Sally is struggling to keep up. She’s falling so fast!
Sally is struggling to keep up. She’s falling so fast!
Swing Voter wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Dude - seriously. "Bolshevicks" by definition means "majority!" That is what Bolhevicks means! I am repossessing your Russia card ASAP!
"Bolsheviks" ... there is no "c"
You have to admit that that is a hard word to spell.
Sally Vix wrote:
Swing Voter wrote:
"Bolsheviks" ... there is no "c"
You have to admit that that is a hard word to spell.
Try Mensheviks as well!
agip wrote:
racket not voting for the Dem in 2020 is just a vote for trump while trying to keep your conscience clear.
Well since that's literally not true, it basically comes down to however you want to define "is," and since we can move that definition back and forth on a continuum to suit almost any legitimate ethical framework you can conceive of, I see no reason to even bother arguing it except to point out that a more acceptable action, if one found both candidates equally appalling and bad for the country, would be to not vote at all, so I'll let you chew on that for a while.
Even as a russian troll she sucks. I know more about russia than her.
Sally Vix wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
You have to admit that that is a hard word to spell.
Try Mensheviks as well!
Bolsheviks is a derivative word. The actual Russian word for majority is большинство (transliteration bol'shinstvo).
Yes please don’t vote racket because you’re a trumper.
Sally Vix wrote:
People making more do save more but also spend more. And lower taxes allows wage earners to save more and also to spend more. Lower taxes all around allow for more spending and more boost to the economy. Yes?
Suppose there were some policy implemented that cut the average American's healthcare cost in half, thus putting in line with the rest of the world. What effect would that have on the economy?
Racket wrote:
agip wrote:
racket not voting for the Dem in 2020 is just a vote for trump while trying to keep your conscience clear.
Well since that's literally not true, it basically comes down to however you want to define "is," and since we can move that definition back and forth on a continuum to suit almost any legitimate ethical framework you can conceive of, I see no reason to even bother arguing it except to point out that a more acceptable action, if one found both candidates equally appalling and bad for the country, would be to not vote at all, so I'll let you chew on that for a while.
Here is a simple math version for you.
Trump gets 100 votes
Bernie gets 99 votes became Racket refused to vote for him or Trump.
Swing Voter wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Try Mensheviks as well!
Bolsheviks is a derivative word. The actual Russian word for majority is большинство (transliteration bol'shinstvo).
Thanks.
Well, ok then wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
People making more do save more but also spend more. And lower taxes allows wage earners to save more and also to spend more. Lower taxes all around allow for more spending and more boost to the economy. Yes?
Suppose there were some policy implemented that cut the average American's healthcare cost in half, thus putting in line with the rest of the world. What effect would that have on the economy?
The paper shufflers in the middle would have to find other work. Same as happened to many of the telemarketers when it became more difficult for them make money.
Well, ok then wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
People making more do save more but also spend more. And lower taxes allows wage earners to save more and also to spend more. Lower taxes all around allow for more spending and more boost to the economy. Yes?
Suppose there were some policy implemented that cut the average American's healthcare cost in half, thus putting in line with the rest of the world. What effect would that have on the economy?
Seriously? it would devastate the economy. If everyone's healthcare cost was cut in half, who is paying for that? Santa Claus? We Americans would be paying for that and it would cost TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS. Do you not understand how stuff like that works?
Sally Vix wrote:
Swing Voter wrote:
Bolsheviks is a derivative word. The actual Russian word for majority is большинство (transliteration bol'shinstvo).
Thanks.
Leave the grammar trolling off the forum. Thanks.
Swing Voter wrote:
Racket wrote:
Well since that's literally not true, it basically comes down to however you want to define "is," and since we can move that definition back and forth on a continuum to suit almost any legitimate ethical framework you can conceive of, I see no reason to even bother arguing it except to point out that a more acceptable action, if one found both candidates equally appalling and bad for the country, would be to not vote at all, so I'll let you chew on that for a while.
Here is a simple math version for you.
Trump gets 100 votes
Bernie gets 99 votes became Racket refused to vote for him or Trump.
Not sure what part of "literally not true" and "however you want to define 'is'" you don't understand but I'll assume that like 95% of the people on this thread you're just severely on the spectrum.
Isn't that right jesse!
Swing voter wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Thanks.
Leave the grammar trolling off the forum. Thanks.
If a senior in college is incapable of using punctuation marks correctly, that is not trolling . (did you see what I did there?) it is making the youngster more capable of handling the real world. Would you not agree? Or would you rather that youngster continue making egregious grammar errors as he or she embarks on his or her professional career?
Yes that’s how I organized five trans-continental races, ha ha.
Racket wrote:
Not sure what part of "literally not true" and "however you want to define 'is'" you don't understand but I'll assume that like 95% of the people on this thread you're just severely on the spectrum.
Isn't that right jesse!
Now you are grasping. You "literally" do not understand what removing something from one side while leaving the other side whole means. You cannot define that any other way except that the whole side is greater than the reduced side.
Racket wrote:
Swing Voter wrote:
Here is a simple math version for you.
Trump gets 100 votes
Bernie gets 99 votes became Racket refused to vote for him or Trump.
Not sure what part of "literally not true" and "however you want to define 'is'" you don't understand but I'll assume that like 95% of the people on this thread you're just severely on the spectrum.
Isn't that right jesse!
in a democracy not voting is unacceptable. It's our responsibility to choose our leaders.
Sally Vix wrote:
People making more do save more but also spend more. And lower taxes allows wage earners to save more and also to spend more. Lower taxes all around allow for more spending and more boost to the economy. Yes?
Your first statement is wrong because dollar-for-dollar they spend less.
If you had a million extra dollars handed to a few wealthy people, they would spend less of it than a million extra dollars spread among many low earners.
Sure lower taxes all around boost the economy, then you can follow that logic to say that zero taxes boosts it even more.
You can't have zero taxes because you have a tax revenue budget. So, the choice is where and how to get the needed taxes to pay the bills.
You can't have zero taxes for low earners and have the rich pay for everything because that won't generate enough tax revenue.
The economy before the tax cut for the rich and corporations was doing fine.
GDP was growing. Unemployment was going down. There was no call for this stimulus.
It just jacked up the deficit and took away a lever for any upcoming downturn.
It seemed pretty fiscally irresponsible to me. Trump is sticking the bill to the next gal.
Sally Vix wrote:
Swing voter wrote:
Leave the grammar trolling off the forum. Thanks.
If a senior in college is incapable of using punctuation marks correctly, that is not trolling . (did you see what I did there?
No comma is required in my post.