TxHoops

Correct. He's a democrat because he's one of the most intelligent men in the world

I understand he's more of a burnt orange and white kind of kid. Don't be surprised to see 2 Silsbee kids playing for Shaka out of that class.

Honestly it would depend on much more than tax rates. And he would not pay a high tax rate under my theory but would pay a higher one the more successful he was. But how would being a republican make you more successful than me? Of course that alone does not determine someone's success. At least not monetarily. How the government operates does have a bearing as we both would acknowledge

He hasn't had a lot of looks yet because those mostly come from summer games. But most know of him already. All that will come. I also hear he will be cleared soon. Before it's said and done, he will have a ton of offers. And the way he has apparently grown, good grief.

No, I am saying it sure is ironic if you all are as correct as you think you are. But are you actually saying you believe there is no government influence on the stock market? Surely that was a typo or misstatement. I KNOW you aren't that naive.

Close. How could Gates, Buffett, and Jobs all be Democrats since we are all "libtards" and "morons"? (I am NOT quoting you there by the way.)

I actually thought you probably did. Thank you for the Steve Nash-like assist

I will wait on 2 things: 1.) an answer to my original question 2.) you to produce the name of a wealthier individual than Gates or Buffett on the right.

By the way, I didn't know that about your move down south. Very commendable indeed.

I also have confidence in Bill Gates (as well as the late Steve Jobs). Very smart men who, along with Warren Buffett, are among the wealthiest men in the history of this country. And I would hope you would concede that they are all more business savvy than you or me. Know what else they have in common? All Democrats However could that be???

It's not light reading but here is a report from the IMF after an economic study. Interesting findings for you "trickle-down economics" guys. Swear it's like watching Bart Simpson burn his finger on the stove, over and over... [Hidden Content]

Sooo, basically nothing I stated or posted was incorrect. Thank you all for playing

Sorry, I missed your question. Economically, you and I probably agree on more than you think. I am for responsible governmental spending and financial accountability. I am also very much in favor of a sliding scale taxation where the the wealthiest pay a far greater percentage than the poor. And I am for that despite the fact a flat tax would very much benefit me and my family personally.

The current administration (all Dems) and legislators (both Dem majorities) have governed to reduce the debt and deficit. Their once disastrous economy has also significantly rebounded. I assume your argument is that is in spite of their leaders, not because of it? I doubt very seriously your argument would be the same if the state was under other leadership...

I know that's tongue in cheek but I don't see how it could have hurt Trump. After all, Bernie's favorability ratings are consistently 15 points or more higher than the Donald's

More recent results from the lab from a solid financial source. Ball don't lie... [Hidden Content]

It happens from time to time but I also believe it to be very improper. Anyone would know who RBG is voting for so I don't know why she wouldn't simply decline to answer questions about any candidate. As I've said, it's happened before and it isn't expressly forbidden. But as the article notes, the problem it could create is the one of conflict of interest. And as litigious as the Donald is, I would say it is very possible that he might eventually have a case before the Court. And now, if that happens, she would most certainly have to recuse herself. In that court, it could make a difference in the outcome of such a case. Just a bad idea in general. But what can I say, you old folks have a problem holding your tongue at times

I guess for several reasons. He is a brilliant guy and a great "thinker." He has never been hemmed in according to party lines but I've always believed him to be a man of great conviction. He also happens to be, in my opinion, maybe the greatest political columnists of his time based upon his literary talent. Maybe it's a personal thing but I don't know that I've ever read one of his columns that didn't interest me. His writing seems to fit my eye. I discovered him as a boy when I read one of his baseball books. I've read him almost religiously since. And besides Nash, I don't have to often agree with someone to like them. After all, I've always liked you

I know this is somewhat old news but haven't seen it discussed. One of the most brilliant conservative minds in the GOP has had enough. I don't often agree with him but he's always been one of my favorite columnists, conservative or liberal. Trump calling Will a dummy is is like Gloria Steinam calling the Donald a feminist. He really is a little child. [Hidden Content]

Diversion noted

My apologies. Posted the wrong article. [Hidden Content] To be fair to Mr. Trump, very few billionaires in this world became so without playing fast and loose with the law. Maybe I'm cynical but to state Mr. Trump isn't a criminal (which I can only surmise to mean something other than a criminal conviction since Ms. Clinton hasn't been convicted of anything either) is naive at best.

I would argue that his presidency has merely exposed a divide that already existed in this country. Fortunately, that divide is dying off a little more each year...

Committing a crime = criminal. As far as inferences, I am not inferring anything that the great Senator Cruz from this State hasn't already inferred. But to provide examples: [Hidden Content]

I agree. You should bet me that the Trumpster will pull it out. A lot...