The OFFICIAL 2020 Presidential Election Thread - Page 2 - E46Fanatics E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-04-2019, 11:46 PM   #21
ti317
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: S. Florida
Posts: 932
My Ride: 02 330ci coupe 5 spd
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaderDave View Post
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/03/o...gtype=Homepage



I think this is a fascinating analysis of Warren's economic/business regulatory proposals. Although I have historically been a proponent of freer markets with fewer regulations, I must admit that I find the following notion appealing:







I think there is value in recognizing that perhaps a shift in regulation might lead to more broadly based prosperity. I particularly like the idea of regulation occurring on the front end instead of implementing back-end solutions, like wealth redistribution through higher taxes on the rich coupled with what essentially amount to welfare programs for lower-income folks.



Anyway: I'm still percolating on this. I'm interested to hear other viewpoints.


Iím not seeing a lot of detail on the mechanics of predistribution.

As for the regulatory side, sometimes things do get overly complicated. I am currently in the process of selling a house to a tenant of mine. I offered to hold a note at a ridiculously low rate, one tied to the 5 year T-bill, as he should be able to retire the loan in less than 3 years when some instruments he holds mature.
We both agreed that the rate is so low that if he cannot retire the loan, I should be able to adjust the rate after 5 years, tied to the T-bill by the same factor.
My attorney is balking at the idea because he says Dodd Frank makes it difficult for a private individual to lend money on an ARM.
__________________
The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get any worse every time Congress meets. - Will Rogers
ti317 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2019, 11:22 AM   #22
VaderDave
Invictus
 
VaderDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: El Dorado Hills, CA
Posts: 12,055
My Ride: 330CiC ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by ti317 View Post
I'm not seeing a lot of detail on the mechanics of predistribution.
Agreed. I'm mostly intrigued by the concept, but would definitely withhold judgment until we saw some actual policy proposals.

Quote:
As for the regulatory side, sometimes things do get overly complicated. I am currently in the process of selling a house to a tenant of mine. I offered to hold a note at a ridiculously low rate, one tied to the 5 year T-bill, as he should be able to retire the loan in less than 3 years when some instruments he holds mature.
We both agreed that the rate is so low that if he cannot retire the loan, I should be able to adjust the rate after 5 years, tied to the T-bill by the same factor.
My attorney is balking at the idea because he says Dodd Frank makes it difficult for a private individual to lend money on an ARM.
It's fat cats like you that have destroyed the country with your shady financial shenanigans. #thanksdoddfrank

Last edited by VaderDave; 01-05-2019 at 11:23 AM.
VaderDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2019, 11:45 AM   #23
ti317
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: S. Florida
Posts: 932
My Ride: 02 330ci coupe 5 spd
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaderDave View Post


It's fat cats like you that have destroyed the country with your shady financial shenanigans. #thanksdoddfrank

Lolz on a stick!
__________________
The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get any worse every time Congress meets. - Will Rogers
ti317 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2019, 09:03 PM   #24
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 145
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaderDave View Post
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/03/o...gtype=Homepage

I think this is a fascinating analysis of Warren's economic/business regulatory proposals. Although I have historically been a proponent of freer markets with fewer regulations, I must admit that I find the following notion appealing:



I think there is value in recognizing that perhaps a shift in regulation might lead to more broadly based prosperity. I particularly like the idea of regulation occurring on the front end instead of implementing back-end solutions, like wealth redistribution through higher taxes on the rich coupled with what essentially amount to welfare programs for lower-income folks.

Anyway: I'm still percolating on this. I'm interested to hear other viewpoints.
I've been very much a proponent of engineering a system that is fairer in the first place. I think bringing such voices and ideas such as Warren and AOC propound do broaden the discussions beyond a supine acceptance of Neo Liberal orthodoxy.

Are they right? Maybe, maybe not, but as Vader is doing, they are ideas worth considering seriously rather than dismissing with vacuous Tweets. History suggests that such things as high upper tax marginal rates are not necessarily anathema to robust growth and broad prosperity.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2019, 12:16 PM   #25
bimmerfan08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 4,907
My Ride: E46 M3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
I've been very much a proponent of engineering a system that is fairer in the first place. I think bringing such voices and ideas such as Warren and AOC propound do broaden the discussions beyond a supine acceptance of Neo Liberal orthodoxy.

Are they right? Maybe, maybe not, but as Vader is doing, they are ideas worth considering seriously rather than dismissing with vacuous Tweets. History suggests that such things as high upper tax marginal rates are not necessarily anathema to robust growth and broad prosperity.
The thing with the historical high income tax rates (again, there is more to this than people realize) is that there were more deductions available back then for higher earners effectively lowering their tax burdens. During the Reagan years as the article below points out, rates were lowered but many of the deductions were curbed. I'm not sure honestly if past rates are a good basis for comparison when trying to make the claim for higher tax rates today, as tax receipts as a percentage of GDP have remained consistent for a long time. The tax code today is radically different than it was a half century ago. One must understand and consider all the variables before forming an opinion. It's not as a simple as saying we need to just change income tax rates. The tax code would need to be rewritten in order to maximize whatever objective you're advocating for. For better understanding, look up the difference between marginal and effective tax rates.

Quote:
Historically, the United States used to have many more tax brackets, and the top marginal tax rates were extremely high. Under Eisenhower, the top earners paid a 91 percent marginal rate, falling to Ocasio-Cortez's proposed 70 percent under Kennedy and Johnson, before falling to 50 percent after Ronald Reagan's first big tax cut, and then down to 38 percent after the 1986 tax reform.

One big part of that story is that before 1986 the tax base was considerably narrower. Rich people used to have a lot more loopholes and deductions of which they could avail themselves. The 1986 law closed a lot of those loopholes, but also cut the top rate.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...tez-70-percent

Also

Quote:
World War I

In order to finance U.S. participation in World War One, Congress passed the 1916 Revenue Act, and then the War Revenue Act of 1917. The highest income tax rate jumped from 15 percent in 1916 to 67 percent in 1917 to 77 percent in 1918. War is expensive.

After the war, federal income tax rates took on the steam of the roaring 1920s, dropping to 25 percent from 1925 through 1931.

The Depression

Congress raised taxes again in 1932 during the Great Depression from 25 percent to 63 percent on the top earners.

World War II

As we mentioned earlier, war is expensive.

In 1944, the top rate peaked at 94 percent on taxable income over $200,000 ($2.5 million in today's dollars3). That's a high tax rate.

The 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s

Over the next three decades, the top federal income tax rate remained high, never dipping below 70 percent

The 1980s

The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 slashed the highest rate from 70 to 50 percent, and indexed the brackets for inflation.

Then, the Tax Reform Act of 1986, claiming that it was a two-tiered flat tax, expanded the tax base and dropped the top rate to 28 percent for tax years beginning in 1988.4 The hype here was that the broader base contained fewer deductions, but brought in the same revenue. Further, lawmakers claimed that they would never have to raise the 28 percent top rate.

The 28 percent top rate promise lasted three years before it was broken.

The 1990s-2012

During the 1990s, the top rate jumped to 39.6 percent.

However, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2001 dropped the highest income tax rate to 35 percent from 2003 to 2010. The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 maintained the 35 percent tax rate through 2012.

2013 - 2017

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 increased the highest income tax rate to 39.6 percent. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act added an additional 3.8 percent on to this making the maximum federal income tax rate 43.4 percent.

2018-2019

The highest income tax rate was lowered to 37 percent for tax years beginning in 2018. The additional 3.8 percent is still applicable, making the maximum federal income tax rate 40.8 percent.
https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Fre...Tax-Rates.aspx

Quote:
Like the effective tax rate, the total tax burden as a percentage of GDP has remained virtually unchanged over the past five decades. In 2009, when the top marginal tax rate was 35 percent, the total tax burden for U.S. taxpayers equaled 24 percent of GDP. In 1965, when the top marginal rate was 70 percent, the tax burden was 24.7 percent of GDP, almost exactly the same. The tax burden peaked in 2000 at 29.5 percent[sources: Calabresi and Tax Policy Center].

Why do we continue to pay roughly the same amount in taxes, even though the marginal tax rates have changed considerably? The best answer is that tax law is constantly changing and accountants in different decades have exploited different tax loopholes -- numerous tax breaks, credits, subsidies, deductible income and expenses -- to maintain a steady effective tax rate even as marginal rates fluctuate [source: Kocieniewski].
https://money.howstuffworks.com/pers...-the-past1.htm
__________________
Quote:
If you want to make a statement that we all ought to get on board to fight poverty, I'm with you. If you want to say that we ought to fight income inequality I'm not with you at all. Because I don't think that the rich guy stole from the poor guy. In fact rich people don't get rich by stealing from poor people because it turns out poor people don't have money.

Last edited by bimmerfan08; 01-06-2019 at 12:18 PM.
bimmerfan08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2019, 10:28 AM   #26
bimmerfan08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 4,907
My Ride: E46 M3
Related. With all this talk of Democratic & Republican candidates, I wonder who Independents will field for 2020.

Quote:
Americans Continue to Embrace Political Independence

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Significantly more U.S. adults continued to identify as political independents (42%) in 2018 than as either Democrats (30%) or Republicans (26%). At least four in 10 Americans have been political independents in seven of the past eight years, including a record-high 43% in 2014.

The trend is based on aggregated data from all Gallup polls conducted in each year. The 2018 aggregate includes 13 separate surveys, encompassing interviews with more than 13,000 U.S. adults. Gallup asks Americans in every poll it conducts whether they identify politically as a Democrat, a Republican or an independent.

Over the past 30 years, when Gallup has regularly conducted its surveys by telephone, independents have typically outnumbered Republicans and Democrats. However, in just the past decade, an increasing proportion of adults have identified as independents, reaching 40% for the first time in 2011 and generally maintaining or exceeding that level since then. As a result, since 2011, the percentage of independents has exceeded the percentage identifying with the Democratic Party by 11 points on average, and the percentage identifying as Republicans by 14 points.

The one recent year in which independent identification fell below 40% was 2016, when 39% of Americans did so. The dip that year is consistent with the historical pattern by which fewer Americans identify as independents in presidential election years, when a flood of publicity for the two major parties tends to activate partisan leanings. Since 1992, the percentage of independents has dropped three percentage points on average in presidential election years.

The recent rise in independent identification has come at the expense of both parties about equally. Compared with 30 years ago, when 33% of Americans identified as independents, the percentage of Republicans has fallen five points and the percentage of Democrats has fallen six points.

The proportion identifying with each party is near its low in the telephone-polling era. The 26% identifying as Republicans is one point above the low from 2013, and the 30% identifying as Democrats is one point above its 2015 and 2017 lows.

Gallup has asked the same party identification question it does today in polls as far back as 1951. Gallup interviewing in the 1950s through the mid-1980s mostly used a face-to-face mode rather than the telephone. Experiments at the time suggested the results obtained by phone versus in-person interviewing differed slightly. Even acknowledging those methodological differences, it is safe to conclude that the percentage of independents today is higher than in any year since at least 1951, given that many fewer identified as independents in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s than do so today. Accordingly, the percentage of Democratic identifiers is near its historical lows, because the percentage of Democrats in the 1950s through 1980s was much higher than in any recent year.

Gallup did measure lower proportions of Republican identifiers after Watergate in the mid- to late 1970s, with percentages in the low 20s, so the current levels of Republican identification are probably not among the lowest Gallup has ever measured.

Democratic Edge Over GOP Expands After Party Leanings Are Taken Into Account

Since 1991, Gallup has consistently asked independents whether they lean toward either of the two major political parties. Most independents do express a party leaning when probed, and when those leanings are taken into account, 47% of Americans on average in 2018 were Democratic identifiers or Democratic-leaning independents, and 41% were Republicans or Republican-leaning independents.

The Democrats' six-point edge on this measure of party affiliation is in line with their five-point advantages in both 2016 and 2017.

Democrats have led on this combined party ID measure in most years since 1991, with Republicans outnumbering Democrats only in that first year, when George H.W. Bush had especially high job approval ratings after the Gulf War.

The Democratic lead has been as large as 12 points. This occurred in 2008, the year Barack Obama was elected president to replace George W. Bush, who had approval ratings in the high 20s or low 30s. By 2010, Republicans had essentially drawn even with Democrats after the passage of the Obamacare health legislation, but the Democrats have regained and maintained a consistent edge since then.

Implications

One of the major political developments in recent years is the increasingly polarized views of Democrats and Republicans, both in ratings of the president and on issue positions. A probable contributing factor to this is the shrinking of each party's base, with a greater number of Americans identifying as political independents. Those who maintain their Democratic or Republican identification are likely the U.S. adults who are most committed to the party and what it stands for, and thus most inclined to hold attitudes consistent with the party's platforms and talking points.

The contraction of the party bases has occurred about equally among both parties and has allowed the Democratic Party to maintain its usual advantage over the Republican Party in terms of its share of the adult population. As such, Republicans' ability to remain competitive in national elections continues to depend on having higher turnout among its supporters, something it was able to do in the 2010 and 2014 midterm election years but not in 2018.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/245801/...ependence.aspx
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	us-upyrq60uyulfsr6naqw.jpg
Views:	19
Size:	93.6 KB
ID:	765405   Click image for larger version

Name:	euflbdw5d0uafxwbcx14dg.png
Views:	22
Size:	33.1 KB
ID:	765407   Click image for larger version

Name:	tllovtilheavwz8o6ulycw.png
Views:	21
Size:	32.0 KB
ID:	765409  
__________________
Quote:
If you want to make a statement that we all ought to get on board to fight poverty, I'm with you. If you want to say that we ought to fight income inequality I'm not with you at all. Because I don't think that the rich guy stole from the poor guy. In fact rich people don't get rich by stealing from poor people because it turns out poor people don't have money.
bimmerfan08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2019, 10:35 AM   #27
VaderDave
Invictus
 
VaderDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: El Dorado Hills, CA
Posts: 12,055
My Ride: 330CiC ZHP
The main obstacle to a significant Independent presence in elections is the lack of established political infrastructure. Both major parties are, first and foremost, election marketing machines designed to put their respective products in front of as many customers as possible. So even though it appears that many people are "turned off" by Democrats and Republicans, in most elections there's not much of a reliable alternate presence.
VaderDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2019, 12:37 PM   #28
bimmerfan08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 4,907
My Ride: E46 M3
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaderDave View Post
The main obstacle to a significant Independent presence in elections is the lack of established political infrastructure. Both major parties are, first and foremost, election marketing machines designed to put their respective products in front of as many customers as possible. So even though it appears that many people are "turned off" by Democrats and Republicans, in most elections there's not much of a reliable alternate presence.
Very true, but shoo naysayer, shoo. :p

If the 2016 election results are an indicator of the current political climate and what's to potentially come, then perhaps we'll continue to see an uptick in support of Independent candidates.
__________________
Quote:
If you want to make a statement that we all ought to get on board to fight poverty, I'm with you. If you want to say that we ought to fight income inequality I'm not with you at all. Because I don't think that the rich guy stole from the poor guy. In fact rich people don't get rich by stealing from poor people because it turns out poor people don't have money.
bimmerfan08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2019, 12:43 PM   #29
VaderDave
Invictus
 
VaderDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: El Dorado Hills, CA
Posts: 12,055
My Ride: 330CiC ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerfan08 View Post
Very true, but shoo naysayer, shoo. :p

If the 2016 election results are an indicator of the current political climate and what's to potentially come, then perhaps we'll continue to see an uptick in support of Independent candidates.
I would like that very much.
VaderDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2019, 12:47 PM   #30
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 968
My Ride: S2000+Wrangler
Gonna be Trump vs Warren, Sanders, and maybe Harris. While they try and beat each other up during the primaries, Trump will swing his twitter hammer playing wackamole. If they don't put up someone rational, Trump isn't going anywhere, and will be "not their president" one more time. Also think Trump is saving the weed legalization for September before the election lol
__________________

Last edited by NFRs2000nyc; 01-07-2019 at 12:48 PM.
NFRs2000nyc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2019, 12:51 PM   #31
VaderDave
Invictus
 
VaderDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: El Dorado Hills, CA
Posts: 12,055
My Ride: 330CiC ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
Gonna be Trump vs Warren, Sanders, and maybe Harris. While they try and beat each other up during the primaries, Trump will swing his twitter hammer playing wackamole. If they don't put up someone rational, Trump isn't going anywhere, and will be "not their president" one more time. Also think Trump is saving the weed legalization for September before the election lol
No Unca Joe?
VaderDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2019, 01:11 PM   #32
SamDoe1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minnesnowta
Posts: 3,677
My Ride: Economy Hatchback
I think Uncle Joe will for sure make an appearance. It's basically an open goal shot at the presidency for him so provided the dems can pull their head out of their asses and give him the nod, they already have the whole thing wrapped up in a nice bow.

If they toss up Warren, Sanders, and Harris...welp, guess we'll have government by twitter for another 4 years.

Last edited by SamDoe1; 01-07-2019 at 01:11 PM.
SamDoe1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2019, 01:24 PM   #33
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 968
My Ride: S2000+Wrangler
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaderDave View Post
No Unca Joe?
IMHO, he wont run, and honestly, I dont think he can take out Trump. He still has the Obama stench on him.
__________________

Last edited by NFRs2000nyc; 01-07-2019 at 01:24 PM.
NFRs2000nyc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2019, 01:48 PM   #34
SamDoe1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minnesnowta
Posts: 3,677
My Ride: Economy Hatchback
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
IMHO, he wont run, and honestly, I dont think he can take out Trump. He still has the Obama stench on him.
Contrary to the views of the people on this forum, Obama was actually a fairly well liked President.
SamDoe1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2019, 01:53 PM   #35
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 968
My Ride: S2000+Wrangler
Thatís like saying Trump is a well liked president. The fact is, half the country hated Obama and the other half hates Trump. More than half the country however, hated Obamaís policies. I will concede however, that Obama is more likeable than Trump....at least the portrayal of them. The people I know that know Trump personally have good things to say about him as a person, but obviously thatís anecdotal.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2019, 01:58 PM   #36
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 145
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
IMHO, he wont run, and honestly, I dont think he can take out Trump. He still has the Obama stench on him.
Which is a rosey perfume compared to the permeating reek that is Trump. Trump has yet to surpass Obama's approval ratings at any point yet in his term. Outside Trump's bunkered right-wing base, Obama is looked on far more fondly than Trump. Shoot, Obama even won both the popular and Electoral College by healthy margins. Twice.

How Does Trump Stack Up Against the Best - and Worst - Presidents?

Last edited by Rhumb; 01-07-2019 at 02:01 PM.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2019, 02:07 PM   #37
bimmerfan08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 4,907
My Ride: E46 M3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
Which is a rosey perfume compared to the permeating reek that is Trump. Trump has yet to surpass Obama's approval ratings at any point yet in his term. Outside Trump's bunkered right-wing base, Obama is looked on far more fondly than Trump. Shoot, Obama even won both the popular and Electoral College by healthy margins. Twice.

How Does Trump Stack Up Against the Best - and Worst - Presidents?
You love making mention of the Electoral College anytime you can don't ya?

2016 is behind us Rhumb. Get on with life and accept how our system of government works.
__________________
Quote:
If you want to make a statement that we all ought to get on board to fight poverty, I'm with you. If you want to say that we ought to fight income inequality I'm not with you at all. Because I don't think that the rich guy stole from the poor guy. In fact rich people don't get rich by stealing from poor people because it turns out poor people don't have money.
bimmerfan08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2019, 02:08 PM   #38
SamDoe1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minnesnowta
Posts: 3,677
My Ride: Economy Hatchback
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
That's like saying Trump is a well liked president. The fact is, half the country hated Obama and the other half hates Trump. More than half the country however, hated Obama's policies. I will concede however, that Obama is more likeable than Trump....at least the portrayal of them. The people I know that know Trump personally have good things to say about him as a person, but obviously that's anecdotal.
You got data for that? There's plenty of data to show that Obama was a well liked President.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/226994/...al-rating.aspx

I don't care how some people see him as a person. In public he seems like a raving lunatic.

Last edited by SamDoe1; 01-07-2019 at 02:13 PM.
SamDoe1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2019, 02:26 PM   #39
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 145
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerfan08 View Post
You love making mention of the Electoral College anytime you can don't ya?

2016 is behind us Rhumb. Get on with life and accept how our system of government works.
And conservatives seem all peevish about it any time its mentioned.

Hey, it was OP who was bringing up Obama and his popularity. Its 2020 I'm looking forward to, especially given what a rebuke 2018 was to Trump and his followers.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2019, 02:28 PM   #40
evolved
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Posts: 851
My Ride: 2015 Chevy SS
No discussion of Beto? I think he's a dark horse.
__________________

Present
2015 Chevrolet SS
Past
2011 BMW 335d, 2011 BMW 135i, 2006 Mazdaspeed 6 GT, 2000 BMW 323ci, 2003 Evolution VIII, 1995 Nissan 240sx w/ SR20DET


ss
evolved is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
(c) 1999 - VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.