Jump to content

So.... This Donald Trump Guy..


EnlightenedMessiah

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, baddog said:

Seriously, you don't think that taking money from people, who have worked their entire lives and contributed to the system so that there would be money for them in their golden years, and giving it to people who are young, able bodied individuals who have never worked or contributed one red cent their entire lives is not cheating? Where is your referee? Anyone who thinks this is right has absolutely no conscience. Next time you visit grandma and she needs food or her meds filled, tell her the bum down the street needed it more.

Don't ever preach cheating again. 

this situation existed before obamacare and would still exist if obamacare ended. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, baddog said:

Seriously, you don't think that taking money from people, who have worked their entire lives and contributed to the system so that there would be money for them in their golden years, and giving it to people who are young, able bodied individuals who have never worked or contributed one red cent their entire lives is not cheating? Where is your referee? Anyone who thinks this is right has absolutely no conscience. Next time you visit grandma and she needs food or her meds filled, tell her the bum down the street needed it more.

Don't ever preach cheating again. 

this situation existed before obamacare and would still exist if obamacare ended. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, nappyroots said:

This is the hidden content, please

look at the graph

I you want to do this the right way, why not take the average poverty rate of the Bush tenure vs the average poverty rate of the Obama tenure?  Just like the great majority of other "federal enterprises" Obamacare is forcing insurers to leave the program because they are losing substantial sums of money.  No blogger can change that fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2016 at 1:01 PM, stevenash said:

I you want to do this the right way, why not take the average poverty rate of the Bush tenure vs the average poverty rate of the Obama tenure?  Just like the great majority of other "federal enterprises" Obamacare is forcing insurers to leave the program because they are losing substantial sums of money.  No blogger can change that fact.

the winner of the 2020 election will get the graph dropping obama inherited the graph going up, just like unemployment 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Why do you avoid my suggestion about looking at the average poverty rate of both PResidents?  HMMMMMM

Why don't we look at it for the last 50 years, and republicans don't want to give FREE STUFF anyone way. Just cut food stamps, welfare and obamacare(plus the free medical care that the poor was receiving anyway), let people starve and die if they can't or won't find a job

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, nappyroots said:

Why don't we look at it for the last 50 years, and republicans don't want to give FREE STUFF anyone way. Just cut food stamps, welfare and obamacare(plus the free medical care that the poor was receiving anyway), let people starve and die if they can't or won't find a job

And what comparisons would you like to make over the last 50 years?  If my  memory is correct, "free stuff" is not what made this country great.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

Here is a novel idea for you, Nappy.  How about we not get rid of food stamps and welfare but, at the same time, try to institute policies that will lessen the need for them?

In the 8 years before obama your folks had the oppourtunity to do just that, what happened

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, stevenash said:

You can give credit for that to Mr Clintons ability to work with the opposition ( its called leadership and we currently dont have any) and the strong hand of Speaker Newt Gingrich

Why did't Newt run for prez this year, the opposition statement on a supreme court justice this year, we will not consider anyone that obama puts foward, we will not even have a vote, is that working with the opposition.Merrick Garland

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, stevenash said:

You can give credit for that to Mr Clintons ability to work with the opposition ( its called leadership and we currently dont have any) and the strong hand of Speaker Newt Gingrich

You're absolutely right sn.  Although I didn't vote for Bill, I give him kudos for being one of the few politicians in recent history who would work with the opposite party.  And a lot was accomplished.  Wow, working together to get things done.  What a novel idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 9:32 AM, stevenash said:

Here is a novel idea for you, Nappy.  How about we not get rid of food stamps and welfare but, at the same time, try to institute policies that will lessen the need for them?

The GOP does not have any solutions, they only want to cut "entitlement " programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • No offense, but both sides do it.  The Rs in Texas want to do away with decades of precedent and demand that Dems are no longer given chair positions on any committees in the Tx House. It sounds reasonable enough, until you arrive at a point when the Ds enjoy a single seat majority in the house, select the most leftist speaker of all times, and the refuse to give Rs any say in the legislative process by refusing to give them any committee chairs.     Experience has shown me that any time a party seeks to consolidate power in a legislative body, it backfires.    What I don’t like is a world where we cheer for Manchin for doing his own thing, but also re-elect guys like Paxton and Patrick when they make threats to R Legislators if they don’t do exactly what the Radical Right demands. Our Rep here in Hardin County lost his spot for voting against private school vouchers-his wife is a teacher. He also voted his conscience on the Paxton impeachment.  It cost him his seat…. Not because of the will of the voters in his district, but because if millions of outside dollars pumped into the race from outside the district and even an endorsement of his unknown challenger by Donald Trump himself.    Why do people like you applaud Manchin for being his own man and then vote against Phelan for doing the same thing?
    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...