Democrats are turning themselves into the enemies of democracy

[White 6]

1. The democrats want the $1.5T the BBB just cut put back in. NFW.
2. The Covid subsidy is temporary, it expires the end of 2025, period.
3. Kilmead was talking about the criminally insane, like the guy who stabbed Iryna in the neck for no reason, not the homeless.

That is not what he said, or inferred. Why do you people have to re-interpret what your mouthpieces say, when they say what you most likely support? Is it because, average, normal, moral people, simply won't understand or agree with? Or, is it because you know it is an unpopular position, that would be condemned by every citizen with a shred of moral decencies, and support for our constitution, and you are not ready for some goals be become common, discussed, knowledge?

 

[kyzr]

That is not what he said, or inferred. Why do you people have to re-interpret what your mouthpieces say, when they say what you most likely support? Is it because, average, normal, moral people, simply won't understand or agree with? Or, is it because you know it is an unpopular position, that would be condemned by every citizen with a shred of moral decencies, and support for our constitution, and you are not ready for some goals be become common, discussed, knowledge?

1. Read what he said, "mentally ill homeless people" after discussing the one who stabbed Iryna on that train.

Fact Check: Fox News' Brian Kilmeade suggested 'involuntary lethal injection' for some mentally ill homeless people

The co-host of Fox News' "Fox & Friends" later called his comment "extremely callous."

www.yahoo.com

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/14/business/brian-kilmeade-fox-news-apology-homeless

Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade says comment about killing mentally ill homeless people an ‘extremely callous remark’​

2. Kilmead apologized for his remark, so don't make more out of it than him "misspeaking".

 

[White 6]

1. Read what he said, "mentally ill homeless people" after discussing the one who stabbed Iryna on that train.

Fact Check: Fox News' Brian Kilmeade suggested 'involuntary lethal injection' for some mentally ill homeless people

The co-host of Fox News' "Fox & Friends" later called his comment "extremely callous."

www.yahoo.com

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/14/business/brian-kilmeade-fox-news-apology-homeless

Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade says comment about killing mentally ill homeless people an ‘extremely callous remark’​

2. Kilmead apologized for his remark, so don't make more out of it than him "misspeaking".

Nice apology he was forced to make, when caught, putting that out in public.

 

[kyzr]

Nice apology he was forced to make, when caught, putting that out in public.

I never hear democrats apologize for letting violent criminals on the streets like the guy who stabbed Iryna, or any number of repeat offenders who murder people every day.

 

[WorldWatcher]

How many votes do you need to pass the budget?

51 in the Senate…

Look, I’ll explain this to you again. Listen closely. The republicans in the house passed a clean CR to continue spending at current levels, with NO add ins, to fund the government for 7 weeks. Giving them time to negotiate with Democrats on appropriations for the upcoming budget. They need 60 votes in the Senate to pass the clean CR. Dems are voting against the CR unless their list of demands are included, instead of funding the government and negotiating their agendas in the budget talks where they belong.

So, why are Dems doing this?

The second and third quote above are inconsistant. Because at the end of the day, it Constitutionally only takes 51 votes in either case. 60 votes is not needed to pass legislation (whether its a budget or a CR). It only takes 51. The 60 vote count is needed to invole Cloture and end debate that then allows the legislation to be voted on (and passed by simple majority).

A budget, CR, or any legislation is passed (in the Senate) by a simple majority.

The GOP controlled Senate can pass the CR in a multi-step process and does not need a single DEM vote:

Step 1: Change the Senate rule (or pass an exception to the rule) on cloture, on a simple majority is required.​

Step 2: Invoke Cloture under the new rule (or exception to the rule), on a simple majority.​

Step 3: Pass the legislation, again on a simple majority.​

​

WW

[DISCLAIMER: The above is not a recommendation, a prediction, or an endorsement - it is simply a statemen of fact.]

 

[White 6]

I never hear democrats apologize for letting violent criminals on the streets like the guy who stabbed Iryna, or any number of repeat offenders who murder people every day.

Personally, I think the whole parole system is too keyed on prison space for newest offenders, rather than punishing convicted perps and protecting the public. Hell, we blow money on everything else. I have no problem with increasing the space available to keep those that were righteously sentenced to prison time (for correction and for punishment of deeds already done, and to protect the public), but that is just me. Some idiots point to the fact, we have more prisoners in prison than any other nation, as if the way to avoid that embarrassment is to be lenient about letting them out. I could care less. Neither I, nor anybody in my family or family history have ever been charged with an imprisonable offense. I would criminals kept off the streets, for as long as possible. Others should act in socially acceptable ways, not sociopathic ways. It's a choice. They could have chosen, not to be a blight and a danger to society. Am I wrong? If so, why?

 

[Failzero]

The Vote From the Rooftops Democommies want to bring it all down man

 

[kyzr]

Personally, I think the whole parole system is too keyed on prison space for newest offenders, rather than punishing convicted perps and protecting the public. Hell, we blow money on everything else. I have no problem with increasing the space available to keep those that were righteously sentenced to prison time (for correction and for punishment of deeds already done, and to protect the public), but that is just me. Some idiots point to the fact, we have more prisoners in prison than any other nation, as if the way to avoid that embarrassment is to be lenient about letting them out. I could care less. Neither I, nor anybody in my family or family history have ever been charged with an imprisonable offense. I would criminals kept off the streets, for as long as possible. Others should act in socially acceptable ways, not sociopathic ways. It's a choice. They could have chosen, not to be a blight and a danger to society. Am I wrong? If so, why?

Correct. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

It used to be "3-strikes you're out". Now it's cashless bail, back on the street.

 

[j-mac]

He’s a liar. He only shows what he wants because he’s a hack.

lol, yeah sure…

Why does he want American families to pay twice as much for health insurance?

He doesn’t.

 

[j-mac]

The second and third quote above are inconsistant. Because at the end of the day, it Constitutionally only takes 51 votes in either case. 60 votes is not needed to pass legislation (whether its a budget or a CR). It only takes 51. The 60 vote count is needed to invole Cloture and end debate that then allows the legislation to be voted on (and passed by simple majority).

A budget, CR, or any legislation is passed (in the Senate) by a simple majority.

The GOP controlled Senate can pass the CR in a multi-step process and does not need a single DEM vote:

Step 1: Change the Senate rule (or pass an exception to the rule) on cloture, on a simple majority is required.​

Step 2: Invoke Cloture under the new rule (or exception to the rule), on a simple majority.​

Step 3: Pass the legislation, again on a simple majority.​

​

WW

[DISCLAIMER: The above is not a recommendation, a prediction, or an endorsement - it is simply a statemen of fact.]

So, you want Thune to invoke “the nuclear option”…. Got it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So, you want Thune to invoke “the nuclear option”…. Got it.

Read the post again. Tell us why the above declaration is incorrect.

WW

 

[j-mac]

Read the post again. Tell us why the above declaration is incorrect.

WW

I read the post just fine thank you, and gave you my answer….You people aren’t going to manipulate us into getting what you want….

 

[WorldWatcher]

I read the post just fine thank you, and gave you my answer….You people aren’t going to manipulate us into getting what you want….

You didn't provide an answer.

#1 There was no question asked.

#2 You made an incorrect statement about my "wants".

#3 I'm a Republican that voted straight ticket GOP from 1978 to 2016 where I voted for a GOP Presidential candidatee twice.
.
.
.
.
.
The point of the post, which you didn't comprehend, is that MAGA are attempting to blame the DEMs, when the fact is the GOP could pass the legislation without a single DEM vote.

WW

 

[j-mac]

You didn't provide an answer.

#1 There was no question asked.

#2 You made an incorrect statement about my "wants".

#3 I'm a Republican that voted straight ticket GOP from 1978 to 2016 where I voted for a GOP Presidential candidatee twice.
.
.
.
.
.
The point of the post, which you didn't comprehend, is that MAGA are attempting to blame the DEMs, when the fact is the GOP could pass the legislation without a single DEM vote.

WW

Yeah, then what happens down the road?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yeah, then what happens down the road?

The DEMs will do the same thing. Which isn't why I describe "should" they do it, I'm simply stating as a fact they can do it.

Which is why I've been saying since the 90's and it applies to BOTH the LWNJs and the RWNJs.
.
.
.
.
This is why we don't have government shutdowns, we don't. We have government slow-downs.

Shouldn't we dispense with this nansy-pansy type of "partial" shutdown bull crap.

If Congress is going to shutdown the government than they should be required to actually shut it down. None of this "essential" work force bull shyte.

Shut it down and make it painful so that Congress will really hear from constituents.

Government workers (all of them) are sent home with no back pay for time missed. This includes EVERYONE.

• Air Traffic Controllers get to stay on the job until aircraft have landed, no new flights are allowed to take off or enter American air space from other countries if they took off after the shutdown time. Shutdown all government airport and train operations.
• FBI, Border Patrol, NSA, CIA, etc. - Go home. We'll call you to come back.
• Government processing of financials stops.
• No Social Security checks issued.
• No Medicare checks issued.
• No VA checks issued.
• No pay for the military.
• No pay for military retirees.
• Payment to State and School districts for everything stops.
• Federal Courts shut down.
• Federal Prisons? Lock the inmates in their cell with a weeks worth of MRE's.
• etc.

Congressional staff is sent home. The only ones allowed to work in the empty Capital Building are the actual members of Congress because under the Constitution their compensation cannot be reduced during their term of office so they are the only ones getting paid.

If a shutdown was a real shut down Congress would think twice before ignoring their responsibilities and pulling political stunts.

WW

 

[Cellblock2429]

Nobody, is buying that, as MAGA mouth pieces lied, saying the Dems were holding out for illegal alien healthcare, when there is no provision for illegal alien healthcare in the Dem Bill. It looks like the Dem are holding out, to make sure Trump administration does not defund the Afordable Care Act and kick millions off healthcare, just to give or continue tax breaks for the top 1%. Trump owned the last shutdown. He will own this one, as is in no inclination to negotiate, and certainly not planning to allow government assistance to any healthcare plan.

/-----/ The Fed sends $$$ to the state, and the state uses the $$$ to provide healthcare for illegals.

 

[j-mac]

The DEMs will do the same thing. Which isn't why I describe "should" they do it, I'm simply stating as a fact they can do it.

Which is why I've been saying since the 90's and it applies to BOTH the LWNJs and the RWNJs.
.
.
.
.
This is why we don't have government shutdowns, we don't. We have government slow-downs.

Shouldn't we dispense with this nansy-pansy type of "partial" shutdown bull crap.

If Congress is going to shutdown the government than they should be required to actually shut it down. None of this "essential" work force bull shyte.

Shut it down and make it painful so that Congress will really hear from constituents.

Government workers (all of them) are sent home with no back pay for time missed. This includes EVERYONE.

• Air Traffic Controllers get to stay on the job until aircraft have landed, no new flights are allowed to take off or enter American air space from other countries if they took off after the shutdown time. Shutdown all government airport and train operations.
• FBI, Border Patrol, NSA, CIA, etc. - Go home. We'll call you to come back.
• Government processing of financials stops.
• No Social Security checks issued.
• No Medicare checks issued.
• No VA checks issued.
• No pay for the military.
• No pay for military retirees.
• Payment to State and School districts for everything stops.
• Federal Courts shut down.
• Federal Prisons? Lock the inmates in their cell with a weeks worth of MRE's.
• etc.

Congressional staff is sent home. The only ones allowed to work in the empty Capital Building are the actual members of Congress because under the Constitution their compensation cannot be reduced during their term of office so they are the only ones getting paid.

If a shutdown was a real shut down Congress would think twice before ignoring their responsibilities and pulling political stunts.

WW

Ok, I don’t disagree…

 

[berg80]

Legislation is repealed all the time…Are you saying once adopted it can never be repealed? How dumb are you?

You began the thread by citing an article claiming Schumer was being anti-democratic because he wants the Medicaid cuts restored despite not having the votes to block Dotard's ugly bill that cut them. You emphasized the point by suggesting Dem's are the enemy of democracy in your thread title.

Prompting me to ask the question.....Is it anti-democratic to advocate for the repeal of a portion of already adopted legislation not supported by the majority of the public?

Forcing me to ask, how dumb are you?

 

[j-mac]

You began the thread by citing an article claiming Schumer was being anti-democratic because he wants the Medicaid cuts restored despite not having the votes to block Dotard's ugly bill that cut them. You emphasized the point by suggesting Dem's are the enemy of democracy in your thread title.

Prompting me to ask the question.....Is it anti-democratic to advocate for the repeal of a portion of already adopted legislation not supported by the majority of the public?

Forcing me to ask, how dumb are you?

Question answered

 

[berg80]

Question answered

You must have forgotten what the premise of the thread is, making you very dumb indeed.