B-Man Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 She's getting mad. He must have hit a button. It's usually pretty easy to tell..................
4merper4mer Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) Neither one will add to the national debt. Awesome. Not a penny. How about they boy agree to step down the instant a penny is added? You're all missing some very Cubsie stuff happening btw. Edited October 20, 2016 by 4merper4mer
Benjamin Franklin Posted October 20, 2016 Author Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) Entitlements. Good topic. Trump is a disaster on substance but he did OK in this debate. Trended to Greg Brady from Bobby. Hillary was her normal robotic self. Successfully pivoted a few times, which was too bad but that's her MO. All around, great topics. Wallace wins. Edited October 20, 2016 by Benjamin Franklin
Benjamin Franklin Posted October 20, 2016 Author Posted October 20, 2016 Shake hands...Predicting yes.
4merper4mer Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 Wallace wins. Landslide. Whenever his contract is up he will receive big offers.
B-Man Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 If you have an asset, it depreciates. That's not evidence of being a bad businessman. That's evidence of having assets. Math is hard for progressives. Next topic: Entitlements. I can preview this one for you before anyone says a word: They're both in denial, just like 90% of the country.
outsidethebox Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 She's such a nasty woman. LOL One thing I agree with.
B-Man Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 Wallace wins. He should be drafted to do all the debates...................and I'm only half-kidding
B-Man Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 Both candidates say without saying it: Kick the can down the road on entitlements!.................. "We need everybody to help make our country what it should be." -- Hillary Clinton.....(except those deplorable people of course) HRC has 1 answer for everything: Raise taxes on the wealthy.
Benjamin Franklin Posted October 20, 2016 Author Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) Shake hands...Predicting yes. Nope. He hung back behind the lectern and avoided going out when she approached Wallace. Awkward. "Nasty woman" and not accepting election results will be the news cycle tomorrow. He couldn't help being Trump but overall not the worst night for him. Not going to win the election for him though it might help stop the bloodletting. Clinton dodged on her weakest issues, of course. No major stumbles for her. Edited October 20, 2016 by Benjamin Franklin
4merper4mer Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 Wallace lost me at the end when he asked me to vote. My non-vote is meant to be a vote against the candidates and how they were selected by their ridiculous political parties, both of which need reform. While I agree that voting is a duty in a way, I think a massively low turnout would put the parties on notice that they are in danger. While I respect people's right to vote for either of these two or the 3rd parties and respect whatever decisions they make, I consider voting for one of these candidates because I like the other one less a dereliction of duty for me personally.
Benjamin Franklin Posted October 20, 2016 Author Posted October 20, 2016 Wallace lost me at the end when he asked me to vote. My non-vote is meant to be a vote against the candidates and how they were selected by their ridiculous political parties, both of which need reform. While I agree that voting is a duty in a way, I think a massively low turnout would put the parties on notice that they are in danger. While I respect people's right to vote for either of these two or the 3rd parties and respect whatever decisions they make, I consider voting for one of these candidates because I like the other one less a dereliction of duty for me personally. Parties don't care if you don't show up. They just care if their candidate wins. Not showing up is an indicator to a party that you don't matter in the next election and they need not talk to you.
GG Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 If you have an asset, it depreciates. That's not evidence of being a bad businessman. That's evidence of having assets.[/size] Math is hard for progressives.[/size] Next topic: Entitlements. I can preview this one for you before anyone says a word: They're both in denial, just like 90% of the country. If he's claiming that the $915 million tax deduction is a depreciation expense then he just admitted to tax fraud, because that wouldn't explain such a huge deduction.
outsidethebox Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 Nope. He hung back behind the lectern and avoided going out when she approached Wallace. Awkward. "Nasty woman" and not accepting election results will be the news cycle tomorrow. He couldn't help being Trump but overall not the worst night for him. Not going to win the election for him though it might help stop the bloodletting. Clinton dodged on her weakest issues, of course. No major stumbles for her. I cant believe I'm defending Trump, but he never said he won't accept the outcome. He would wait until it's over to respond.
DC Tom Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 Won't agree to accept the results of the election. Classless and trending to Deranged Rhino mode. Counterpoint: "Will you accept the results of the election if you lose?" is a loaded question to ask of the candidate trailing in the polls three weeks before the election.
Dorkington Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 Counterpoint: "Will you accept the results of the election if you lose?" is a loaded question to ask of the candidate trailing in the polls three weeks before the election. It only came up because he's been planting that seed rather loudly at his campaign events.
4merper4mer Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) Parties don't care if you don't show up. They just care if their candidate wins. Not showing up is an indicator to a party that you don't matter in the next election and they need not talk to you. Understood and I respect your thoughts. I think they feel the same way about 3rd party voters. The only way it'll matter is if the total number of absences/3rd party numbers get A LOT bigger and there is a perceived threat. They will notice a vacuum. And I don't care if they talk to me. I'd prefer they listen. Lol about that ever happening. The parties and almost all....not all but almost.....ceased being about the nation long ago. They are about themselves. If he's claiming that the $915 million tax deduction is a depreciation expense then he just admitted to tax fraud, because that wouldn't explain such a huge deduction.We know you love her and all but splitting heirs about types of deductions with things he may have said/meant seems speculative. I'm sure the Clinton foundation is on the up and up right? Edited October 20, 2016 by 4merper4mer
Recommended Posts