President Bernie Sanders

[deleted480308]

Your posts are mostly filled with a bunch of platitudes which have become religion for you rather than nuanced belief. “Government bad, government incompetent, government bloated etc etc” has become a slogan which people think becomes true just because they say it out loud. Is there waste? Sure. But once the overall idea has become some kind of assumed reality, it’s easy for others to come up with similar dumb ideas like taxation is theft or that rates on rich people are too low even though they’re already some of the lowest in the world. Never you mind that the US government is the largest employer employer in the world or that US government programs like SS and Medicare lift 30 million seniors out of poverty.

You can say that conservatives oppose frivolous spending and want fiscal responsibility, but have you taken a look at the deficit recently? How bout under GWB? The last time there was a budget surplus (excluding SS) was under a democratic president. You complain about the swamp, but you’re about to vote for literally the most corrupt, swampiest president the country has ever seen. But I give you credit for at least admitting that your trump vote is based on 2A, SCOTUS, and the fact that you’re also super pumped about saving a couple points on your marginal rate and capital gains.

It’s inaccurate to call most republican congressmen “conservative”, I share your disdain for their spending. We just seem to differ in that I don’t praise democrats for spending too much

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

Seriously, we both know what happens to surplus money in any govt agency if it's not spent. You get your budget cut the next year. Complaining about this is a reach.
Plenty of bigger issues to go after the Pres on.

Anyone else very struck by the irony that the Deep red states filled with the people who complain the most about wasteful government spending are the same ones who receive most of it?


View attachment 296739

Seriously, I didnt know, MN, IL, CA, and NY were deep red states. You are beginning to worry me. Cut back on the caffeine maybe?

 

[vector2]

Plenty of bigger issues to go after the Pres on. Seriously, I didnt know, MN, IL, CA, and NY were deep red states. You are beginning to worry me. Cut back on the caffeine maybe?

Lower balance of payment is better, chief. The red color on that map indicates states which produce more federal tax revenue than they take in (as one would expect with CA, IL, NY given the size of their economies), so yeah, you’re reading the map wrong. Maybe increase your caffeine intake?

 

[Angus Avagadro]

It’s inaccurate to call most republican congressmen “conservative”, I share your disdain for their spending. We just seem to differ in that I don’t praise democrats for spending too much

I share the disdain. Most in this thread are anesthesiologists
If a patient requires 1 unit of blood every 30 min to maintain their BP, they are on life support. Stop for 5 or 6 hrs and you have a dead patient. Why is our economy on life support? We take in record tax revenues every year, yet continue to sell treasuries to the Chinese to cover our massive spending. Our economy is a house of cards. Vote them out, balance the budget. Save the future for our grandchildren.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

Seriously, we both know what happens to surplus money in any govt agency if it's not spent. You get your budget cut the next year. Complaining about this is a reach.
Plenty of bigger issues to go after the Pres on. Seriously, I didnt know, MN, IL, CA, and NY were deep red states. You are beginning to worry me. Cut back on the caffeine maybe?

Lol. Hard to read small print on graph on my cell. New set of progressive lenses maybe, decaffeinated from LA ablation, so not increasing that.

 

[pgg]

Anyone else very struck by the irony that the Deep red states filled with the people who complain the most about wasteful government spending are the same ones who receive most of it?


View attachment 296739

This map, while both illustrative and amusing and accurate, is always used to further the argument that GOP voters are hypocrites or "voting against their own interest" ...

I guess I shouldn't fault it for that; to an extent every graph, chart, or map made to argue a political point is either crafted or used to a purpose.

I'm not arguing it's incorrect, but the implication of holding it up as evidence of something completely different (so-called "small government" rural GOP voters are hypocrites, lookit how hard they milk that federal cow!) always rubs me a bit wrong. It assumes that economics is the only thing that motivates those people. It's just as wrong as saying that liberals are primarily motivated by getting "free stuff" ... rhetorically it's low hanging fruit, and everyone likes an easily digestible one line barb. Such barbs make up 98% of print, TV, and online "news" after all. But the whole truth is simpler and a lot less interesting: rural poor Republicans vote GOP not because they are either blind or or stupid or hypocritically accepting government largess while decrying the social spending they benefit from. Rather, they care about other issues more, e.g. abortion, guns, religion, foreign policy where the Republican party really does walk a walk more consistent with their beliefs.

A charitable person might even compliment them for honestly speaking out against something they disagree with, even though it's benefiting them personally. But giving an opponent credit when there are points to be scored is a lot to ask.

Again I'm not saying that you or that map are wrong. The facts presented are true. But elections aren't about single issues. There's a much simpler explanation for their voting pattern, free of irony and hypocrisy, that is also true.

It's also worth noting that maps like these are always heavily shaded by population density patterns, and the "pattern" they are labeled with is frequently just an artifact of the urban/suburban split.

You could use a map just like this to further the argument that most consumers of furry pornography are New England and Chicago Democrats ... those sickos.

Credit to XKCD, of course.

 

[BLADEMDA]

This map, while both illustrative and amusing and accurate, is always used to further the argument that GOP voters are hypocrites or "voting against their own interest" ...

I guess I shouldn't fault it for that; to an extent every graph, chart, or map made to argue a political point is either crafted or used to a purpose.

I'm not arguing it's incorrect, but the implication of holding it up as evidence of something completely different (so-called "small government" rural GOP voters are hypocrites, lookit how hard they milk that federal cow!) always rubs me a bit wrong. It assumes that economics is the only thing that motivates those people. It's just as wrong as saying that liberals are primarily motivated by getting "free stuff" ... rhetorically it's low hanging fruit, and everyone likes an easily digestible one line barb. Such barbs make up 98% of print, TV, and online "news" after all. But the whole truth is simpler and a lot less interesting: rural poor Republicans vote GOP not because they are either blind or or stupid or hypocritically accepting government largess while decrying the social spending they benefit from. Rather, they care about other issues more, e.g. abortion, guns, religion, foreign policy where the Republican party really does walk a walk more consistent with their beliefs.

A charitable person might even compliment them for honestly speaking out against something they disagree with, even though it's benefiting them personally. But giving an opponent credit when there are points to be scored is a lot to ask.

Again I'm not saying that you or that map are wrong. The facts presented are true. But elections aren't about single issues. There's a much simpler explanation for their voting pattern, free of irony and hypocrisy, that is also true.

It's also worth noting that maps like these are always heavily shaded by population density patterns, and the "pattern" they are labeled with is frequently just an artifact of the urban/suburban split.

You could use a map just like this to further the argument that most consumers of furry pornography are New England and Chicago Democrats ... those sickos.

View attachment 296791

Credit to XKCD, of course.

I honestly didn't know what "furry pornography" was so I googled it. Wow.

Urban Dictionary: Furry Porn

Also known as yiff, furry porn is a popular porn category which depicts anthros or human/ultra humanoid animal characters. Generally it’s harmless and completely unrelated to zoophilia. Porn of non-human/anthro fictional animals is called feral porn. Furry porn is to feral porn as hentai is to...

www.urbandictionary.com

 

[vector2]

This map, while both illustrative and amusing and accurate, is always used to further the argument that GOP voters are hypocrites or "voting against their own interest" ...

I guess I shouldn't fault it for that; to an extent every graph, chart, or map made to argue a political point is either crafted or used to a purpose.

I'm not arguing it's incorrect, but the implication of holding it up as evidence of something completely different (so-called "small government" rural GOP voters are hypocrites, lookit how hard they milk that federal cow!) always rubs me a bit wrong. It assumes that economics is the only thing that motivates those people. It's just as wrong as saying that liberals are primarily motivated by getting "free stuff" ... rhetorically it's low hanging fruit, and everyone likes an easily digestible one line barb. Such barbs make up 98% of print, TV, and online "news" after all. But the whole truth is simpler and a lot less interesting: rural poor Republicans vote GOP not because they are either blind or or stupid or hypocritically accepting government largess while decrying the social spending they benefit from. Rather, they care about other issues more, e.g. abortion, guns, religion, foreign policy where the Republican party really does walk a walk more consistent with their beliefs.

A charitable person might even compliment them for honestly speaking out against something they disagree with, even though it's benefiting them personally. But giving an opponent credit when there are points to be scored is a lot to ask.

Again I'm not saying that you or that map are wrong. The facts presented are true. But elections aren't about single issues. There's a much simpler explanation for their voting pattern, free of irony and hypocrisy, that is also true.

It's also worth noting that maps like these are always heavily shaded by population density patterns, and the "pattern" they are labeled with is frequently just an artifact of the urban/suburban split.

You could use a map just like this to further the argument that most consumers of furry pornography are New England and Chicago Democrats ... those sickos.

View attachment 296791

Credit to XKCD, of course.

I'm not assuming that economics is the only issue that motivates these people (believe me, I've lived in deep red states for 30+ years), but that map makes a salient point which is relevant to the last 5 pages of the discussion which has been about economics, taxes, and the role of the federal government. It is quite possible to be hypocritical on one issue and still be consistent on the rest, and unfortunately that is the nature of a two party system where there are a large set of core principles already laid out.

Now, if most of the trumpists here would just downplay or never mention this "small government, cut spending, fight the debt" horsesht that they have never done but which they constantly harp about and use as retort, I probably wouldn't have as big of a problem or really need to call out the quiet hypocrisy.

 

[vector2]

Yes I remember the lady in the MAGA hat in 2016 who said on TV that she wanted the government to stay out of her Medicare.

Tea Party actually first made that beautiful line famous

 

[dhb]

VAT taxes are why the beer in Europe is mediocre and cant compare to our micro breweries

What?

 

[DirtDocMD]

I'm not assuming that economics is the only issue that motivates these people (believe me, I've lived in deep red states for 30+ years), but that map makes a salient point which is relevant to the last 5 pages of the discussion which has been about economics, taxes, and the role of the federal government. It is quite possible to be hypocritical on one issue and still be consistent on the rest, and unfortunately that is the nature of a two party system where there are a large set of core principles already laid out.

Now, if most of the trumpists here would just downplay or never mention this "small government, cut spending, fight the debt" horsesht that they have never done but which they constantly harp about and use as retort, I probably wouldn't have as big of a problem or really need to call out the quiet hypocrisy.

So Newt (who advised Trump) and the Republicans (in a spending bill/bills signed by Clinton), NEVER attempted to reduce the debt (and eliminated the deficit in 98/99)?? (And even 00/01)

Never?

Cough, cough,......Contract with America......

Just say they haven’t given a damn in almost 20 years, and we can finally agree on something...

Hope this helps:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/dec/16/newt-gingrich/newt-gingrich-repeats-claim-about-his-record-balan/-

 

[BLADEMDA]

I'm not assuming that economics is the only issue that motivates these people (believe me, I've lived in deep red states for 30+ years), but that map makes a salient point which is relevant to the last 5 pages of the discussion which has been about economics, taxes, and the role of the federal government. It is quite possible to be hypocritical on one issue and still be consistent on the rest, and unfortunately that is the nature of a two party system where there are a large set of core principles already laid out.

Now, if most of the trumpists here would just downplay or never mention this "small government, cut spending, fight the debt" horsesht that they have never done but which they constantly harp about and use as retort, I probably wouldn't have as big of a problem or really need to call out the quiet hypocrisy.

But, many of us do want a balanced budget and small government. The fact that our politicians continually let us down doesn’t change those beliefs. In the end we must choose between the 2 major parties.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

QUOTE="dhb, post: 21638039, member: 107125"]
What?
[/QUOTE]
It's TRUE, sadly. I found the beer in the UK, Switzerland and Germany to be rather ordinary. A VAT tax taxes every part of the brewing process from grower to your glass. To create a product equivalent to our micro breweries in Germany a glass of DIPA could be in the range of $20. My neighbors who travel to the EU for business confirm this. I have also discussed this with local brewers in our area. Some imported Belgian ales at our local retailers are $100 a case.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

QUOTE="dhb, post: 21638039, member: 107125"]
What?

It's TRUE, sadly. I found the beer in the UK, Switzerland and Germany to be rather ordinary. A VAT tax taxes every part of the brewing process from grower to your glass. To create a product equivalent to our micro breweries in Germany a glass of DIPA could be in the range of $20. My neighbors who travel to the EU for business confirm this. I have also discussed this with local brewers in our area. Some imported Belgian ales at our local retailers are $100 a case.
[/QUOTE]
Did you go to Germany and just drink Warsteiner?

Germany has great beer. Never tried a Swiss beer. Ambivalent about the UK.

 

[dhb]

It's TRUE, sadly. I found the beer in the UK, Switzerland and Germany to be rather ordinary. A VAT tax taxes every part of the brewing process from grower to your glass. To create a product equivalent to our micro breweries in Germany a glass of DIPA could be in the range of $20. My neighbors who travel to the EU for business confirm this. I have also discussed this with local brewers in our area. Some imported Belgian ales at our local retailers are $100 a case.

Did you go to Germany and just drink Warsteiner?

Germany has great beer. Never tried a Swiss beer. Ambivalent about the UK.
[/QUOTE]
Not all EU countries have a beer making tradition, from France southward wine is much more important than beer.
VAT can be deducted as a business expense.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

Did you go to Germany and just drink Warsteiner?

Germany has great beer. Never tried a Swiss beer. Ambivalent about the UK.

Not all EU countries have a beer making tradition, from France southward wine is much more important than beer.
VAT can be deducted as a business expense.
[/QUOTE]
I tried mostly ales and ipas in Germany and Switzerland and found them somewhat disappointing, just ok, The Guiness in Scotland is definitely better than we get in the states.

 

[GravelRider]

I tried mostly ales and ipas in Germany and Switzerland and found them somewhat disappointing, just ok, The Guiness in Scotland is definitely better than we get in the states.

You went to Scotland and drank bland Guinness and not whisky? Are you a communist?

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I tried mostly ales and ipas in Germany and Switzerland and found them somewhat disappointing, just ok, The Guiness in Scotland is definitely better than we get in the states.

There's your problem: Germany and the rest of that part of Europe are best known for their pilsners

 

[Angus Avagadro]

You went to Scotland and drank bland Guinness and not whisky? Are you a communist?

No, sampled some great scotch. In fact, I got singled out and interrogated and hand searched at the airport. I was wearing my camo backpack, usually packed in checked luggage. I didnt have room in my checked bag for the backpack AND the 2 bottles of scotch aged in port barrels I was bringing home. After I explained that to security, they immediately understood my reasoning and wished me safe travels. I agree, only a communist would go to Scotland and not drink nor bring home some good scotch! We're going back this summer.

 

[Goro]

You can say that conservatives oppose frivolous spending and want fiscal responsibility, but have you taken a look at the deficit recently? How bout under GWB? The last time there was a budget surplus (excluding SS) was under a democratic president. You complain about the swamp, but you’re about to vote for literally the most corrupt, swampiest president the country has ever seen.

More accurate to state that they are only concerned about waste, frivolous spending, want fiscal responsibility, and Big Gummint when Democrats are in the White House (who have a track record of knocking down the deficit since the 1990s.)

 

[caligas]

I’m not saying everyone has to agree not to vote for him, but can’t we all agree he’s a bozo?

The 31 wildest lines from Donald Trump's self-congratulatory coronavirus press conference

While many Americans were sitting down to dinner on Wednesday night, President Donald Trump stepped into the White House briefing room to give the country an update on the novel coronavirus and its spread across the globe. Trump delivered an opening statement and then took questions for almost...

news.google.com

 

[BLADEMDA]

Bozo vs Comrade Bernie. I’ll take the Bozo

 

[BLADEMDA]

FYI, I watched trump speak last night. It was typical trump at the 9th grade level. He is capitalist and self promoter.

He did admit he could lose the upcoming election. Bernie could be our next President. Now ask me, a Republican, which is worse long term to our economy Covid 19 or President Sanders with a Dem controlled Congress. I bet you know my answer.

 

[deleted941485]

FYI, I watched trump speak last night. It was typical trump at the 9th grade level. He is capitalist and self promoter.

He did admit he could lose the upcoming election. Bernie could be our next President. Now ask me, a Republican, which is worse long term to our economy Covid 19 or President Sanders with a Dem controlled Congress. I bet you know my answer.

Just the thought of being lectured to about the glorious health system in Cuba by a sympathizer President is really enough to make me pull the lever for orange man.

 

[deleted171991]

FYI, I watched trump speak last night. It was typical trump at the 4th grade level.

Fixed that for you.

 

[deleted126335]

Bozo vs Comrade Bernie. I’ll take the Bozo

 

[drmwvr]

There's your problem: Germany and the rest of that part of Europe are best known for their pilsners

Spaten lager is the best beer on the planet (not a pilsner, I know...)

 

[BLADEMDA]

Bozo vs the Bolshevik. Tough choice there for anyone who loves this country.

 

[deleted126335]

Bozo vs the Bolshevik. Tough choice there for anyone who loves this country.

Bozo is too kind a description. Bolshevik is accurate.

 

[ButterButter]

FYI, I watched trump speak last night. It was typical trump at the 9th grade level. He is capitalist and self promoter.

He did admit he could lose the upcoming election. Bernie could be our next President. Now ask me, a Republican, which is worse long term to our economy Covid 19 or President Sanders with a Dem controlled Congress. I bet you know my answer.

If Sanders wins the nomination, Dems will get hurt down ticket. There's no way Dems take the Senate regardless of how the House swings. Which essentially leaves Sanders struggling to pass anything substantive. Sure he can tinker here and there, but he won't pass tax hikes, most wall street reform and definitely won't be able to do s*** with M4A. Which would actually probably work out for his image with his base: still a tortured socialist being stifled by the establishment blablabla.

 

[pgg]

If Sanders wins the nomination, Dems will get hurt down ticket. There's no way Dems take the Senate regardless of how the House swings.

Agreed, but I'd argue they'll lose the House, too, in addition to not taking over the Senate. All those seats they picked up in 2018 to flip the House were, by definition, moderate or conservative seats. They won't keep them with Bernie Sanders at the top of the ticket.

There's a reason the DNC is panicking over Bernie Sanders. They're not stupid. They know the score. Faith and hope and dreams may sustain the young people at the Bernie rallies, but math is a cold cruel bastard.

 

[Lawpy]

Agreed, but I'd argue they'll lose the House, too, in addition to not taking over the Senate. All those seats they picked up in 2018 to flip the House were, by definition, moderate or conservative seats. They won't keep them with Bernie Sanders at the top of the ticket.

There's a reason the DNC is panicking over Bernie Sanders. They're not stupid. They know the score. Faith and hope and dreams may sustain the young people at the Bernie rallies, but math is a cold cruel bastard.

What if Sanders winning the nomination leads to Democratic takeover of House, Senate and presidency? The political climate is drastically different that it's unwise to follow polls or predictions. After all, polls failed to predict the Trump presidency!

 

[T-burglar]

Sanders would be a center right candidate in most social democracies in the world. Calling him a communist makes you look like a fool.

 

[deleted480308]

Sanders would be a center right candidate in most social democracies in the world. Calling him a communist makes you look like a fool.

Not as much a fool as voting for him (zinger!)

 

[pgg]

What if Sanders winning the nomination leads to Democratic takeover of House, Senate and presidency? The political climate is drastically different that it's unwise to follow polls or predictions. After all, polls failed to predict the Trump presidency!

No, that's objectively wrong. Polls did "predict" the Trump presidency. Fivethirtyeight's final prediction was a 29% chance of Trump winning. The notion that it was a huge poll failure and fluke is just wrong. 29% is about a third, not far off a coin toss.

The pollsters that were shocked mostly let conventional wisdom and their bias keep their thumb on the scale. And the social environment was such that admitting support for Trump was frowned upon. There's no similar parallel this time around to favor underestimating support for Bernie Sanders.

And even if you ascribe some kind of error to the polls, acknowledging error bars is not the same thing as saying all outcomes are equally likely.

But you're right, anything could happen. Six months ago nobody knew about the coronavirus; black swan events are a thing. Though I honestly don't think virus-related stock market woes alone will hurt Trump's chances; the people who single-issue vote based on the market aren't stupid enough to choose Sanders over Trump no matter what the market does in response to a pandemic. I think it'd take an actual, bona fide economic recession complete with massive job loss to burn Trump this year.


Again. The Democrats took over the House in 2018 largely on the strength of flipping a bunch of moderate and lightly conservative seats. It's absolute fantasy to think those are safe Democratic seats no matter who's running, but with Sanders at the top of the ticket ... bloodbath. There's a reason those Congresspeople and the DNC are freaking out about a Sanders nomination. They're not stupid. Polling errors probably still favor Trump, for all the same fundamental reasons they did in 2016.

Meanwhile, Democrats gonna keep on Democrating and finding new ways to lose. I don't know who'll be president next year, but I'm going to call one thing right now: Virginia will go for Trump this year. Yes, Virginia.

 

[deleted171991]

Meanwhile, Democrats gonna keep on Democrating and finding new ways to lose. I don't know who'll be president next year, but I'm going to call one thing right now: Virginia will go for Trump this year. Yes, Virginia.

Virginia likes being grabbed by the p---y. So do Dakota, Carolina and Georgia.
.

 

[Lawpy]

No, that's objectively wrong. Polls did "predict" the Trump presidency. Fivethirtyeight's final prediction was a 29% chance of Trump winning. The notion that it was a huge poll failure and fluke is just wrong. 29% is about a third, not far off a coin toss.

The pollsters that were shocked mostly let conventional wisdom and their bias keep their thumb on the scale. And the social environment was such that admitting support for Trump was frowned upon. There's no similar parallel this time around to favor underestimating support for Bernie Sanders.

And even if you ascribe some kind of error to the polls, acknowledging error bars is not the same thing as saying all outcomes are equally likely.

But you're right, anything could happen. Six months ago nobody knew about the coronavirus; black swan events are a thing. Though I honestly don't think virus-related stock market woes alone will hurt Trump's chances; the people who single-issue vote based on the market aren't stupid enough to choose Sanders over Trump no matter what the market does in response to a pandemic. I think it'd take an actual, bona fide economic recession complete with massive job loss to burn Trump this year.


Again. The Democrats took over the House in 2018 largely on the strength of flipping a bunch of moderate and lightly conservative seats. It's absolute fantasy to think those are safe Democratic seats no matter who's running, but with Sanders at the top of the ticket ... bloodbath. There's a reason those Congresspeople and the DNC are freaking out about a Sanders nomination. They're not stupid. Polling errors probably still favor Trump, for all the same fundamental reasons they did in 2016.

Meanwhile, Democrats gonna keep on Democrating and finding new ways to lose. I don't know who'll be president next year, but I'm going to call one thing right now: Virginia will go for Trump this year. Yes, Virginia.

What were the odds of Hillary winning?

Also I can't be that confident at all which is why i can't agree that Sanders winning necessarily means the Democrats will lose the House and Senate. It's completely unpredictable.

As a point of clarification, I backed Trump in 2016 and have no problems doing so again this year. That said, i can't be confident at all that Sanders winning the nomination dooms the Democrat chances. I feel there's a good possibility of Sanders completely subverting expectations and Democrats end up doing better than expected. Populist politics have completely upended conventional views.

 

[PikminOC]

Fixed that for you.

Yes that's the average person bin America. Our consents are supposed to be written for the average person, it's good the president speaks in way all people can understand. He's inclusive.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

What were the odds of Hillary winning?

Also I can't be that confident at all which is why i can't agree that Sanders winning necessarily means the Democrats will lose the House and Senate. It's completely unpredictable.

As a point of clarification, I backed Trump in 2016 and have no problems doing so again this year. That said, i can't be confident at all that Sanders winning the nomination dooms the Democrat chances. I feel there's a good possibility of Sanders completely subverting expectations and Democrats end up doing better than expected. Populist politics have completely upended conventional views.

If you look into it, bookies have a better track record at predicting elections than pollsters. I believe Hilary was getting 2 to 1 odds back then. London bookies took a bloodbath. I had to travel from the SW corner to the NW corner of my state,(Flyover country). About 5 hrs later, the only yards signs for Hilary I saw during my trip said Hilary for Prison. I felt Trump would win and my swing state did just that and went for Trump.

 

[PikminOC]

Agreed, but I'd argue they'll lose the House, too, in addition to not taking over the Senate. All those seats they picked up in 2018 to flip the House were, by definition, moderate or conservative seats. They won't keep them with Bernie Sanders at the top of the ticket.

There's a reason the DNC is panicking over Bernie Sanders. They're not stupid. They know the score. Faith and hope and dreams may sustain the young people at the Bernie rallies, but math is a cold cruel bastard.

Don't worry, superdelegates won't allow it so there will be a civil war.
And speaking of math, Bloomberg supposedly wanted Yang to be his VP?

 

[PikminOC]

Not sure what all the maps and graphs are you are all posting, but Illinois is doing terribly with all the promised pensions coming due. Lots of new taxes, and people leaving Illinois in droves. The ones with money are leaving. Even pritzker has a horse farm in Wisconsin he will flee to as soon as he's done with Illinois in shambles

 

[Angus Avagadro]

If that were true, people wouldn't bet their hard earned money just to lose. Polls viewed through the retrospcectivescope can provide useful information, but the only poll that really matters is the poll on election day. Polls lose their accuracy IMO as the media cherry picks which polls to promote to advance their ratings. Some outlets IMO also promote certain polls to suppress voter turnout, e.g., I'm not going out in the rain to vote, because So and So looks like they will lose anyway. Most Americans aren't political junkies like many on this thread.

Gamblers Are Surprisingly Accurate at Picking the Next President

Polls show a tight race for the White House, but betting sites have the odds firmly favoring Clinton.

www.kiplinger.com

 

[PikminOC]

If that were true, people wouldn't bet their hard earned money just to lose. Polls viewed through the retrospcectivescope can provide useful information, but the only poll that really matters is the poll on election day. Polls lose their accuracy IMO as the media cherry picks which polls to promote to advance their ratings. Some outlets IMO also promote certain polls to suppress voter turnout, e.g., I'm not going out in the rain to vote, because So and So looks like they will lose anyway. Most Americans aren't political junkies like many on this thread.

Gamblers Are Surprisingly Accurate at Picking the Next President

Polls show a tight race for the White House, but betting sites have the odds firmly favoring Clinton.

www.kiplinger.com

The only person I remember saying Trump would win was Ann Coulter. And she was mocked for it

 

[caligas]

Trump says the coronavirus is the Democrats' 'new hoax'

- President Trump says that Democrats are using the virulent coronavirus as a "hoax" to damage him and his administration. - "The Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus," he said from a campaign rally in North Charleston, South Carolina. "This is their new hoax." - The coronavirus, which...

news.google.com

OK trump voters explain how you could POSSIBLY support this guy?!?!

 

[BLADEMDA]

The math behind Bernie Sanders' $50 trillion vision
Analysis by Zachary B. Wolf and graphics by Curt Merrill, CNN

Updated 12:06 AM ET, Wed February 26, 2020

The math behind Bernie Sanders' $50 trillion vision

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has been remarkably consistent about his democratic socialist vision to remake the country. And he doesn't mind that it'll cost many, many trillions. With a T.

www.cnn.com

 

[BLADEMDA]

The Sixty Trillion Dollar Man
The price of Bernie Sanders’s agenda could be his biggest general-election weakness. But his rivals haven’t yet forced him to explain how he’d cover the full cost.

The Sixty Trillion Dollar Man

The price of Bernie Sanders’s agenda could be his biggest general-election weakness. But his rivals haven’t yet forced him to explain how he’d cover the full cost.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[AMEHigh]

Trump says the coronavirus is the Democrats' 'new hoax'

- President Trump says that Democrats are using the virulent coronavirus as a "hoax" to damage him and his administration. - "The Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus," he said from a campaign rally in North Charleston, South Carolina. "This is their new hoax." - The coronavirus, which...

news.google.com

OK trump voters explain how you could POSSIBLY support this guy?!?!

None of it matters. As long as their pay and wallets stay fat (or the promise of such) it literally does not matter what he says or does, it’ll be ignored and they’ll vote for him. I think the only thing that might possibly get some of them to change their mind is if he lost his mind and started being a vocal supporter of gun control and being pro choice. Otherwise nope, they’ll vote for him no matter what.

 

[deleted480308]

Trump says the coronavirus is the Democrats' 'new hoax'

- President Trump says that Democrats are using the virulent coronavirus as a "hoax" to damage him and his administration. - "The Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus," he said from a campaign rally in North Charleston, South Carolina. "This is their new hoax." - The coronavirus, which...

news.google.com

OK trump voters explain how you could POSSIBLY support this guy?!?!

I didn’t vote for him, but he is still better than socialism