Trump says he has nullified Biden's pardons

  • Thread starter Thread starter altmin
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 144
  • Views: 4K
  • Politics 
Ramrouser said:
Egg prices are cratering (I know he didn't have anything to do with it but I'm playing your game)

Not happening. Liberal hysteria - "may" I've been hearing this about Rs since the '80s.

See above.

VA Benefits will not be touched. Not sure about what you're referring to about limiting access to VA facilities.
Click to expand...
see above how? The Republicans were one vote in the Senate away from dismantling Obamacare -- which includes the Medicaid expansion. The idea that this is all liberal hysteria -- I mean, seriously? Why did the Pubs pass a budget loaded with $800B in cuts to Medicaid if it wasn't planning to cut Medicaid?

VA benefits have already been touched. And the mass layoffs at VA facilities are impeding access.
 
It’s all the Democrats’ fault that the Republicans want to cut Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the VA, and all sorts of other safety net programs. The Republicans didn’t want to cut those programs in order to provide massive tax cuts to deca billionaires, but those dastardly Democrats just made them do it.
 
Ford, we're now being friendly with each other but I just don't know how you wrote that statement above and were on my team just a few years ago. This is classic R v D issue ("cuts in SS/VA/M'care/M'aid to pay for tax cuts for the billionaires") and not a MAGA or Trump- is- crazy issue. You don't see any need to reduce the size and scope of the Federal government given our 36T deficit? This is basic Republican doctrine. So, you're now rejecting classic Reagan Republicanism? Seems like you may need to get sized for your new blue team jersey :)
 
Ramrouser said:
Ford, we're now being friendly with each other but I just don't know how you wrote that statement above and were on my team just a few years ago. This is classic R v D issue ("cuts in SS/VA/M'care/M'aid to pay for tax cuts for the billionaires") and not a MAGA or Trump- is- crazy issue. You don't see any need to reduce the size and scope of the Federal government given our 36T deficit? This is basic Republican doctrine. So, you're now rejecting classic Reagan Republicanism? Seems like you may need to get sized for your new blue team jersey :)
Click to expand...
Maybe he realized, like Stuart Stevens, that it was all a lie all along. If you actually cared about that deficit (which is not, by the way, $36T), you'd be up in arms about the tax cuts to billionaires. But you're not. You would be saying, "The Senate is full of shit when it's trying to claim that extending tax cuts doesn't increase the deficit." But you're not.

If you can point me to any Pub president since Bush 41 who actually addressed the deficit, you might have a point. But the deficits went massively up under Trump and Bush 43, and they came down under Obama. It's the tax cuts, stupid.
 
What's classic Reaganism? Almost tripling the national debt? We're still paying for it ,too. Most of the big increases have been under Republicans. I think Trump's first term set a record for a single term.
 
Ramrouser said:
Ford, we're now being friendly with each other but I just don't know how you wrote that statement above and were on my team just a few years ago. This is classic R v D issue ("cuts in SS/VA/M'care/M'aid to pay for tax cuts for the billionaires") and not a MAGA or Trump- is- crazy issue. You don't see any need to reduce the size and scope of the Federal government given our 36T deficit? This is basic Republican doctrine. So, you're now rejecting classic Reagan Republicanism? Seems like you may need to get sized for your new blue team jersey :)
Click to expand...
Hey, I never denied that I am *now* opposed to Republican fiscal policies! That is a completely fair and valid observation on your part, though, and I appreciate you mentioning it. You’re exactly right. It’s through my own lived and learned experiences that, yes, I have done a complete 180 in my belief on spending on the social safety net. I’ve also done a complete 180 in my belief on the importance of the federal government. I still do believe that low taxes and a broad tax base are important for the fiscal health of the country, and I definitely believe that they help spur innovation, entrepreneurship, small business creation, etc. It’s just that now, I also believe that it is patently absurd that billionaires can easily pay less proportionately in taxes than a lower middle class W-2 earner. And I wholeheartedly believe that slashing the social safety net in order to pave away for massive tax breaks for billionaires and corporations is unpatriotic.
 
superrific said:
Maybe he realized, like Stuart Stevens, that it was all a lie all along. If you actually cared about that deficit (which is not, by the way, $36T), you'd be up in arms about the tax cuts to billionaires. But you're not. You would be saying, "The Senate is full of shit when it's trying to claim that extending tax cuts doesn't increase the deficit." But you're not.

If you can point me to any Pub president since Bush 41 who actually addressed the deficit, you might have a point. But the deficits went massively up under Trump and Bush 43, and they came down under Obama. It's the tax cuts, stupid
Click to expand...

superrific said:
Correction: Annual deficit 2T +/- National debt. 28.8T and rising but the point remains
Click to expand...
Since 41, the only group that has cared deeply about spending and the deficit/debt are the Gingrich 1990’s Republicans until Trump 2.0 and DOGE.
 
Ramrouser said:
Since 41, the only group that has cared deeply about spending and the deficit/debt are the Gingrich 1990’s Republicans until Trump 2.0 and DOGE.
Click to expand...
The Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 was passed over Republican objections and not a single (R) member of the House voted for it. Not even your boy Newt. In the Senate also, not a single (R) voted for it.

That act eventually realized enough savings to produce a surplus for a brief time.
 
TangledUpInBlue06 said:
Cheney and Kinzinger.

This is the Catch-22, though, right? You don't consider them "real Republicans" if they stand up to Trump. So, you won't consider any committee that stands up to Trump as having any "real Republicans." Thus, any committee that rebukes Trump can be ignored because it was a partisan witch hunt. Have I got that right?
Click to expand...
Didn’t pelosi kind of hand pick those she wanted? Weren’t some chosen by the minority leader denied participation? I mean the deck was kind of stacked.
 
dukeman92 said:
I’ve been thinking a lot about this and I don’t think this is about pardons. It’s a power grab. If Trump can establish that Biden wasn’t competent enough to sign pardons then he can begin to make that argument about other things. Like the Inflation Reduction Act, the ban on drilling etc etc.


We’re not getting our country back without a fight.
Click to expand...
Problem is I haven't noticed any real proclivity for the fight. Shit! I'll have to get off the couch to reach the remote...
 
OGtruthhurts said:
i thought he was elected three times ;)

i cant for the life of me understand why musk would want to sleep with a prez whose cult is so anti Tesler.

makes absolutely no biz sense to me, but im no genius like musk and t-rump
Click to expand...
The same reason that Trump moved to the GOP side from the Dem side. The voters/members were easier to sway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top