Irvinecommuter
New member
morekaos said:49th district will elect another Republican so even steven.
Yeah cause Issa won by a huge landslide in 2016.
morekaos said:49th district will elect another Republican so even steven.
Liar Loan said:fortune11 said:The current Democratic Party in CA is somewhat farther left compared to the 90s and 00s, but there are some reformers in there . Nonetheless given the choice between these Dems and the GOP ers who want to raise Federal taxes on the very people they represent, I would rather choose the Dems.
The GOP just lowered taxes less than a month ago and Dems did not support it, preferring the higher taxes instead. You're entitled to your own opinion, but the math is irrefutable.
fortune11 said:Liar Loan said:fortune11 said:The current Democratic Party in CA is somewhat farther left compared to the 90s and 00s, but there are some reformers in there . Nonetheless given the choice between these Dems and the GOP ers who want to raise Federal taxes on the very people they represent, I would rather choose the Dems.
The GOP just lowered taxes less than a month ago and Dems did not support it, preferring the higher taxes instead. You're entitled to your own opinion, but the math is irrefutable.
what taxes lowered ? maybe on you if you are a real estate related business like trump . most w-2 wage earning homeowners are not seeing a big tax cut esp w those deductions capped now.
dont tout "math is irrefutable " . the biggest tax cuts are for large corporations and large shareholders . it is mentality like this that has turned CA hard left and left no viable opposition to keep the hard left Dems in check .
Atleast this good for nothing else party (GOP) was good for lowering personal taxes (like what Bush did in 2003) . When they cant even manage that properly , I and a vast majority of Californians have zero use for them . The wave sweeping this state in 2018 will make the GOP truly extinct in the largest state and the largest economy in the country. And thats actually a sad thing in my opinion. I truly want a good viable , sensible opposition for any situation.
morekaos said:Super high income Cali and New York residents. They are getting nailed but ironically they have been asking to have their taxes raised for years (mostly in entertainment). Told them they got their wish.
USCTrojanCPA said:I wouldn't mind my taxes going up if it meant better streets/wider freeways, additional municipal/state services, and/or other tangible community benefits. But I'm sure as hell not getting to folk over more of my hard earned money to help fill a bottomless blackhole of future pension obligations for a bunch of state/municipal gov't worker desk jockeys who gamed the pension system walking away with 6 figure pension annual payments for life.
WHAT IS NEW CALIFORNIA? RURAL COUNTIES WANT INDEPENDENCE FROM 'TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT'
Robert Paul Preston dreams of splitting California in two to create the nation's sixth largest state?topping New York in population. It would be called New California, and it wouldn't be liberal-friendly.
Preston, a Yuba City native in Northern California, wants to create the nation's 51st state because he believes the rural counties of California are underrepresented by the state legislature in a fundamentally unfixable way. His proposed state would give greater representation to California's rural areas, as opposed to urban and more left-wing coast that Preston said represents bonds of tyranny.
The idea is virtually guaranteed to fail. All citizen-led efforts to split or secede one state from the United States have fallen short in modern U.S. history. Despite being mostly symbolic, Preston said the idea is gaining popularity among Californians who are critical of the state's Democratic leadership?the current state is a Democratic stronghold with the party holding 80 of the state's 120 legislative seats.
![]()
http://www.newsweek.com/new-california-split-rural-tyranny-urban-liberal-783117[/quote]
Significant structural advantages have also favored Democrats since 1992. The party?s candidate has carried 18 states plus the District of Columbia ? totaling 242 electoral votes ? in every election since 1992. Now New Mexico and its five electoral votes, which Bush won in 2004, are considered safely Democratic. If those states remain solid for Clinton, that leaves her only 23 votes short of the 270 necessary for victory.
Demographic trends since 1992 only reinforce this advantage for Democrats.
Liar Loan said:From the WaPo article:
Significant structural advantages have also favored Democrats since 1992. The party?s candidate has carried 18 states plus the District of Columbia ? totaling 242 electoral votes ? in every election since 1992. Now New Mexico and its five electoral votes, which Bush won in 2004, are considered safely Democratic. If those states remain solid for Clinton, that leaves her only 23 votes short of the 270 necessary for victory.
Demographic trends since 1992 only reinforce this advantage for Democrats.
Where have I heard that before?
Wisconsin was so safe that Clinton didn't even bother to campaign there, opting to waste resources in unwinnable states like Arizona; Another example of "the most qualified candidate ever" making boneheaded decisions.
Irvinecommuter said:Liar Loan said:From the WaPo article:
Significant structural advantages have also favored Democrats since 1992. The party?s candidate has carried 18 states plus the District of Columbia ? totaling 242 electoral votes ? in every election since 1992. Now New Mexico and its five electoral votes, which Bush won in 2004, are considered safely Democratic. If those states remain solid for Clinton, that leaves her only 23 votes short of the 270 necessary for victory.
Demographic trends since 1992 only reinforce this advantage for Democrats.
Where have I heard that before?
Wisconsin was so safe that Clinton didn't even bother to campaign there, opting to waste resources in unwinnable states like Arizona; Another example of "the most qualified candidate ever" making boneheaded decisions.
That has nothing to do with actual reality and facts.
Liar Loan said:Irvinecommuter said:Liar Loan said:From the WaPo article:
Significant structural advantages have also favored Democrats since 1992. The party?s candidate has carried 18 states plus the District of Columbia ? totaling 242 electoral votes ? in every election since 1992. Now New Mexico and its five electoral votes, which Bush won in 2004, are considered safely Democratic. If those states remain solid for Clinton, that leaves her only 23 votes short of the 270 necessary for victory.
Demographic trends since 1992 only reinforce this advantage for Democrats.
Where have I heard that before?
Wisconsin was so safe that Clinton didn't even bother to campaign there, opting to waste resources in unwinnable states like Arizona; Another example of "the most qualified candidate ever" making boneheaded decisions.
That has nothing to do with actual reality and facts.
The opinion piece makes outlandish assumptions that proved to be ill-fated. I've seen you make similar assumptions.