EXCEPT THE ENTIRE GOP AND THEIR TALKING HEADS THE LAST WEEK PLUS.

 

This is why everyone fights with you on this board, Greg.

"Zingers win elections". I mean come on. Even the example given is poor

By the zinger (not the semi-delicious snack cake) argument, Lloyd Bentsen vs. Dan Quayle should have given the Dems the 1988 election...

Trump is firmly in his own delusional rally, claiming once again that all of the polls show he won the second debate.

https://mobile.twitter.com/mattmfm/status/785803273982906368

Marriage as a social construct makes sense though, whatever name you decide to give that construct. It allows the government to tax households rather than individuals. It sets up an easy mechanism for group health insurance. It makes the process by which property transfers from a decedent's estate much simpler. It makes a simple mechanism for pooling and discharging debt. Not to mention the fact that the marriage industry is a multi-billion dollar industry which is good for the economy.

 

So, let me ask you this - do you have an issue with the government being involved in co-habitation? Do you have an issue with people who are not religious making civil commitments to one another? If the answer to both those questions is "no," then your issue is exclusively with the name that the state attaches to that contract.

I have an issue with any special benefits applied to committed one to one, one to many, many to many relationships that those on their own cannot have as well. Its favoritism and it's wrong.

http://people.com/politics/clinton-advisor...t-leaked-email/

 

Chelsea for President 2024 campaign not off to a roaring start.

King David had 500 concubines

http://people.com/politics/clinton-advisor...t-leaked-email/

 

Chelsea for President 2024 campaign not off to a roaring start.

 

Ha, I didn't like Chelsea when she had the job at NBC news for no reason. But the leaked emails has improved her image to me. Her Haiti email was brilliant and her internal push was I remove Doug band! I'd vote for her.

King David had 500 concubines

LOL.

Uh

 

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/...842546878578688

 

pretty sure this means his campaign is going Full Breitbart now

Edited October 11, 20169 yr by StrangeSox

They know he's going to lose so he's going to go down "swinging". The GOP then gets to distance themselves from him as he goes down in flames

Uh

 

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/...842546878578688

 

pretty sure this means his campaign is going Full Breitbart now

 

Good f***ing riddance.

They know he's going to lose so he's going to go down "swinging". The GOP then gets to distance themselves from him as he goes down in flames

 

It also helps him set up the "the system is rigged, I would have won if..." narrative.

I am concerned there will be violence against the reporters covering the rallies soon. It sounds like the crowds are becoming increasingly unhinged toward them.

Why I support Hillary Clinton:

 

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/201...hild-tax-credit

 

I wanted family and childcare to be the primary focus but I'd rather that be second place to this.

Trump going with the slavery imagery. Bold strategy, let's see if it pays off for him.

Why I support Hillary Clinton:

 

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/201...hild-tax-credit

 

I wanted family and childcare to be the primary focus but I'd rather that be second place to this.

 

That's difficult for me to understand without my morning coffee. Is that system "phasing out" people making over 70k/110k?

 

edit: and if you're lowering the credit to people who pay no income tax, aren't you effectively just paying people $1,000 per kid that they have?

Edited October 11, 20169 yr by JenksIsMyHero

That's difficult for me to understand without my morning coffee. Is that system "phasing out" people making over 70k/110k?

 

edit: and if you're lowering the credit to people who pay no income tax, aren't you effectively just paying people $1,000 per kid that they have?

 

It helps offset the costs of raising a child, but in no way does $1k make it 'profitable' to have a kid.

Edited October 11, 20169 yr by StrangeSox

It helps offset the costs of raising a child, but in no way does $1k make it 'profitable' to have a kid.

 

Profitable is relative. Someone making $3k a year isn't paying anything for their kids to begin with.

It helps offset the costs of raising a child, but in no way does $1k make it 'profitable' to have a kid.

 

It certainly isn't a disincentive.

This would help bring back a program that was removed in 90s. I understand if you disagree, but the generational effects of deep poverty are undeniable. This gives those kids more of a chance to move up. The deep poverty never gets discussed because these are those without jobs, but that in many cases due to mental health and other problems.

Also America needs to grow youth pop so eventually child benefits will occur

Actually I'm wrong it is different than 90s program.

I'm having a hard time believing that people who don't know the difference between dirty talk/crude language and sexual assault are actually this stupid.