[bearishgurl]

[quote=CardiffBaseball]Popped in for peek at the site haven’t been here in a while.

Facebook – Virtue Signaling. As I look through my timeline, I’d have to say Trump>Hillary, but not a blowout. First of all I’m white and more of my friends tend to be considering I grew up in industrial NE Ohio. Because of where I grew up, and my time in San Diego I’d say I have a more liberal white timeline than the typical person from Florida. Still, not much passion amongst them.

Now as to the Virtue Signaling… Most of have that group of people who post about how much they can’t stand either candidate and yet never seem to pay any attention to Johnson/Stein. Most of these people are going to vote. Many are blue-collar, no higher degree types. What do they do when they walk into the booth?

In a year where polling data shows a lot of dissatisfaction with the status quo do they pull the lever for the change candidate? Or do they just say keep it the way it is? My instinct tells me if these folks were pro-Hillary they’d be more vocal about it.

SD friends are split down the middle. Latino friends largely silent as are black friends. Asian friends leaning Trump, but my friend list is not a real barometer, I’m just passing along my anecdotal social media timeline.[/quote]CardiffBaseball, as I don’t belong to FB, your post is interesting. I see Trump winning your great state of FL and also OH and NV. And Arizona and TX are NOT actually “in play” (as the Dems think they are, lol) but if Hill’s camp wants to spend $$ and time in those two states, they’re certainly welcome to do so :-]. My jury is still out on the other swing states.

I suspect Trump will win in a landslide in NV …. yes, even taking Clark County!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=EconProf]Bearish Girl: you have often made the claim here that Propositions 58 and 193 are huge giveaways to an undeserving group of Californians–those who take over the property of their parents and keep the same tax assessment. Please tell us exactly how big a tax break this is. How much money is involved? How many people?[/quote]It depends on the area. In areas built before 1975, these measures had the effect of permanently holding an (unknown) portion of residential properties off the market. In areas built before 1960, it likely had the effect of permanently holding HALF of more of residential properties off the market, permanently. In areas located within one mile of of the ocean (particularly parcels situated on streets where at least one side of the street has a unobstructed whitewater or bay view), there is undoubtedly a huge portion (75-90%?) of current residential owners benefiting from Props 58 and 193, whether currently occupying those properties … or not. This phenomenon explains why there have been so few listings to choose from in the best areas of CA coastal communities. It will only get worse from here.

[quote=EconProf]First, I fully agree that it is an unearned and unwarranted giveaway. Why should the heir of a property owner, probably already above average in wealth and income, get this subsidy? Heirs of parents who are renters or are property-poor get nothing. From a wealth or income redistribution standpoint, the results are perverse. It’s like the government saying “Oh, you are going to inherit property? Here’s some more money, courtesy of all other California taxpayers.” Insane.[/quote]Econprof, your (italicized) phrase is an oft-held myth. Many of these occupying “heirs” did not even make it through high school and some did not even make it thru the 9th grade. Yes, even in Mission Hills (SD)! This large, low-income owner-occupant group is usually on some sort of fixed income and cannot in any way, shape or form maintain the home they have “inherited.” Many of them “inherited” their (free-and-clear) parent’s home without having to pay out any equity to other heirs solely because they were an only child or their only sibling was deceased.

[quote=EconProf]It was foolishly passed by the taxpayers (not, as you say, by the legislature) because it was a feel-good policy. The costs and benefits were not fully understood. As we economists often complain, policies that benefit a politically organized select few and harm a large, diffuse, and unorganized majority get approved.[/quote]My bad, you are correct. Props 58 and 193 were passed by what appears to be a vote in the general elections of 1986 and 1996 respectively. From the looks of the votes cast for/against the measures, they appear to have been a vote of only a small fraction of the populace, even back then. (I realize that a lot of voters in general elections only vote for the candidates and leave the ballot measures blank on their ballots.) Both “fiscal impact reports” on the two ballots (10 years apart) were way, way off. They did not take into account the incredible (at the time) future appreciation of CA residential real estate, especially along the coast.

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_58,_Real_Estate_Transfers_Within_Families_(1986)

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_193,_Tax_Implications_of_Grandparent-Grandchild_Property_Transfers_(1996)

Taking advantage of these two measures is highly attractive to CA heirs (especially those with no siblings) because upon the death of their parent/grandparent, they realize (and are no doubt advised by their counsel) that they will never in their lifetimes be able to buy any kind of dwelling at all in that particular locale and its low assessment is the icing on the cake that makes it possible for them to hang onto the property in the long term … even if they only move out their parent’s household goods and minimally clean it up for rental service.

[quote=EconProf]But I suggest the dollar amounts involved are not huge. The reason is because property turns over an average of every seven years, which cuts in half the number of eligible heirs drastically since 1975–the base year of assessments for Prop 13. Furthermore, what percentage of sales involve an heir taking over a property? 2%? 1%? Please do not use personal anecdotes from your neighborhood. Bring data.
Back to that seven-year turnover rate, which may be off–I remember it from a few years ago. The 41 years since 1975 involve nearly 6 such turnovers. So whatever the number is of heirs who got the benefit must be cut in half every 7 years.[/quote]Residential property most certainly does NOT turn over an average of every seven years in every micro area. Many older subdivisions of 80 or more homes (using SD County for an example) may only have a 0-6 actual listings in any one year. This low figure includes “pocket listings” (not listed on the MLS) and those listings which don’t qualify for a mortgage (in poor condition) which may be one and the same. As is often the case, the listings which DO come online in these areas are typically NOT for the “mainstream owner/occupier buyer” who needs a purchase-money mortgage.

[quote=EconProf]And what about the 2% increase Prop 13 allows every year? A cumulative 2% increase per year means a doubling every 35 years. So those original heirs did see a doubling of their tax bills. Oh, and there is the addition of taxpayer-passed bonds which makes the effective tax not 1% but about 1.25%. And there is the years when CA property values went down in the Great Recession, while those heirs still saw theirs going up 2% per year. But the main flaw in attributing a big welfare transfer to Props 58 and 193 is the rarity of its use when a property sells. Heirs seldom can or want to take over their parents property.[/quote]Yes, I agree that by 2010 (35 years after the base year assessment for original Prop 13 owners), these owners saw their 1975/76 assessment double. But let’s look at what constitutes a “doubled assessment,” using SD County for an example:

1900 sf SFR in SD’s upper OB (w/partial basement and alley access): 1975 assessment $68K; 2010 assessment $136K.

1750 sf SFR in SD’s College Area: 1975 assessment $58K; 2010 assessment $116K.

1350 sf SFR in Lemon Grove (on 1/3 AC): 1975 assessment $44K; 2010 assessment $88K.

1800 sf SFR all-brick tudor gem in Dtn Chula Vista: 1975 assessment $52K; 2010 assessment $104K.

2500 sf SFR in SD’s Mission Hills (Presidio): 1975 assessment: $140K; 2010 assessment $280K.

1800 sf SFR in SD’s Roseville (on std 5K sf lot with sit-down view of the entire SD Bay and SD dtn skyline from the entire rear of the home): 1975 assessment $72K; 2010 assessment $144K.

2300 sf SFR in SD’s Fleetridge (on 9K lot with quarter turn driveway and same view as Roseville sample [but 2-3 streets higher]): 1975 assessment $88K; 2010 assessment $176K.

2600 sf SFR in SD’s LJ Muirlands (rambling ranch on 15K sf lot with whitewater views from LR/DR and backyard: 1975 assessment $152K; 2010 assessment $304K.

Add in the tens of thousands of SFR’s in SD County’s “working class” areas which were assessed at $16K to 35K in 1975K and had double those assessments by 2010 of which there is a large audience waiting to “inherit” them (if they already haven’t). These homes are especially attractive as a stable personal residence to the heir with no siblings at the time of the death of their last parent (or their were liquid assets in the estate to equalize the other heir(s)) because they have never in their lives been able to own a home and have been at the mercy of landlords and whichever friend/relative they were living with. The vast majority of these “heirs” have never attended college and many didn’t finish HS. Most of them are now on fixed incomes or work only part time for minimum wage or close to it.

Moving onto multifamily properties, let’s travel over to LA and SF Peninsula and see what the typical “heir” in those locales is getting away with paying in property tax whilst charging exorbitant rents:

22-unit property in LA County’s Culver City (4 studios, 10-1 bdrm, 8-2 bdrm): 1975 assessment $556K; 2010 assessment $1,012,000.

42-unit property in LA County’s Compton (12-1 bdrm, 16-2 bdrm, 14-3 bdrm): 1975 assessment $426K; 2010 assessment $852K.

Examples of rent-controlled multifamily bldgs:

3-unit property in SF’s Southern Heights/Portrero (1 ground floor unit of 750 sf with small brick patio and rear garden, 1-2nd flr unit of ~2200 sf, 1-3rd floor unit of ~2200 sf. Bldg has two 2-car tandem garages. 2nd flr unit has peek views of the bay and city lights and 3rd flr unit has a 270 degree panoramic city and bay view with a partial wraparound balcony). 1975 assessment $356k; 2010 assessment $710K.

28-unit property in the heart of SJ (8 studios, 10-1 bdrm units, 10-2 bdrm units): 1975 assessment $688K; 2010 assessment $1,376,000.

I disagree that heirs do not want to take over their parents’/grandparents’ propertie(s). Quite the contrary . . . they are almost always advised by their counsel to take it over, due to its ultra-low tax assessment.

Also, in many (non-CFD) areas of SD County, voter-approved bonds and other fees (pest control, sewer, RR maintenance, etc) only total .11 to .18 of the assessed value. That is, the annual tax equals 1.11 to 1.18 of the assessed value.

[quote=EconProf]The actual dollars lost due to Propositions 58 and 193 would make an interesting research project, or Master’s Degree thesis. But I suggest it is a small and diminishing problem, and BG’s statement …”will eventually bankrupt our state.” is wildly exaggerated.[/quote]Econprof, one doesn’t need to be working on a “Master’s Thesis” to prove this largesse (doled out by the virtually broke Golden State, no less) is happening all over it. However, without a paid subscription to REALIST or WESTLAW (better) one must follow several steps in a particular order for this study because “change of ownership” forms filed with CA county assessors are not public record. One must first go down their county assessor’s office and pick their poison parcel map (depicting a pre-1975 built urban area), pay $2 for each map to be printed and then take them home and look up each parcel number on their tax collector’s website to obtain each annual tax bill. The tax bill will list the last document filed. If the tax bill appears to be ultra-low, one can reference that document number in the county recorder’s grantor/grantee index online to determine if there has been a change of ownership since 1986 (that’s as far back as the online GG index goes). If there is only 1-2 deeds on the property and the assessment appears ultra-low, one records the doc number(s) on a pad and takes that list to the recorder’s office’s computers to determine if any of those deeds were intra-familial transfer deed(s) of which no tax stamps were paid. If no quitclaim deeds are found on the property (or any deeds at all), it is VERY likely the original (pre-1978) owners still own it and thus its ownership has not (yet) been passed down.

The closer the parcel map is to the coast, an “historical area” or to a coveted, well-planned downtown area, all the better! If two or more of these attributes exist with said parcel map, then more “heirs” will have taken advantage of Props 58/193. Can we blame them?

The assessment examples I laid out above are just the tip of the iceberg. The Golden State has undoubtedly lost trillions on these ridiculous statutory schemes (Prop 58 much moreso than Prop 193) since 1986 and that is why its highway construction projects have taken so long and it had to give its employees IOUs in lieu of paychecks in three separate Junes due to gridlock in the Legislature in getting its dicey budget passed. The continuing deleterious results of the passage of Props 58/193 PLUS having the “unfunded mandates” of caring for 9M++ undocumented immigrants medically as well as supporting those many thousands residing in county jails and state prisons and shuffling a large portion of this group thru criminal, civil and domestic courts in nearly every county in CA has financially broken the state in more ways then one.

It can only get worse from here if Props 58 and 193 aren’t repealed and something isn’t done about the illegal immigrant population in CA, IMO.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]BG, pensions are contracts between employers and employees. Go to court if there’s a dispute.
Taxpayers should not bail out public pensions.[/quote]I welcome any court actions pleading to stop payment on and dismantle public pensions in CA. Go for it!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter]Instead of posting pictures of lame cartoons, try responding to why we should take from those who worked (public sector employees) to give to those who don’t (wealthy commercial, industrial, and residential landlords; owners of vast tracts of land, etc.).

If we were to stop subsidizing the land owners (not referring to a single primary residence, as that is why Prop 13 passed by such a large margin, and I do not believe in taxing people out of their homes), the “pension crisis” in California would mostly disappear.

YOU are the beneficiary of thousands of dollars of theses subsidies every year because you inherited your parents’ rental units. Why do you think a cop, firefighter, or teacher should give up the pensions that they have earned so that we can maintain these exceedingly profitable — AND TOTALLY UNEARNED — subsidies to YOU?[/quote]

I don’t think there’s any kind of equivalence between Prop 13 and pensions.

Pensions shortfalls are a result of past budgets shenanigans and/or incompetence. Let it all work out in court when the time comes.

I would never support tax increases to paper over the pensions. Tax increases for services to citizens, fine. But no new taxes to pay for retired people who don’t provide us anything. Sorry.[/quote]CA residents wouldn’t have to support continual tax increases if those millions of “heirs” who inherited real property CA were paying their FAIR SHARE in property taxes! The phasters of the world (and millions of others, including the Piggs) are being unjustly enriched through Props 58 and 193 (as progeny of Prop 13). This is so because the current heir/owner’s assessments (vast majority are able-bodied) on their propertie(s) handed down to them by parents and grandparents (whether residential, commercial, industrial or agricultural) are still assessed as low as 1/10th of their fair market value! Meanwhile, the parcel(s) directly adjacent to theirs very well could be assessed at FMV or very close to it.

The passage and subsequent very heavy use of Props 58 and 193 by “heirs” is a HUGE form of welfare to one segment of CA’s population at the expense of all other property owners not so fortunate. The beneficiaries of Props 58 and 193 use just as much (or more) city/county services as their close neighbors do who pay up to 10x the annual property tax. This “welfare benefit” is highest for those who “inherited” properties in CA’s most valuable communities. Therefore it mostly benefits the “rich” meaning those born into money and/or those whose parents or grandparents managed to buy up properties in CA’s best communities and hang onto them over the years.

I have stated here before that I don’t have any problem with ultra-low Prop 13 assessments (for original owner/occupiers who still occupy the SAME residence today because they will eventually pass on, and (in the absence of Props 58 and 193), their residence would have ostensibly been reassessed at FMV upon their deaths. What I have a problem with is that, in CA, their ultra-low assessments are routinely passed onto their “heir(s)” incentivizing the heir(s) to keep the property for their own residence or an investment. In the other 49 states, if an heir couldn’t afford the property tax on a stepped-up assessment of their deceased parent/grandparent’s property, they choose to sell it. As it should be.

Again, the vast majority of these occupying CA “heirs” are middle-aged (even young), very much able-bodied and NOT disabled! They are no more “deserving” of a 90% discount on their property tax bill than I am! The ill-thought-out shenanigans by our Legislature in passing Props 58 and 193 in the ’80’s is the sole reason for the dearth of inventory (listings) in CA’s most established areas. This problem is especially pronounced in CA’s most exclusive and valuable established areas because that is where the “inherited” Prop 13 property tax discount is the deepest due to the superior rate of appreciation of those areas over decades.

Props 58 and 193 have effectively rendered the ultra-low September 1975 assessments (used as a base year for the [retroactive] 2% increase in assessment per year from September 1978 forward) into perpetuity as long as the property is held by a descendant of the original owner/decedent and never sold. These measures should have never been passed and should be repealed forthwith. Not only are they grossly unfair to all CA property owners who didn’t “inherit” their property, the measures will eventually bankrupt our state . . . and as a byproduct, our more well-established cities.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=bearishgurl] He had time to get a Visa if he felt he needed one.[/quote]

maybe, maybe not… But Trumpsters should ask the questions since they are so concerned about everyone’s legal status. What about Melania’s status? don’t you care?[/quote]brian, you’re deflecting again. You know Melania is an American citizen. Stay focused on your candidate. I have a feeling she is going to be grilled on several wayward e-mails on Wednesday which leaked from her campaign. And it isn’t going to be pretty. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Blogstar][quote=bearishgurl][quote=Blogstar]Where are all the Human resource files against Trump. Where are all the settlements? Give me that an this case is closed. Don’t give me that and it’s garbage.[/quote]All Trump’s (or his businesses) lawsuits (whether he was the plaintiff or defendant) are public record all over the US. I’m sure someone has dug up a list by now. If he has settled any of them, all we’re going to be able to find out is that the case has been dismissed. Settlements are confidential …. unless they have to be later enforced through the court.[/quote]

The info is or would be out there if it existed. It would be known that non-disclosure was signed if it was and if not all the lurid details would be out.

I know rich people could be under attack even if they didn’t do anything but lets assume Trump would never be black mailed for something he didn’t do for the time being. Where is the history of filings for sexual misconduct or whatever it’s called? Where are the leaked documents from Fair Employment and Housing Dept. or whatever it is called these days?[/quote]No. The non-disclosure agreement is between the employer and the former employee. It isn’t public.

Why do you automatically assume that Trump has sexual harassment claims on file with a state or Federal agency (for sexual harassment in the workplace)? Assuming arguendo that he did, they are private files which are government property unless later litigated.

How could Trump keep “The Celebrity Apprentice” going for 12? years if he was a serial groper at work? The studio would not have kept him (or his show) on if that were the case, methinks.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Gilberthorpe, as a U.K. citizen can visit the us on the visa waiver program for touristic purposes only. Working is illegal.

When a foreigner visits the us he is asked the purpose of the visit. If he answers work or media interviews, and is on visa waiver, he would not be allowed entry. And even if the border officer allowed entry because the visitor answered “visiting your beautiful country”, taking on work is illegal.

2 day wait for visa interview in London
https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/general/wait-times.html/

The US consulate in London is closed on Saturday.
https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&ei=fREDWJSuNcTR0gKimp6oCQ&q=us+consulate+london+hours&oq=us+consulate+london+hours&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.3..0i22i30k1l3.1998.19239.0.19762.64.49.15.11.11.0.344.5972.7j40j0j2.49.0….0…1.1.64.mobile-gws-hp..4.60.3978.3..0j41j0i131k1j0i10k1j0i13k1j0i13i10k1j0i13i30k1j33i160k1j33i21k1.2CMGyaCMN8I#fpstate=lie

these are possible visas for guest speakers. Visa waiver for UK citizens is only for touristic purposes and not a visa.
http://policies.fad.harvard.edu/files/fad_policies/files/honoraria_for_foreign_nationals_appendix_2015.pdf

[/quote]

Pence came out on Friday morning, I believe, stating that the Trump campaign had alibis or witnesses debunking some of the recent sexual harassment claims against Trump and intended to trot them out “when the time is right.” Gilberthorpe likely contacted the Trump Campaign on Thursday, when he first saw Leeds on TV holding on a photo of her younger self. He had time to get a Visa if he felt he needed one.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Blogstar]Where are all the Human resource files against Trump. Where are all the settlements? Give me that an this case is closed. Don’t give me that and it’s garbage.[/quote]All Trump’s (or his businesses) lawsuits (whether he was the plaintiff or defendant) are public record all over the US. I’m sure someone has dug up a list by now. If he has settled any of them, all we’re going to be able to find out is that the case has been dismissed. Settlements are confidential …. unless they have to be later enforced through the court.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Blogstar][quote=FlyerInHi]Again, stop deflecting. It’s about Trump.

Immigration is Trump’s marquee issue. Melania still has not held the promised press conference on her geeen card. Don’t you care that the potential First Lady is a fraudster?[/quote]
That also would be the norm, the first lady fraudster thing.[/quote]Lol, retro to 2007, there is this:

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Blogstar][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=Blogstar]Many Women hate Trump because he shows them what they are made of. Gays hate him because they love their mommy Hillary. These at worst are Half Truths.[/quote]

No.

Progressive culture is dominent from pop culture to Hollywood to the White House. The deplorables don’t like it. They just need to submit so we can move forward.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-end-of-trump-wont-end-the-gops-problems/2016/10/14/a45cd538-9096-11e6-9c52-0b10449e33c4_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.88e67a5b942f
[/quote]

hahahahahhaha[/quote]

I know, Russ. That’s what this “deplorable” did when she began reading that hit-piece . . . that is, until my eyes glazed over after the 1st two paragraphs. Consider the source. Oh well, the comments below it are entertaining.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]BG, don’t you wonder what visa gilberthorpe is traveling under?
If he is working and getting paid on a tourist visa waiver, then is violating the law and should be arrested and deported. London is a time zone ahead and the us consulate maybe closed on Saturday. So I don’t think he got a proper visa on time.

And who is paying his travel expenses?[/quote]He landed off the plane (in NY?), didn’t he? And got thru customs at the airport, right? I could care less who is paying his traveling expenses. He’s isn’t going to be in the country that long and isn’t going to be taking any American’s job. Who said anything about him being paid to tell his truth?

I want to know how Allred is going to get paid since her new “client” doesn’t have a case. How much of a retainer with her did Zervos put up and who put it up for her?

How much has Leeds been paid to come out of the woodwork at the age of 74 and make a “sexual harassment” complaint on an event which she alleges occurred 36-37 years ago?

[bearishgurl]

Instead of chasing down all those has-been opportunistic bimbos and paying them to talk trash about Trump over the airwaves, I think the Clinton campaign would do well at this point to focus on Ms. Clinton’s answers in the upcoming debate should the moderator ask her for a clarification on what she told Brazilian Bankers in a $225K a head speech in 2013 (compared to what she told the American people on the campaign trail over the past year), since her VP candidate managed to completely skirt the issue when asked by Jake Tapper:

Clinton’s comments — she apparently told an audience that her “dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders” — are at odds with statements she has made on the campaign trail in which she has called for more restrictive trade policies in order to protect American workers.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/09/politics/tim-kaine-wikileaks-hillary-clinton-trade/

And that one speech transcript is just the tip of the iceberg, folks. Many messages in the several wikileaks document dumps of Clinton campaign e-mails to/from the candidate, her campaign aides, surrogates and even the POTUS are diametrically opposed to the “platform” she is running on . . . the one which she has been extolling to the American people. It is now beyond clear that she and/or her campaign have (brazenly and successfully) colluded with the President, his cabinet members and US Agency Heads as well as members of the MSM expressly to control the narrative on her in the MSM, give her an unfair advantage over her opponent in at least one of the debates, keep herself out of legal trouble and in general, keep her shirtsleeves clean … at least until after the election.

[bearishgurl]

More links for brian to amuse himself with:

http://incredibleusanews.com/2016/10/15/summer-zervos-cousin-questions-story-statement/

John Barry, Summer Zervos’ Cousin: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACWczV3z24c

Patience! I’m just getting started.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]I don’t know if you guys are enjoying yourselves.
Everyday I have a good laugh watching the Trump surrogates and the late night comedians.

https://youtu.be/_RYXA9kH9eQ%5B/quote%5D

Why don’t you have a good laugh at this, brian?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtNj1RxhRu0

A video of Summer Zervos’ cousin’s statement re: her “relationship” with Trump (you know, the current stand-in for yet another one of Allred’s publicity-seeking “fake” sexual harrassment clients)? I believe he’s also starting to make the rounds on the MSM.

Also, I understand from friends who are on FB that Gilberthorpe is now in the US and has started the rounds on the US MSM today re: his eyewitness observations 36-37 years ago of Leeds on the plane with Trump. Can’t wait to see one of his taped interviews.

Let the truth-tellers begin so these gold-digging, publicity-seeking has-been opportunists can crawl back in their holes with their tails between their legs. As it should be.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ucodegen][quote=bearishgurl]In the 1980 video with Tom Brokaw, Trump’s speech (incl his pronunciations) and demeanor looks and sounds very much like his daughter, Ivanka. She’s a little older than 33 now but the resemblance between the way the two express themselves is eerie. He was and she is very polished, relaxed and composed.[/quote]

I think it is to do with how one is raised. I’ve seen some other wealthy people’s kids to complete wipe-outs.

The behavior is similar with the son too. I do notice that Ivanka and Trump Jr. are more restrained at their current age than Donald was.[/quote]I loved Ivanka’s and Donald Jr’s speech at the RNC. I like Eric as well, but he sometimes talks too fast … as if he is thinking ahead of the speaker he is listening to.

[Author]

Posts