Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(09-20-2024, 06:00 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-19-2024, 10:38 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Do you even realize (and this is a sincere) that not a word of that was responsive to the question.  You just covered your ears and dove down the TDS rabbit hole.

An honest, objective answer to the original question should determine which one to vote for.

No, not really, because what we're voting on isn't whether Biden was better than Trump.  What we're voting on is what we want to happen in the future.  Do we want to continue to help Ukraine?  Do we want to cut taxes and for whom?  Which candidate believes climate change is a threat and deserves some effort to ameliorate the effects of it?  Which candidate will get control of the border?  What's the best thing to do about all these illegal aliens?   Do we want to impose massive tariffs on imports?  Which candidate will support NATO?  Not to mention, is one of the candidates too old?  Is one of the candidates mentally unbalanced?  Is one of the candidates too liberal?  

Whether Trump was better than Biden is a factor, but I'm not voting on that.  I'm voting on what I want to happen in the future.

Stroud's original question was presented in the past, rather than future tense.  Under which President were you better off?  Aren't you just using semantics to avoid giving Trump credit for anything?  Regardless, let's look at your questions.

UKRAINE - With a victory, will Putin be content or emboldened?  Does he want to restore the Soviet Union?  If so, who's next?
TAX CUTS - Great crowd-pleasing rhetoric when you're thumping the podium.  Who doesn't want to pay less in taxes?  What's the plan to make up the resulting budget shortfall? 
CLIMATE CHANGE - Again, good material for a campaign speech, but electric cars aren't a viable solution, so what's the plan?
CONTROL OF THE BORDER - Hasn't the AMA agreed that TDS can be formally diagnosed based on a patient's response to this single question?
ILLEGAL ALIENS - Deportation ASAP for all those with criminal records or who have committed crimes while here would be a good start.  Or would you prefer to hand out gift cards?
TARIFFS - How else will we ever begin to level the playing field and bring some manufacturing back home?  I don't want to be dependent on China forever, do you?
NATO - Some might question the underlying premise that NATO is still a relevant force.  
CANDIDATES - Too old - Yes, but unless you were saying that about Biden three months ago, it's a biased question.
                      Mentally unbalanced - See the response to CONTROL OF THE BORDER above.
                      Too liberal - Personally, I believe so.  For many, it's a mindless "Anyone but Trump", and nothing else matters.  Not a real smart way to make such an impactful decision.

(09-21-2024, 06:51 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2024, 06:00 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]No, not really, because what we're voting on isn't whether Biden was better than Trump.  What we're voting on is what we want to happen in the future.  Do we want to continue to help Ukraine?  Do we want to cut taxes and for whom?  Which candidate believes climate change is a threat and deserves some effort to ameliorate the effects of it?  Which candidate will get control of the border?  What's the best thing to do about all these illegal aliens?   Do we want to impose massive tariffs on imports?  Which candidate will support NATO?  Not to mention, is one of the candidates too old?  Is one of the candidates mentally unbalanced?  Is one of the candidates too liberal?  

Whether Trump was better than Biden is a factor, but I'm not voting on that.  I'm voting on what I want to happen in the future.

Stroud's original question was presented in the past, rather than future tense.  Under which President were you better off?  Aren't you just using semantics to avoid giving Trump credit for anything?  Regardless, let's look at your questions.

UKRAINE - With a victory, will Putin be content or emboldened?  Does he want to restore the Soviet Union?  If so, who's next?
TAX CUTS - Great crowd-pleasing rhetoric when you're thumping the podium.  Who doesn't want to pay less in taxes?  What's the plan to make up the resulting budget shortfall? 
CLIMATE CHANGE - Again, good material for a campaign speech, but electric cars aren't a viable solution, so what's the plan?
CONTROL OF THE BORDER - Hasn't the AMA agreed that TDS can be formally diagnosed based on a patient's response to this single question?
ILLEGAL ALIENS - Deportation ASAP for all those with criminal records or who have committed crimes while here would be a good start.  Or would you prefer to hand out gift cards?
TARIFFS - How else will we ever begin to level the playing field and bring some manufacturing back home?  I don't want to be dependent on China forever, do you?
NATO - Some might question the underlying premise that NATO is still a relevant force.  
CANDIDATES - Too old - Yes, but unless you were saying that about Biden three months ago, it's a biased question.
                      Mentally unbalanced - See the response to CONTROL OF THE BORDER above.
                      Too liberal - Personally, I believe so.  For many, it's a mindless "Anyone but Trump", and nothing else matters.  Not a real smart way to make such an impactful decision.

Under which President was I better off?  I already answered that.  Biden.  I was better off under George W Bush than I was under Bill Clinton.  I was better off under Obama than I was under Bush.  I was better off under Trump than I was under Obama.  And I am better off under Biden than I was under Trump.  That's why I previously answered, "I was better off under Biden than I was under Trump but that doesn't mean anything because things have always gotten better for me as time passes."  

I'll give Trump credit for cutting my taxes, although I don't believe that was the responsible thing to do.  

And by the way, I did say many times that Biden was too old.

If we had elected Gore in 2000, we still would have invaded Iraq by 2003.
If we had elected McCain in 2008, we still would have had massive new health care regulations and subsidies designed to get close to universal coverage.
But if we had elected Clinton in 2016, abortion would still be a right at the federal level, and no one would be talking about coups and election violence.
I really think the 2016 election was the only one that changed much in my lifetime. It had one impact I'll call positive and one very negative impact.

(09-21-2024, 07:15 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-21-2024, 06:51 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Stroud's original question was presented in the past, rather than future tense.  Under which President were you better off?  Aren't you just using semantics to avoid giving Trump credit for anything?  Regardless, let's look at your questions.

UKRAINE - With a victory, will Putin be content or emboldened?  Does he want to restore the Soviet Union?  If so, who's next?
TAX CUTS - Great crowd-pleasing rhetoric when you're thumping the podium.  Who doesn't want to pay less in taxes?  What's the plan to make up the resulting budget shortfall? 
CLIMATE CHANGE - Again, good material for a campaign speech, but electric cars aren't a viable solution, so what's the plan?
CONTROL OF THE BORDER - Hasn't the AMA agreed that TDS can be formally diagnosed based on a patient's response to this single question?
ILLEGAL ALIENS - Deportation ASAP for all those with criminal records or who have committed crimes while here would be a good start.  Or would you prefer to hand out gift cards?
TARIFFS - How else will we ever begin to level the playing field and bring some manufacturing back home?  I don't want to be dependent on China forever, do you?
NATO - Some might question the underlying premise that NATO is still a relevant force.  
CANDIDATES - Too old - Yes, but unless you were saying that about Biden three months ago, it's a biased question.
                      Mentally unbalanced - See the response to CONTROL OF THE BORDER above.
                      Too liberal - Personally, I believe so.  For many, it's a mindless "Anyone but Trump", and nothing else matters.  Not a real smart way to make such an impactful decision.

Under which President was I better off?  I already answered that.  Biden.  I was better off under George W Bush than I was under Bill Clinton.  I was better off under Obama than I was under Bush.  I was better off under Trump than I was under Obama.  And I am better off under Biden than I was under Trump.  That's why I previously answered, "I was better off under Biden than I was under Trump but that doesn't mean anything because things have always gotten better for me as time passes."  

I'll give Trump credit for cutting my taxes, although I don't believe that was the responsible thing to do.  

And by the way, I did say many times that Biden was too old.

Nobody believes anybody was better off under Harris administration. It's just not truthful.

(09-21-2024, 09:09 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-21-2024, 07:15 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Under which President was I better off?  I already answered that.  Biden.  I was better off under George W Bush than I was under Bill Clinton.  I was better off under Obama than I was under Bush.  I was better off under Trump than I was under Obama.  And I am better off under Biden than I was under Trump.  That's why I previously answered, "I was better off under Biden than I was under Trump but that doesn't mean anything because things have always gotten better for me as time passes."  

I'll give Trump credit for cutting my taxes, although I don't believe that was the responsible thing to do.  

And by the way, I did say many times that Biden was too old.

Nobody believes anybody was better off under Harris administration. It's just not truthful.

You really think there's nobody that could possibly be better off now than they were four years ago?  Think it through.  Is Jensen Huang better off now than he was four years ago, for example?

(09-21-2024, 10:12 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-21-2024, 09:09 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Nobody believes anybody was better off under Harris administration. It's just not truthful.

You really think there's nobody that could possibly be better off now than they were four years ago?  Think it through.  Is Jensen Huang better off now than he was four years ago, for example?

Yes, there are people better off now. They are the people that make above the 75th percentile, those in the 90th above have really cashed in and those with cash to invest at 5+%.  It is amazing the switch I have witnessed in these parties over the years. (I am an independent) The Democratic party has now become the "party of war" (Dick Cheney agrees) and the "party of the elite". This is the reverse of the 60's and 70's.

It works: reducing zoning restrictions makes houses of all types more affordable.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/real-es...rcna170857

Meanwhile, AOC is out there, as usual asking the right question but getting the wrong answer: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024...using-bill

Her plan is for the federal government to buy up existing properties, then sell them back to non-profit entities that will be covenanted to keep the rent "affordable". Basically introducing rent control to areas that don't have rent control, and making rent control more complicated in areas that do. Of course like most welfare programs, there will be lots of paperwork, people won't have a clear understanding of who qualifies and why, and once people get in the program they will actually be incentivized to keep their wages low so they can stay in the program.

Don't do that.
Just let the private sector build more homes.

(09-21-2024, 10:30 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]It works: reducing zoning restrictions makes houses of all types more affordable.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/real-es...rcna170857

Meanwhile, AOC is out there, as usual asking the right question but getting the wrong answer: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024...using-bill

Her plan is for the federal government to buy up existing properties, then sell them back to non-profit entities that will be covenanted to keep the rent "affordable".  Basically introducing rent control to areas that don't have rent control, and making rent control more complicated in areas that do. Of course like most welfare programs, there will be lots of paperwork, people won't have a clear understanding of who qualifies and why, and once people get in the program they will actually be incentivized to keep their wages low so they can stay in the program.

Don't do that.
Just let the private sector build more homes.

 Agreed. (I am circling this date in red lol)  The federal government is extremely inefficient at this type of stuff. Independent studies always come to the same conclusion. For every one dollar of good the government can accomplish with 2-10 dollars of tax money depending on what is being done. 

I remember one such project that created 35k jobs for people. At the end of the project it was found it cost 72k to create those jobs.  They can however, help the free market by reducing the regulations, permit and paper work requirement they have enacted. These were enacted by non elected federal agency officials.   The newest one is an energy regulation and should add 10k-30k cost onto new homes. This will further increase the value of existing homes as they are grandfathered. Welcome to the Swamp of lawmakers that nave never been elected!!

(09-21-2024, 10:30 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]It works: reducing zoning restrictions makes houses of all types more affordable.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/real-es...rcna170857

Meanwhile, AOC is out there, as usual asking the right question but getting the wrong answer: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024...using-bill

Her plan is for the federal government to buy up existing properties, then sell them back to non-profit entities that will be covenanted to keep the rent "affordable".  Basically introducing rent control to areas that don't have rent control, and making rent control more complicated in areas that do. Of course like most welfare programs, there will be lots of paperwork, people won't have a clear understanding of who qualifies and why, and once people get in the program they will actually be incentivized to keep their wages low so they can stay in the program.

Don't do that.
Just let the private sector build more homes.

And like all government subsidized housing, aka, housing projects, they will become a blight on the local area with high crime. AOC is not asking the right questions because her intentions are to socialize the housing market. She's an ignorant loon.

(09-21-2024, 10:30 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]It works: reducing zoning restrictions makes houses of all types more affordable.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/real-es...rcna170857

Meanwhile, AOC is out there, as usual asking the right question but getting the wrong answer: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024...using-bill

Her plan is for the federal government to buy up existing properties, then sell them back to non-profit entities that will be covenanted to keep the rent "affordable".  Basically introducing rent control to areas that don't have rent control, and making rent control more complicated in areas that do. Of course like most welfare programs, there will be lots of paperwork, people won't have a clear understanding of who qualifies and why, and once people get in the program they will actually be incentivized to keep their wages low so they can stay in the program.

Don't do that.
Just let the private sector build more homes.

Good thing there are 50k less people to house after she ran Amazon off.

AOC is an idiot and shouldn't be taken serious.

(09-21-2024, 10:54 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-21-2024, 10:30 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]It works: reducing zoning restrictions makes houses of all types more affordable.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/real-es...rcna170857

Meanwhile, AOC is out there, as usual asking the right question but getting the wrong answer: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024...using-bill

Her plan is for the federal government to buy up existing properties, then sell them back to non-profit entities that will be covenanted to keep the rent "affordable".  Basically introducing rent control to areas that don't have rent control, and making rent control more complicated in areas that do. Of course like most welfare programs, there will be lots of paperwork, people won't have a clear understanding of who qualifies and why, and once people get in the program they will actually be incentivized to keep their wages low so they can stay in the program.

Don't do that.
Just let the private sector build more homes.

Good thing there are 50k less people to house after she ran Amazon off.

AOC is an idiot and shouldn't be taken serious.

AOC was a bar tender in NY and republican before she was elected. She actually made me a drink once. She is a puppet that does as she is told. She has never represented her constituents, she represents the machine she is employed by.

(09-21-2024, 08:23 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]If we had elected Gore in 2000, we still would have invaded Iraq by 2003.
If we had elected McCain in 2008, we still would have had massive new health care regulations and subsidies designed to get close to universal coverage.
But if we had elected Clinton in 2016, abortion would still be a right at the federal level, and no one would be talking about coups and election violence.
I really think the 2016 election was the only one that changed much in my lifetime.  It had one impact I'll call positive and one very negative impact.

Well, don't keep us in suspense.....

(09-21-2024, 07:15 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-21-2024, 06:51 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Stroud's original question was presented in the past, rather than future tense.  Under which President were you better off?  Aren't you just using semantics to avoid giving Trump credit for anything?  Regardless, let's look at your questions.

UKRAINE - With a victory, will Putin be content or emboldened?  Does he want to restore the Soviet Union?  If so, who's next?
TAX CUTS - Great crowd-pleasing rhetoric when you're thumping the podium.  Who doesn't want to pay less in taxes?  What's the plan to make up the resulting budget shortfall? 
CLIMATE CHANGE - Again, good material for a campaign speech, but electric cars aren't a viable solution, so what's the plan?
CONTROL OF THE BORDER - Hasn't the AMA agreed that TDS can be formally diagnosed based on a patient's response to this single question?
ILLEGAL ALIENS - Deportation ASAP for all those with criminal records or who have committed crimes while here would be a good start.  Or would you prefer to hand out gift cards?
TARIFFS - How else will we ever begin to level the playing field and bring some manufacturing back home?  I don't want to be dependent on China forever, do you?
NATO - Some might question the underlying premise that NATO is still a relevant force.  
CANDIDATES - Too old - Yes, but unless you were saying that about Biden three months ago, it's a biased question.
                      Mentally unbalanced - See the response to CONTROL OF THE BORDER above.
                      Too liberal - Personally, I believe so.  For many, it's a mindless "Anyone but Trump", and nothing else matters.  Not a real smart way to make such an impactful decision.

Under which President was I better off?  I already answered that.  Biden.  I was better off under George W Bush than I was under Bill Clinton.  I was better off under Obama than I was under Bush.  I was better off under Trump than I was under Obama.  And I am better off under Biden than I was under Trump.  That's why I previously answered, "I was better off under Biden than I was under Trump but that doesn't mean anything because things have always gotten better for me as time passes."  

I'll give Trump credit for cutting my taxes, although I don't believe that was the responsible thing to do.  

And by the way, I did say many times that Biden was too old.

You're not really responding to the spirit of Stroud's original question.  Financial position is only one aspect of life and there obviously can be a world of range between any given individuals.  His position (with which I agree) is the country as a whole was better off under Trump.  Do you believe the general population, especially those in lower income levels are better off financially under Biden?

Now what about some of the other things that affect quality of life.  Are store owners dealing with rampant shoplifting better off?  How about the restaurant committed to a ten-year lease with a new homeless encampment next door?  How's the Democratic border policy and "Defund the police" movement working out for them?

(09-22-2024, 10:08 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-21-2024, 08:23 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]If we had elected Gore in 2000, we still would have invaded Iraq by 2003.
If we had elected McCain in 2008, we still would have had massive new health care regulations and subsidies designed to get close to universal coverage.
But if we had elected Clinton in 2016, abortion would still be a right at the federal level, and no one would be talking about coups and election violence.
I really think the 2016 election was the only one that changed much in my lifetime.  It had one impact I'll call positive and one very negative impact.

Well, don't keep us in suspense.....

Obviously allowing states to ban abortion is a positive for me, and election violence is a negative.

(09-21-2024, 10:54 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-21-2024, 10:30 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]It works: reducing zoning restrictions makes houses of all types more affordable.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/real-es...rcna170857

Meanwhile, AOC is out there, as usual asking the right question but getting the wrong answer: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024...using-bill

Her plan is for the federal government to buy up existing properties, then sell them back to non-profit entities that will be covenanted to keep the rent "affordable".  Basically introducing rent control to areas that don't have rent control, and making rent control more complicated in areas that do. Of course like most welfare programs, there will be lots of paperwork, people won't have a clear understanding of who qualifies and why, and once people get in the program they will actually be incentivized to keep their wages low so they can stay in the program.

Don't do that.
Just let the private sector build more homes.

Good thing there are 50k less people to house after she ran Amazon off.

AOC is an idiot and shouldn't be taken serious.

Exactly, AOC is a bafoon

(09-22-2024, 12:16 PM)OG-JAGFAN Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-21-2024, 10:54 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Good thing there are 50k less people to house after she ran Amazon off.

AOC is an idiot and shouldn't be taken serious.

Exactly, AOC is a bafoon

She's a liberal disease.. A virus..

(09-22-2024, 12:16 PM)OG-JAGFAN Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-21-2024, 10:54 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Good thing there are 50k less people to house after she ran Amazon off.

AOC is an idiot and shouldn't be taken serious.

Exactly, AOC is a bafoon

B-u-f-f-o-o-n.  Buffoon.

(09-22-2024, 10:40 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-21-2024, 07:15 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Under which President was I better off?  I already answered that.  Biden.  I was better off under George W Bush than I was under Bill Clinton.  I was better off under Obama than I was under Bush.  I was better off under Trump than I was under Obama.  And I am better off under Biden than I was under Trump.  That's why I previously answered, "I was better off under Biden than I was under Trump but that doesn't mean anything because things have always gotten better for me as time passes."  

I'll give Trump credit for cutting my taxes, although I don't believe that was the responsible thing to do.  

And by the way, I did say many times that Biden was too old.

You're not really responding to the spirit of Stroud's original question.  Financial position is only one aspect of life and there obviously can be a world of range between any given individuals.  His position (with which I agree) is the country as a whole was better off under Trump.  Do you believe the general population, especially those in lower income levels are better off financially under Biden?

Now what about some of the other things that affect quality of life.  Are store owners dealing with rampant shoplifting better off?  How about the restaurant committed to a ten-year lease with a new homeless encampment next door?  How's the Democratic border policy and "Defund the police" movement working out for them?

If you want to ask me whether the country was better off under Trump than under Biden, I would say no.  I think Trump's allegation that the 2020 election was stolen, and his leading millions of people into that belief, did enormous damage to the country.

(09-22-2024, 12:58 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-22-2024, 12:16 PM)OG-JAGFAN Wrote: [ -> ]Exactly, AOC is a bafoon

B-u-f-f-o-o-n.  Buffoon.

Tomato tamoto

---

(09-22-2024, 01:11 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-22-2024, 10:40 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]You're not really responding to the spirit of Stroud's original question.  Financial position is only one aspect of life and there obviously can be a world of range between any given individuals.  His position (with which I agree) is the country as a whole was better off under Trump.  Do you believe the general population, especially those in lower income levels are better off financially under Biden?

Now what about some of the other things that affect quality of life.  Are store owners dealing with rampant shoplifting better off?  How about the restaurant committed to a ten-year lease with a new homeless encampment next door?  How's the Democratic border policy and "Defund the police" movement working out for them?

If you want to ask me whether the country was better off under Trump than under Biden, I would say no.  I think Trump's allegation that the 2020 election was stolen, and his leading millions of people into that belief, did enormous damage to the country.

God you liberals have your priorities so messed up.

In your mind : Trump claims about the 2020 election >border >economy > crime > how world leaders see us > law and order > putting Americans first

(09-22-2024, 06:26 PM)OG-JAGFAN Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-22-2024, 12:58 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]B-u-f-f-o-o-n.  Buffoon.

Tomato tamoto

---

(09-22-2024, 01:11 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]If you want to ask me whether the country was better off under Trump than under Biden, I would say no.  I think Trump's allegation that the 2020 election was stolen, and his leading millions of people into that belief, did enormous damage to the country.

God you liberals have your priorities so messed up.

In your mind : Trump claims about the 2020 election >border >economy > crime > how world leaders see us > law and order > putting Americans first

If you can't vote and have your vote counted, you have no ability to peacefully influence how the government handles the border, economy, crime, how world leaders see us, law and order, or putting Americans first. The ballot is a sine qua non, just like guns and free speech.