WANT to. But they haven't. Right?
So who has ACTUALLY spent more, in real dollars, in the real, non-hypothetical world? Democrats or Republicans?
Fine, I won't "debate", but I'd like to know which of the following is true about your positions, since they can't both be true:Quote: SOOPOOGreat. Since I won’t acknowledge that, feel free to not debate me because there is no point, as you say. I stand by my EASILY visible point. TODAY, the Democrats want to spend TRILLIONS more than the Republicans. FACT.
link to original post
(1) You only recently decide that "Dems are the party of spend" recently, based solely on the last budget vote, as you're trying to imply. (incredibly unlikely)
(2) You've actually felt that "Dems are the party of spend" for years, despite all available evidence (and rather than admitting that, you're bizarrely focusing on only the very last budget vote).
Which is it?
Quote: billryanIt seems what they do isn't as important as what they might do.
link to original post
I only vote for Democrats, because if I vote for Republicans they might come to my house and kick me in the crotch.
Quote: billryanIt seems what they do isn't as important as what they might do.
link to original post
Obviously. I vote for someone based on what I think they will do. Don’t you? Doesn’t everyone? ‘Might’ is always in play. No one person elected can guarantee that they will do anything. They can only vote for what they want to do if a bill is presented.
. The Dems have been the party of spend for quite a while. You do realize that there are other factors, like tax collections, like interest rates, like pandemics, that affect the deficit? The Democrats TODAY want to spend trillions more a year than we collect. That makes them the party of spend.Quote: MichaelBluejayFine, I won't "debate", but I'd like to know which of the following is true about your positions, since they can't both be true:Quote: SOOPOOGreat. Since I won’t acknowledge that, feel free to not debate me because there is no point, as you say. I stand by my EASILY visible point. TODAY, the Democrats want to spend TRILLIONS more than the Republicans. FACT.
link to original post
(1) You only recently decide that "Dems are the party of spend" recently, based solely on the last budget vote, as you're trying to imply. (incredibly unlikely)
(2) You've actually felt that "Dems are the party of spend" for years, despite all available evidence (and rather than admitting that, you're bizarrely focusing on only the very last budget vote).
Which is it?
link to original post
It’s really easy guys.
(And welcome back from your ‘debate’ hiatus)
How about this bet…. Give me 20-1 odds and I bet the Democrat nominee gets over 510 electoral votes in 2024
Quote: SOOPOOGive me 20-1 odds and I bet the Democrat nominee gets over 510 electoral votes in 2024
I would give you 100-1 that they don't get more than 538 electoral votes.
Quote: DRichQuote: SOOPOOGive me 20-1 odds and I bet the Democrat nominee gets over 510 electoral votes in 2024
I would give you 100-1 that they don't get more than 538 electoral votes.
link to original post
No thanks. I can see Trump running as an independent sucking 10-20% of the vote depending on what state we are talking about. And none of that vote would be people who would have voted for Biden.
BREAKING NEWS: Neo-Nazis and Other White Supremacists Launch Massive Nationwide Campaign to Leverage Elon Musk’s Ownership of Twitter to Deplatform the American Left
It turns out “freedom of speech” had nothing to do with far-right celebrations of Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter. While we already knew this, it’s terrifying to see how fast the far right is moving.
Nick Fuentes is a 'nightmare' for Trump in his 2024 battle with DeSantis: longtime advisor
Another potential 2024 GOP hopeful, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said on Friday the Fuentes scandal was disqualifying.
Christian fascist Nick Fuentes lays out his vision for America where contraception, fornication, homosexuality, and pornography are illegal and women can't go to school, or vote, and are burned at the stake for being witches: "We want to go back to the Middle Ages."
Nick Fuentes says the only hope for America is for there to be a "white uprising" that then disbands Congress and installs Trump as a dictator: "Elect Trump one more time and then stop having elections."
And again:Quote: SOOPOOThe Dems have been the party of spend for quite a while.
link to original post
"By a vote of 51-49, Senate Republicans passed a fiscal 2018 budget right along party lines, with every single Democrat voting against the budget framework, and all Republicans, save for one, voting for it....The measure is estimated to add $1.5 trillion to the deficit over 10 years." (ABC)
Won't ever acknowledge that, will you?
Quote: MichaelBluejayAnd again:Quote: SOOPOOThe Dems have been the party of spend for quite a while.
link to original post
"By a vote of 51-49, Senate Republicans passed a fiscal 2018 budget right along party lines, with every single Democrat voting against the budget framework, and all Republicans, save for one, voting for it....The measure is estimated to add $1.5 trillion to the deficit over 10 years." (ABC)
Won't ever acknowledge that, will you?
link to original post
The Dems obviously voted against it because it didn't raise the deficit enough. They are, after all, the party of spend.
Quote: billryanQuote: MichaelBluejayAnd again:Quote: SOOPOOThe Dems have been the party of spend for quite a while.
link to original post
"By a vote of 51-49, Senate Republicans passed a fiscal 2018 budget right along party lines, with every single Democrat voting against the budget framework, and all Republicans, save for one, voting for it....The measure is estimated to add $1.5 trillion to the deficit over 10 years." (ABC)
Won't ever acknowledge that, will you?
link to original post
The Dems obviously voted against it because it didn't raise the deficit enough. They are, after all, the party of spend.
link to original post
Do you folks ever stop misleading?
From the linked article: "The fiscal 2018 budget passed late-Thursday night is not a legally binding document, but it does serve as an outline of federal spending and revenues. It gives Congress some level of control over the appropriations process of how funds will be spent."
Please note that the supposed "budget" vote was NOT legally binding. So, nothing happened with the deficit. To my knowledge, there has been no real budget passed for years. Continuing resolutions have been the fiscal way to keep the government "operating."
tuttigym
Quote: ChumpChange
Christian fascist Nick Fuentes lays out his vision for America where contraception, fornication, homosexuality, and pornography are illegal and women can't go to school, or vote, and are burned at the stake for being witches: "We want to go back to the Middle Ages."
Nick Fuentes says the only hope for America is for there to be a "white uprising" that then disbands Congress and installs Trump as a dictator: "Elect Trump one more time and then stop having elections."
link to original post
LOL....
He knows there is zero chance of any of that even remotely happening. He's just one of those idiots yelling into the void to get attention from other idiots, and making money off of it. Oldest grift in the book.
Quote: TigerWuQuote: ChumpChange
Christian fascist Nick Fuentes lays out his vision for America where contraception, fornication, homosexuality, and pornography are illegal and women can't go to school, or vote, and are burned at the stake for being witches: "We want to go back to the Middle Ages."
Nick Fuentes says the only hope for America is for there to be a "white uprising" that then disbands Congress and installs Trump as a dictator: "Elect Trump one more time and then stop having elections."
link to original post
LOL....
He knows there is zero chance of any of that even remotely happening. He's just one of those idiots yelling into the void to get attention from other idiots, and making money off of it. Oldest grift in the book.
link to original post
Sadly, some people do believe this will happen. Over Thanksgiving dinner, several people expressed confidence that President trump would be taking office in the next few weeks and either appoint Kari Lake governor of Arizona or, at a minimum, order a new one-day-only election where only in-person voting counts.
I'm sure that more than one person there was making lists of who will be locked up when the storm comes. I suspect I'm pretty high on the list, but I have my faithful balrog on full alert.
