Politics Caitlyn Jenner for Gov!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
EL PRESIDENTE

EL PRESIDENTE

Username Retired in Honor of Lanny.
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
50,346
Likes
22,532
Points
113


If Richard Grennell isn't running, I may cast a vote for the Cait.
 
Jenner has hired former Trump campaign officials to run her campaign and the current Cali governor's ex-wife is dating Trump's son.

Shit is going to get ugly.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Jenner has hired former Trump campaign officials to run her campaign and the current Cali governor's ex-wife is dating Trump's son.

Shit is going to get ugly.
Click to expand...

Weird. Trump and his kind despises the LBGTQ community.
 
RR7 said:
From an article saying there wasn't negligence? Ok.
Click to expand...

If I ram into the back of your car, what exactly do you call that?

They said there wasn't sufficient evidence. That doesn't mean that there wasn't negligence. It means they didn't think they had enough to prove she was guilty in a court of law. You know who else got off, OJ Simpson. Doesn't mean they're not guilty.
 
Natebishop3 said:
If I ram into the back of your car, what exactly do you call that?

They said there wasn't sufficient evidence. That doesn't mean that there wasn't negligence. It means they didn't think they had enough to prove she was guilty in a court of law. You know who else got off, OJ Simpson. Doesn't mean they're not guilty.
Click to expand...

This debate again? If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!
 
BLAZINGGIANTS said:
This debate again? If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!
Click to expand...
4eafd619a95a59e9cd9b1173ccfabf61.jpg
 
Natebishop3 said:
If I ram into the back of your car, what exactly do you call that?

They said there wasn't sufficient evidence. That doesn't mean that there wasn't negligence. It means they didn't think they had enough to prove she was guilty in a court of law. You know who else got off, OJ Simpson. Doesn't mean they're not guilty.
Click to expand...
I ran into the back of someone's car sitting in a traffic jam and it wasn't my fault. Someone drove into me driving me into someone in front of me.
 
Lanny said:
I ran into the back of someone's car sitting in a traffic jam and it wasn't my fault. Someone drove into me driving me into someone in front of me.
Click to expand...
Would you say that the person who ran into you was negligent?
 
Natebishop3 said:
Would you say that the person who ran into you was negligent?
Click to expand...
The Oregon Basic Rule is "keep your call under control at all times" the person that ran into Lanny was at fault unless someone pushed him too.
 
It certainly can't get any worse for California than it's already been, can it?
 
MadeFromDust said:
It certainly can't get any worse for California than it's already been, can it?
Click to expand...

No, it can't. Big surpluses, one of the lowest infection rates in the nation and everything due to open up fully in a little over a month. Total disaster zone.

Sadly for Republicans, the timing of this recall worked out exactly wrong for them. It's going to happen when California will be in great shape economically and in terms of the virus. No one really believes that Newsom will actually lose a recall election.
 
I don't see how you can argue anything other than negligence if someone hits someone from behind, especially if it's hard enough to push them into oncoming traffic.

The only excuse is mechanical failure.

Otherwise it's one of only a few options.

Either you're going to fast to stop, or you're following too closely to stop, or you're not paying attention.
 
Minstrel said:
No, it can't. Big surpluses, one of the lowest infection rates in the nation and everything due to open up fully in a little over a month. Total disaster zone.

Sadly for Republicans, the timing of this recall worked out exactly wrong for them. It's going to happen when California will be in great shape economically and in terms of the virus. No one really believes that Newsom will actually lose a recall election.
Click to expand...

Big surpluses? Wut?
 
tlongII said:
Big surpluses? Wut?
Click to expand...

California Governor Gavin Newsom on Friday unveiled a $164.5 billion budget for the next fiscal year, detailing how he plans to spend a $15 billion surplus that the state has accumulated despite the pandemic-induced recession that’s left thousands of businesses shuttered and 1.5 million people still out of work.

Besides his already announced plans to allocate grants for small businesses, send $600 checks to low-income Californians, and help schools re-open more quickly, Newsom said the budget will spend a record amount for public education, dedicate $4.5 billion to help the state’s economy recover and pay down almost $10 billion in long-term liabilities. He said various savings accounts will total $22 billion, a record high. Cuts in state worker compensation may not be necessary, acccording to the budget.​

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-how-to-spend-surprise-windfall-in-a-pandemic

I know, you've been conditioned by Republican talking points to believe that California is a hellscape that's always in debt but, unfortunately for Republicans, that's not actually true. They tell you that because they want California to fail, not because it actually is failing.
 
Minstrel said:
California Governor Gavin Newsom on Friday unveiled a $164.5 billion budget for the next fiscal year, detailing how he plans to spend a $15 billion surplus that the state has accumulated despite the pandemic-induced recession that’s left thousands of businesses shuttered and 1.5 million people still out of work.

Besides his already announced plans to allocate grants for small businesses, send $600 checks to low-income Californians, and help schools re-open more quickly, Newsom said the budget will spend a record amount for public education, dedicate $4.5 billion to help the state’s economy recover and pay down almost $10 billion in long-term liabilities. He said various savings accounts will total $22 billion, a record high. Cuts in state worker compensation may not be necessary, acccording to the budget.​

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-how-to-spend-surprise-windfall-in-a-pandemic

I know, you've been conditioned by Republican talking points to believe that California is a hellscape that's always in debt but, unfortunately for Republicans, that's not actually true. They tell you that because they want California to fail, not because it actually is.
Click to expand...

As of 2019 California had an unfunded pension liability of $85.6 billion. How anyone can claim that California operates with a surplus is beyond my comprehension.
 
Minstrel said:
No, it can't. Big surpluses, one of the lowest infection rates in the nation and everything due to open up fully in a little over a month. Total disaster zone.

Sadly for Republicans, the timing of this recall worked out exactly wrong for them. It's going to happen when California will be in great shape economically and in terms of the virus. No one really believes that Newsom will actually lose a recall election.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the incredible governing is why California has a record low growth rate and has lost more people in recent years than some states have as an entire population.
 
Well I guess if you don’t intend to pay it you can claim that.
 
MadeFromDust said:
I'm sure the incredible governing is why California has a record low growth rate
Click to expand...

Right, record low growth rate except for all the states below them.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/fastest-growing-states

California is a very expensive state to live in, that much is certainly true. Despite that, they have a positive growth rate and they rise up the list, well into the top half, when you go by "Since 2010" instead of simply 2021 growth rate.
 
MadeFromDust said:
Interesting. It appears people can't leave blue states fast enough.
Click to expand...

More interesting: many of those "red states" are turning blue, like Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, even Texas.

It's a pretty well-understood dynamic--most of the states like California, New York, Massachusetts, etc, have sky high housing and rent costs because demand drove them up. Demand means people wanted to be there. It's caused people to start looking for more affordable areas out of necessity.
 
Minstrel said:
More interesting: many of those "red states" are turning blue, like Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, even Texas.

It's a pretty well-understood dynamic--most of the states like California, New York, Massachusetts, etc, have sky high housing and rent costs because demand drove them up. Demand means people wanted to be there. It's caused people to start looking for more affordable areas out of necessity.
Click to expand...
Because a lot of the people who are moving there are voting for the same policies that ruined the states they are fleeing from lol. Just like you saw the Florida sheriff the other day warning incoming residents about. Turns out people don't like paying exorbitant taxes while they watch their cities turn into a homeless shelter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top