What If Biden Is Elected?

6. The deficit will get back to under 500 Billion where it was when Obama left office. Originally Posted by adav8s28

Well, pack your bags in anticipation of needing to leave.

on the day that Barack Obama was sworn in—January 20, 2009—the debt was $10.626 trillion. When he left the White House on January 20, 2017, it was $19.947 trillion.

https://www.debtconsolidation.com/us-debt-presidents/

So, Biden will increase the debt ....

C'mon gentlemen. Let's think. Will Biden pick a women? Still not sure.

The equation begins. Who to please? Old white women who still watch Sex and the city? Or the woman in the Seventies who made it on her own? Think headgear being flung in the air once you cross the street in your high heals until you learned that was stupid because your feet hurt so you switched to running shoes in 1982.

Where tf is the minimum wage not 10 dollars?

How much do you think someone who sits there and continually fucks up should be paid?

It's a mindless job that is easy. That's why it only pays 10 dollars an hour.

C'mon gentlemen. Let's think. Will Biden pick a women? Still not sure.

The equation begins. Who to please? Old white women who still watch Sex and the city? Or the woman in the Seventies who made it on her own? Think headgear being flung in the air once you cross the street in your high heals until you learned that was stupid because your feet hurt so you switched to running shoes in 1982.

















Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Who gives a shit who his running mate is. Nobody in their right mind should accept that offer. Besides Biden can't run his own life less the Country. Just accept the fact that the Democratic party just doesn't have the line up to pull it off.

Where tf is the minimum wage not 10 dollars?

How much do you think someone who sits there and continually fucks up should be paid?

It's a mindless job that is easy. That's why it only pays 10 dollars an hour. Originally Posted by yitzchak

well it used to be 3.00 per hour and they raised that up to 7 then to 10 then to 13 to 15.

What if Biden is elected? It will be like watching a combination of SNL and Weekend at Bernies.

C'mon gentlemen. Let's think. Will Biden pick a women? Still not sure.

The equation begins. Who to please? Old white women who still watch Sex and the city? Or the woman in the Seventies who made it on her own? Think headgear being flung in the air once you cross the street in your high heals until you learned that was stupid because your feet hurt so you switched to running shoes in 1982.























Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

What relevance is "sex and the city and tv of the 70's and '82 ???
typical - deflection from the issues

Does 9500 understand there are current issues ???
That the upcoming election is not about "Who to please" - but a choice of upholding the Constitution and "Equal protection for all under the rule of Law" - or a socialist free for all of "equality " for all - with burning cities and tv talking heads ignoring the socialist appropriation of all private property - except for that which belongs to the nomenklatura.

When posting from a Mom's basement - perhaps not so much.



BTW, Gorsuch was part of a 6-3 SC decision that discrimation against LGBTQ people at the Federal workplace is not acceptable.
Agreed - "Equal protection for all under the Rule of Law"!!! Uphold the Constitution - its' likely been along time since socialists even considered a thought such as that.

BTW, Gorsuch was part of a 6-3 SC decision that discrimation against LGBTQ people at the Federal workplace is not acceptable.
Agreed - "Equal protection for all under the Rule of Law"!!! Uphold the Constitution - its' likely been along time since socialists even considered a thought such as that. Originally Posted by oeb11

Have you read the decent by Alito?



https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/u...eme-court.html


Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., in a dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote that the majority had abandoned its judicial role.
“There is only one word for what the court has done today: legislation,” Justice Alito wrote. “The document that the court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive.”


It's the age old argument with Conservatives, Liberals simply don't care. I tend to agree with Alito, that this looks like legislation from the bench. If the legislature wanted to include "new standards" it should write a new law, not have a new law come from the bench.

“A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall,” he wrote. “The court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous.”
The common understanding of sex discrimination in 1964, Justice Alito wrote, was bias against women or men and did not encompass discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. If Congress wanted to protect gay and transgender workers, he wrote, it could pass a new law.


“Discrimination ‘because of sex’ was not understood as having anything to do with discrimination because of sexual orientation or transgender status” in 1964, he wrote. “Any such notion would have clashed in spectacular fashion with the societal norms of the day.”


Justice Alito added that the majority’s decision would have pernicious consequences.


He said the majority left open, for instance, questions about access to restrooms and locker rooms. “For women who have been victimized by sexual assault or abuse,” he wrote, “the experience of seeing an unclothed person with the anatomy of a male in a confined and sensitive location such as a bathroom or locker room can cause serious psychological harm.”


I've been making this argument ( bathrooms and looker rooms ) for years, another reason I tend to agree with Alito. I am not so much against the conclusion but I think it is the job of the legislature to write a new law and that is what that SC should have said, that while they agree with the sentiment, it is not the job of the court to write new law.

Nor did the majority address, he said, how its ruling would affect sports, college housing, religious employers, health care or free speech.
“After today’s decision,” Justice Alito wrote, “plaintiffs may claim that the failure to use their preferred pronoun violates one of the federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination.”


Another very big deal since teachers and others have been punished or dismissed from jobs for refusing to ask someone what their "preferred pronoun" is and if you don't use that pronoun in addressing them or speaking of them, you can be found guilty of violating the rules.

“Although the court does not want to think about the consequences of its decision, we will not be able to avoid those issues for long,” he wrote. “The entire federal judiciary will be mired for years in disputes about the reach of the court’s reasoning.”


Justice Gorsuch responded that the court’s ruling was narrow. “We do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms or anything else of the kind,” he wrote. “Whether other policies and practices might or might not qualify as unlawful discrimination or find justifications under other provisions of Title VII are questions for future cases, not these.”


But of course the left will see this ruling as definitive on those issues and Gorsuch should know that and if he understands that these questions will have to be addressed in the future, why not address them now in this ruling?

OK, OK . . .but what if Trump is NOT elected? Will Biden be a puppet with Pelosi, Schumer and AOC pulling his strings?

I do want to see the first presidential debate: I want to see Trump say, "I slit a sheet, a sheet I slit. Upon the silted sheet I sit". Then challenge Biden to say the same thing.

Sally sells sea shells, by the sea shore near sea shell city.

A skunk sat o a stump.
The stump said the skunk stunk.
The skunk said the wstump stunk.

OK, OK . . .but what if Trump is NOT elected? Will Biden be a puppet with Pelosi, Schumer and AOC pulling his strings?


Answered your own question - good sir!
Until Biden is 25th amendmented ousted as POTUS in favor of a radical socialist VP!

If Biden were President he would bow down to the left and defund the police force.

OK, OK . . .but what if Trump is NOT elected? Will Biden be a puppet with Pelosi, Schumer and AOC pulling his strings?

I do want to see the first presidential debate: I want to see Trump say, "I slit a sheet, a sheet I slit. Upon the silted sheet I sit". Then challenge Biden to say the same thing.

Sally sells sea shells, by the sea shore near sea shell city.

A skunk sat o a stump.
The stump said the skunk stunk.
The skunk said the wstump stunk. Originally Posted by ICU 812

This is the state if our union. We're, like, torn with guilt.

In this corner . . . we have the incumbent. The egomaniacal, orange laquer-faced dumbass embodiment of Reaganomics. Not Gordan Gekko. But Sal Lamander. Poisonously-brite red.



The challenger . . . . Another old, pervy white-guy losing his faculties and never signals left.














Two nitwits.

Great.

OK, OK . . .but what if Trump is NOT elected? Will Biden be a puppet with Pelosi, Schumer and AOC pulling his strings?

I do want to see the first presidential debate: I want to see Trump say, "I slit a sheet, a sheet I slit. Upon the silted sheet I sit". Then challenge Biden to say the same thing.

Sally sells sea shells, by the sea shore near sea shell city.

A skunk sat o a stump.
The stump said the skunk stunk.
The skunk said the wstump stunk. Originally Posted by ICU 812

I have my doubts the DNC will let Biden debate Trump. If he is so ahead in the polls and knowing his penchant for gaffes, why not just say "we don't feel the need to debate" and be done with it. I would think most of his supporters would agree with that and understand why he shouldn't debate.


But his supporters already know what a shit show ole Joe would be live and could care less how he performs.


It's going to be an interesting political moment in time.

https://www.debtconsolidation.com/us-debt-presidents/

So, Biden will increase the debt .... Originally Posted by LexusLover

LL, the Federal Budget deficit and the Total U.S. debt are TWO DIFFERENT things. I was talking about the Federal Budget Deficit. The accounting period starts in September, not January. When Obama left office in 2016 the deficit was 586 billion. He inherited from Bush43 a Trillion dollar deficit. Now your other Hero Trump is back to running Trillion dollar deficits. Trump is outspending Obama.

Slick Willie Clinton was the last president to have a surplus instead of a deficit and that was a small surplus. Unless you end of with a surplus condition you will always add to the total U.S. debt.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

LL, the Federal Budget deficit and the Total U.S. debt are TWO DIFFERENT things. Originally Posted by adav8s28

Yes, I know. And what's your point? Other than to attempt to look smarter than someone else. You're not!

Now, how about that "Federal Debt"? So....you believe the "Federal Debt" is unimportant in the short and long term?

Clinton-Gore tried that lie about their economy when they left office, and so has Obaminable-Bitten (and they still are doing so and even taking credit for the jobs increases)!