Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > > >

Politics version 7.0 more politics.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-23-2017, 06:39 PM   #5576
goofyballer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
goofyballer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 70,901
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by ogallalabob View Post
Sounds like you know nothing about either situation but some how came to the conclusion they are similar and the Ivanka situation is way worse.

Ivanka's name is not attached to the World Bank Fund.
It's so weird that she got credit both for proposing it and capitalizing on it, then!

And I never said the Ivanka situation was "way worse" - I just heard for aaaaaaaages before the election about the corrupt Clintons and the pay for play with their charity, which was really just a bunch of conspiratorial allegations, and now we see the Trumps engaging in the very same shady looking arrangements with the very same nations he previously criticized. Trump said Hillary's foundation should not have taken money from oppressive ME regimes, straight up, and now look what they're doing - Trump is heaping praise upon them, Ivanka is soliciting donations for the World Bank! It's beautiful to watch everything the right thought they were getting (from someone they thought wasn't a normal politician) get destroyed.
goofyballer is offline  
Old 05-23-2017, 08:42 PM   #5577
Deuces McKracken
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,838
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by bahbahmickey View Post
So you think it is established that people will work harder for less money than more money?.... interesting. So you think poor people work two jobs in attempt to make less money?
I'm saying that monetary incentive isn't linear. If you took a poor person working 2 full time 8/hr jobs and offered them the choice of:

1 full time 50/hr job or

2 full time 50/hr jobs

most would take the one job.

When you give people things it takes away from their incentive. That's a principle conservatives seem to be able to get behind in all cases except when it comes to the rich.

Generally speaking, it might be true that as long as it holds that there is a positive relationship between incentive and reward, lowering the reward increases effort. If we take money away from the rich but still maintain a system featuring a decent relationship between aggressive investing and returns, we could, at least from one angle, optimize their positive contribution to our economy. Of course, we can't let them just set up shop in another country to readjust the scale. We need to reverse that.
Deuces McKracken is offline  
Old 05-24-2017, 12:12 AM   #5578
mongidig
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,122
Re: President Trump

Major terror attack in England with the terror threat level at it's highest point. Yet, CNNs spotlight is on the Trump investigation. What is wrong with you people?
mongidig is offline  
Old 05-24-2017, 01:37 AM   #5579
dudeoflife
Pooh-Bah
 
dudeoflife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,526
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by mongidig View Post
Major terror attack in England with the terror threat level at it's highest point. Yet, CNNs spotlight is on the Trump investigation. What is wrong with you people?
Can't have 24-7 terror coverage. Gives the terrorist what they want. Sorry, daddy did some bad thing with russia and is going to get impeached.
dudeoflife is offline  
Old 05-24-2017, 01:50 AM   #5580
BroadwaySushy
banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: In a basket of deplorables
Posts: 3,237
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by dudeoflife View Post
Can't have 24-7 terror coverage. Gives the terrorist what they want. Sorry, daddy did some bad thing with russia and is going to get impeached.
So you know this for sure, do you dude?
BroadwaySushy is offline  
Old 05-24-2017, 02:05 AM   #5581
Abbaddabba
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,770
Re: President Trump

Betting lines seem to peg it around even money.
Abbaddabba is offline  
Old 05-24-2017, 02:21 AM   #5582
dudeoflife
Pooh-Bah
 
dudeoflife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,526
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadwaySushy View Post
So you know this for sure, do you dude?
The first part is not debatable. The second is, but I'm more optimistic than most. Yes I know we are dealing with GOP who has shown no willingness to stand up to trump. trump is acting more guilty every day.

If I were a better man, and I am, I wouldn't put on the guy who invited the Russians to Oval Office, gave them classified Intel, and told them hes glad he fired the nutjob FBI director and now the pressure is off him.
dudeoflife is offline  
Old 05-24-2017, 04:19 AM   #5583
BroadwaySushy
banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: In a basket of deplorables
Posts: 3,237
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by dudeoflife View Post
The first part is not debatable. The second is, but I'm more optimistic than most. Yes I know we are dealing with GOP who has shown no willingness to stand up to trump. trump is acting more guilty every day.

If I were a better man, and I am, I wouldn't put on the guy who invited the Russians to Oval Office, gave them classified Intel, and told them hes glad he fired the nutjob FBI director and now the pressure is off him.
False tell imo.
BroadwaySushy is offline  
Old 05-24-2017, 09:23 AM   #5584
bahbahmickey
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
bahbahmickey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: UTG-3
Posts: 13,302
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbaddabba View Post
I chose 20-->18 to illustrate the point. Those jumps are completely unrealistic though. In most cases there's NO pay jump, they just call up a couple of part timers and see who wants it (at the same wage). The details and the magnitude of their preferences matter. Each of those part time workers values the opportunity if they choose to take the job, but the strength of their preference is what defines the value of the job. They may be on the fence as to whether to spend their saturday working or spending time with the children / doing domestic work that has no clear market value. Those things don't show up on the general ledger but that doesn't mean that it has no value.

These are things that can't really be measured, but to the extent that the labor markets are efficient, the benefits will be right around nill. And by necessity in all cases it will be less than the cost of the labor. The question isn't does the consumption of a rich person make the world better off. It's - when a rich person consumes a luxury good, is 25% of the price tag just cost that gets flushed down the toilet, or is closer to 50%?
The actually numbers don't matter. There were for illustrative purposes. The point is that increases in sales leads to increases in the work force.

Complaining about how employers have the upper hand currently in the low skilled labor market to me? You are preaching to the choir my friend. I am as excited as you are that we have a president that isn't going to intentionally slow down the economy to help employers increase their negotiation power anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbaddabba View Post
Every modern society believes that. Even primitive societies believe that in as much as their religious communities work in tandem with their government, and there's often a lot of overlap.
No, not every society believes that. Many societies believe that taking some from the rich to give to the poor is a good thing. However, that doesn't mean they are right or it is good for economic growth. In fact I challenge you to find an economist who believes taking more than we currently are from the rich will benefit society or the economy long term.
bahbahmickey is offline  
Old 05-24-2017, 09:30 AM   #5585
bahbahmickey
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
bahbahmickey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: UTG-3
Posts: 13,302
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deuces McKracken View Post
When you give people things it takes away from their incentive. That's a principle conservatives seem to be able to get behind in all cases except when it comes to the rich.

Generally speaking, it might be true that as long as it holds that there is a positive relationship between incentive and reward, lowering the reward increases effort. If we take money away from the rich but still maintain a system featuring a decent relationship between aggressive investing and returns, we could, at least from one angle, optimize their positive contribution to our economy. Of course, we can't let them just set up shop in another country to readjust the scale. We need to reverse that.
I fail to see how lowering a reward increases peoples efforts to get such reward no matter if they are rich or poor.

What is the plan when rich people/ companies continue to move to other countries w/ lower taxes? (I don't expect you to have an answer as obama didn't either.)
bahbahmickey is offline  
Old 05-24-2017, 09:30 AM   #5586
mongidig
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,122
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by dudeoflife View Post
Can't have 24-7 terror coverage. Gives the terrorist what they want. Sorry, daddy did some bad thing with russia and is going to get impeached.
It's highly unlikely Trump will get impeached.

I'm in a win win situation. Either Trump doesn't get impeached or he does and Pence takes over which would be far worse for you people. I just rewatched the election night. I so love the devastated looks on the llibs faces. It gives me the chills.

The left is rooting for Trump to get impeached. The left is not intelligent enough to realize that it's better to keep him in office and hope he continues with his low approval rating. The only chance the Dems have of winning in 2020 is against Trump. This may not even happen if Trump follows through with the wall, tax reform, immigration reform etc.

Basically it's lose lose for you!

Last edited by mongidig; 05-24-2017 at 09:38 AM.
mongidig is offline  
Old 05-24-2017, 10:26 AM   #5587
TheMadcap
adept
 
TheMadcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 790
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by mongidig View Post
The left is rooting for Trump to get impeached. The left is not intelligent enough to realize that it's better to keep him in office and hope he continues with his low approval rating.
The level of cynicism in this is astounding.

Isn't it possible that some of these people care about things other than the next election? If Trump is the dangerous idiot that the left thinks he is, shouldn't they desperately want to get him out of office even if it means being hurt in 2020?
TheMadcap is offline  
Old 05-24-2017, 11:25 AM   #5588
mongidig
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,122
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMadcap View Post
The level of cynicism in this is astounding.

Isn't it possible that some of these people care about things other than the next election? If Trump is the dangerous idiot that the left thinks he is, shouldn't they desperately want to get him out of office even if it means being hurt in 2020?
Nope! It's all about getting back into power. They've been trying to sabotage Trump since before he took office. They want Trump to screw up. They would prefer for things to go bad for our country so they get back into power.
mongidig is offline  
Old 05-24-2017, 12:07 PM   #5589
TheMadcap
adept
 
TheMadcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 790
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by mongidig View Post
Nope! It's all about getting back into power. They've been trying to sabotage Trump since before he took office. They want Trump to screw up. They would prefer for things to go bad for our country so they get back into power.
They have been trying to remove him from office because they see him as legitimately mentally unfit to be president.

The problem isn't ideological like it is with Pence and it's not like they think he is just "dumb" in the way that they thought Bush was. They view trump as having serious mental deficiencies which makes it an unacceptable liability to have him remain in office.

If you offered liberals the option between Pence for the next 7 years or for Trump to finish out his term and they would be guaranteed a democrat in the White House for the next 4 years, the majority would snap accept Pence. (As terrible as they also think that he is)

Last edited by TheMadcap; 05-24-2017 at 12:18 PM.
TheMadcap is offline  
Old 05-24-2017, 01:35 PM   #5590
Abbaddabba
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,770
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by bahbahmickey View Post
The actually numbers don't matter. There were for illustrative purposes. The point is that increases in sales leads to increases in the work force.
If you follow the conversation back a few posts, that wasn't at all the point.

"What can a rich person do with his money if she is given a tax break that will not benefit the economy and therefore help the economy? "

My answer was consumption and i explained why only a fraction of consumption 'trickles down'. The jobs aren't worth anything close to the cost of producing luxury goods.

Quote:
Complaining about how employers have the upper hand currently in the low skilled labor market to me? You are preaching to the choir my friend. I am as excited as you are that we have a president that isn't going to intentionally slow down the economy to help employers increase their negotiation power anymore.
Clearly not anything close to what i said, has nothing to do with the discussion, and sounds like what you're suggesting isn't even internally consistent.

Quote:
No, not every society believes that. Many societies believe that taking some from the rich to give to the poor is a good thing. However, that doesn't mean they are right or it is good for economic growth. In fact I challenge you to find an economist who believes taking more than we currently are from the rich will benefit society or the economy long term.
a) Can you name ONE modern country that doesn't have a social safety net?

b) You won't find consensus from economists about what marginal income tax rates should be, partly because they disagree about data/estimates, but also because wrapped into that is dissent over HOW we should tax. What you would find in most cases they support lowering income taxes and significantly raising consumption taxes. The issue of how progressive you want these things to be holistically is a separate issue entirely.

Even still, if you want an example, there's the obvious choice of peter diamond (nobel prize winner in econ) and emmanuel saez who came up with rough estimates of what they thought the optimal top tax bracket should be given how the system currently works. A lot of people have written critiques estimating that it should be higher than it is now, but still lower than their estimate. And plenty of others are against any form of progressive tax whatsoever.

I don't know how you would have gotten the idea that there's broad consensus on the issue.
Abbaddabba is offline  
Old 05-24-2017, 01:54 PM   #5591
Huehuecoyotl
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Huehuecoyotl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: It's hard to get by on a smile
Posts: 29,293
Re: President Trump

Huehuecoyotl is offline  
Old 05-24-2017, 03:13 PM   #5592
bahbahmickey
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
bahbahmickey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: UTG-3
Posts: 13,302
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by mongidig View Post
I'm in a win win situation. Either Trump doesn't get impeached or he does and Pence takes over which would be far worse for you people. I just rewatched the election night. I so love the devastated looks on the llibs faces. It gives me the chills.
mongidig truly doing the Lords work here today.
bahbahmickey is offline  
Old 05-24-2017, 03:27 PM   #5593
bahbahmickey
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
bahbahmickey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: UTG-3
Posts: 13,302
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbaddabba View Post
My answer was consumption and i explained why only a fraction of consumption 'trickles down'. The jobs aren't worth anything close to the cost of producing luxury goods.
Why do you believe a poor person consuming the extra money is better for economic growth than a rich person using some on consumption but also some on sitting money at the bank, hiring someone else, investing in a small business or loaning the money out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbaddabba View Post
a) Can you name ONE modern country that doesn't have a social safety net?
No, not with doing some research and even then I don't think I'll find one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbaddabba View Post
b) You won't find consensus from economists about what marginal income tax rates should be, partly because they disagree about data/estimates, but also because wrapped into that is dissent over HOW we should tax. What you would find in most cases they support lowering income taxes and significantly raising consumption taxes. The issue of how progressive you want these things to be holistically is a separate issue entirely.

Even still, if you want an example, there's the obvious choice of peter diamond (nobel prize winner in econ) and emmanuel saez who came up with rough estimates of what they thought the optimal top tax bracket should be given how the system currently works. A lot of people have written critiques estimating that it should be higher than it is now, but still lower than their estimate. And plenty of others are against any form of progressive tax whatsoever.

I don't know how you would have gotten the idea that there's broad consensus on the issue.
I agree there won't be a consensus on the effects a tax cut will have just like there isn't a consensus on the effects of us going green on different projects will have. However, you won't find many who believe raising taxes higher and giving more money to the poor will help the economy grow. That isn't to say no safety net is best either.

I read a paragraph that diamond wrote about a top rate of 73%, but it just said that he thought that was the optimal number to maximize tax receipts. Unless I see where he said otherwise I don't think he believes a 73% top rate is optimal in any economy for growing the economy or what is best for society the economy long-term. I'm not sure if he is dumb, trying to get attention/gets funding from liberals and this is a good way to increase that funding or he is just misunderstood.
bahbahmickey is offline  
Old 05-24-2017, 03:39 PM   #5594
TiltedDonkey
veteran
 
TiltedDonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,977
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466 View Post
I have 17 thousand posts, and this website has a search function. I don't think it's hard to understand that having 20 questions a day thrown at me may be considered annoying, especially in rapid succession.

If you think I'm going to spend hours a day explianing my every thought to a new poster, you're nuts.
Lol no, how am I supposed to find your thesis on why Trump won using the search function? The keywords I would use for that will turn up a massive amount of posts.

I don't really care if you answer all my questions but if you have a grand thesis on Trump's election please share it.
TiltedDonkey is offline  
Old 05-24-2017, 03:50 PM   #5595
TiltedDonkey
veteran
 
TiltedDonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,977
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by mongidig View Post
Hillary Clinton would have been better for this country?
Yes, and it isn't close.

Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet View Post
The dangerous gas leaks are bad for the environment, but can also be more immediately dangerous.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...home-explosion

Coming down the pike there is legislation pushed by oil and gas companies (and conservative organizations like ALEC) to criminalize even monitoring for pollution. "Data trespassing" as the corporate overlords and their slimy lawyers call it can include photographing activities of polluters. This is reminiscent of the ag-gag laws which silenced Oprah Winfrey from talking about the beef industry. We are getting to the point where (and we're already there with trade law investor settlement dispute courts) even projected profits are considered corporate property and any interference with it will either be considered theft or terrorism.

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regio...c28197e2f.html

Digression I guess, but it's what you can expect from a Trump or Pence administration.
That's insane.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pokerodox View Post
I think you're asking do I support impeachment. No.

Re spending, I gave my reasons. You pay people to not work, they don't work. Also, taxes and spending are tied together. I believe that leaving money in private hands is good for everyone, including the poor.

No, not worried at all about Pence's religious views. What concerns you there?
I think religion is irrational, and while I have no problem with people practicing it in their personal lives I do not want it informing the policies of my government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pokerodox View Post
We don't have any evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor. Do you support impeachment? If so, why?

I mean there has to be an underlying crime. If firing Comey or talking to him about the Flynn investigation is a problem, the problem only exists if the firing or conversation was to cover up a crime. What is that crime? Not what you think there might be, but what we have proof of?

Maybe the FBI can continue to investigate. I would think so. Maybe we will need a special investigator. I don't know.
Yes, I support impeachment. I think there are any number of crimes that you could use to impeach him (obstruction of justice being the most obvious) but I don't even particularly care if he's committed it or not. I just think he is dangerously incompetent and I want him out of office. I would prefer his cabinet just removed him for being unfit for office. Would you support that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pokerodox View Post
Re entitlements, it's a balancing question. I look around and think we need less entitlements and less taxes. Do you think we need more entitlements? Why?

I don't want to go to zero, because I think it's a balance. Protecting the worst off in society is needed.
I would like to see healthcare as an entitlement and eventually a universal basic income. I don't think the work = living system is sustainable in a the long run unless a lot of people start doing a lot of pointless busy work, and you would need the government to pay for that as well.
TiltedDonkey is offline  
Old 05-24-2017, 04:10 PM   #5596
TiltedDonkey
veteran
 
TiltedDonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,977
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet View Post
Do you think the kind of people we are taking about are mostly hateful, fearful, ignorant or unintelligent?
All, but if I had to rank them I'd say:
1. Ignorant
2. Fearful
3. Hateful
4. Unintelligent

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deuces McKracken View Post
No they didn't. They chose an entity we can refer to as not Hillary. Had they chose Hillary the consequences would have been similar, just with different words to go along. She intended to ramp up fossil fuel consumption in her own way through support for fracking.

You're misplacing your hate for Trump voters away from where it should really be- the democrat party.
This is insane. Maybe the outcome with Hillary would've been similar in some very limited aspects but Hillary >>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>> Trump.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bahbahmickey View Post
I think the questions to ask ourselves are as follows.

What can a rich person do with his money if she is given a tax break that will not benefit the economy and therefore help the economy?
No, see, this is ldo not the correct question. The dollar is not being created from nothing, and the question to ask is

Will giving the dollar to the rich person help the economy more than giving it to the government?

Like, obviously if the choice is just give the dollar to the rich person vs. light the dollar on fire, then we should give it to the rich person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bahbahmickey View Post
Has there ever been a study done that showed giving someone less incentive to do something will make them more likely to do that activity?
I mean, it's fairly obvious that this will happen in some cases. If you raise my hourly wage to $1 billion per hour, do you think I will work more or less for the rest of my life than I would at my current wage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by samsonh View Post
Do you think the current low interest rates could be partially due to wealth inequality?
Not following this.. how does wealth inequality cause low interest rates?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bahbahmickey View Post
Why do you believe an extra dollar is better off in the hands of a poor person than a rich person? To date the avg. rich person has helped the economy more than the avg. poor person - why do you think that extra dollar will change this?
As usual this is practically in "not even wrong" territory but, um, the statement "To date the avg. rich person has helped the economy more than the avg. poor person" implies that a unit of time is better in the hands of a rich person vs. a poor person, not a unit of money. The money the rich person has is money that has been extracted from the economy as compensation for the value they've created

Quote:
Originally Posted by bahbahmickey View Post
Federal, state & local government makes up about 41% of US GDP so that leaves 59% split between corporations & individuals.

Poor people are more likely to spend an extra dollar than a rich person. Why does that matter?
Because consumer spending drives economic growth.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bahbahmickey View Post
What you, and most liberals, forget is that just because someone isn't spending money doesn't mean they aren't helping the economy.
Right, it doesn't mean they, as a person aren't helping the economy but it does mean that all of that money they aren't spending is having a lower impact on economic growth than it would if it were in the hands of someone who was spending it.
TiltedDonkey is offline  
Old 05-24-2017, 04:23 PM   #5597
TiltedDonkey
veteran
 
TiltedDonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,977
Re: President Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by bahbahmickey View Post
I was talking about your claim that society would somehow be better off taking extra money from the rich to give it to the government who would then distribute the money to the poor. I was wondering why you thought that.
Well, there would be less crime for one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bahbahmickey View Post
Where are rich people hoarding money where it hurts the economy?
In the bank.

Again, ldo, the money doesn't "hurt" the economy when it is stashed in the bank, it just helps it less than it would if it were spent.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bahbahmickey View Post
So you think it is established that people will work harder for less money than more money?.... interesting. So you think poor people work two jobs in attempt to make less money?
Yes, at some boundary points. Like, in any coherent theory of how much people will work given a certain hourly reward, there is going to be a sizable middle portion where work increases with hourly reward, as you would expect.

But!

There are, and this is fairly obvious imo, going to be regions on the far left (i.e. extremely low hourly rate) and far right (extremely high hourly rate) of this graph where work decreases with increasing hourly reward.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bahbahmickey View Post
The actually numbers don't matter. There were for illustrative purposes. The point is that increases in sales leads to increases in the work force.
Yeah, dude, this is an argument against all of the other things you said. Like, yes, this is why we want dollars in the hands of people who will spend them!

Quote:
Originally Posted by bahbahmickey View Post
Complaining about how employers have the upper hand currently in the low skilled labor market to me? You are preaching to the choir my friend. I am as excited as you are that we have a president that isn't going to intentionally slow down the economy to help employers increase their negotiation power anymore.
Lol, you literally think removing minimum wage laws decreases the negotiating leverage of employers.
TiltedDonkey is offline  
Old 05-24-2017, 05:09 PM   #5598
goofyballer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
goofyballer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 70,901
Re: President Trump

CBO finally scores Trumpcare, they think it would cause 23 million people to lose health insurance in the next 10 years. lol Trump, lol "we're gonna cover everyone", lol campaign promises
goofyballer is offline  
Old 05-24-2017, 06:01 PM   #5599
2OutsNoProb
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: BK, NY
Posts: 15,997
Re: President Trump

I'd imagine something like 12-13 million of those people are in states Trump won.
2OutsNoProb is offline  
Old 05-24-2017, 06:51 PM   #5600
formula72
veteran
 
formula72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,464
Re: President Trump

Us Patriots shouldn't have to pay for you people treat your liberalism. No Siree Bob.

Last edited by formula72; 05-24-2017 at 06:57 PM.
formula72 is offline  

 
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive