Nuke the filibuster for shutdowns?

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
dimocrap FILTH will have to cave. We only need, what? Two or three more to cross the aisle? Fetterman did, and there will be more when the pain starts.
They'll blame Trump, of course, they'll cry like the little bitches all dimocrap scum are. But they can't take the heat.
We'll see. The democrats are holding the line against "king long shanks"


Trump can. How much more unpopular with dimocrap SCUM can he get?? How many votes will it cost him in 2028? Plus, he couldn't give a shit about MidTerms, which are still a year away. You're dead wrong.
Dems are winning when we don't get the BBB terms into Appropriations.
The Lace Panty Division of the R Party never wanted the Shutdown anyway. They'd probably cave to dimocrap scum like they do every other time. But not this time. Not with Trump in Office this time. He's a different animal than he was five-9 years ago
We'll see. The Lace Panty RINOs are the ones letting the shutdown happen instead of going nuclear, passing a CR, passing appropriations, passing Rescissions, and fixing SS and Medicare like we elected them to do.
 
They're getting subsidies through Medicaid. That's what a lot of this is about. The ACA took the place of Medicaid in many States. Not Florida, though. Who it hurts here is people like my Dental Hygienist, Waiters, Waitresses, Hair Stylists, the Self-Employed contractor, etc.

The ACA was a joke from the beginning. I thought The Bastard Son of Frank Marshall Davis might have it going on but -- The Stuttering Lying ********** of a Miserable Failure was and still is a lying, thieving, piece of ******* shit dimocrap scumbag.
We had a chance to really do something with a bad situation and, like he usually does -- He blew it. pun intended.
The Swiss System is very simple and -- It works. It works very well
Mandatory coverage? I thought that was unconstitutional?

1761590691461.webp
 
I'd be down for ending the filibuster for shutdowns as well as debt ceiling.

But I'd get rid of reconciliation.
 
Nothing will stop th dems if they take control, as it should be, "elections have consequences" unless the senate stops everything, which is not democracy.
The problem with the consequences is that the Progressives legislations are mostly to the left of left. And they keep moving further in that direction with a growing number of them saying it is not enough when it is passed. So, it seems even the moderate Dems vote for it also under severe pressure from the party heads.
 
Nothing will stop th dems if they take control, as it should be, "elections have consequences" unless the senate stops everything, which is not democracy.
It's too bad Republicans refuse to negotiate with Dems anymore.
 
If it was too expensive 44m people wouldn't be on it.

Yep. So its better to have ACA

Removing the cap gets us 100% of SS instead of 77%.

You won't pay twice as much. Stop whining.

If it was too expensive 44m people wouldn't be on it.

If it wasn't too expensive, it wouldn't require massive subsidies.

Yep. So its better to have ACA

Nope. They wouldn't all qualify for Medicaid.

Removing the cap gets us 100% of SS instead of 77%.

Not for the people paying more with no cap.

You won't pay twice as much.


Some will. And some will receive less, even after paying more in.
 
Democrats crafted the continuing resolution six months ago that they are refusing to pass today. Try again.
So what? Dems have made their intentions very clear. They want some concessions to vote for another continuing resolution.
 
SCOTUS only has the power the Executive gives it. They're all bluff. They got nothing.

And they know it.

SCOTUS is trying to be less adversarial with Trump, which is a good idea. I believe he might call their bluff if they push him too far.

Unpaid Soldiers? Bad idea. Really Bad Idea.

dimocraps are scum. ALL of them. ESPECIALLY the voters

This is nonsense. The Supreme Court's power comes straight from the Constitution itself, and they can and will rule against the Executive if he crosses the line between the Separation of Powers. If the Executive crosses the line and refuses to abide by the Supreme Court's rulings then he is subject to impeachment and removal from office if convicted in the Senate. Which has never happened but could; more likely the Congress will not pass most of his political agenda, especially if the opposition party has control of one both Houses of Congress. With the mid-terms coming up, a refusal to abide by the Court's decisions could adversely affect the GOP's chances to keep any control in either chamber. But to say the Court only has the power the Executive gives it is total crap.
 
Mandatory coverage? I thought that was unconstitutional?
There's mandatory and then there's mandatory.

It's like my Daddy used to say, "I can't make you do something, but I can make you wish you had"

Go out your basement door, turn right, Adulthood is straight ahead. :boobies:
 
This is nonsense. The Supreme Court's power comes straight from the Constitution itself, and they can and will rule against the Executive if he crosses the line between the Separation of Powers. If the Executive crosses the line and refuses to abide by the Supreme Court's rulings then he is subject to impeachment and removal from office if convicted in the Senate. Which has never happened but could; more likely the Congress will not pass most of his political agenda, especially if the opposition party has control of one both Houses of Congress. With the mid-terms coming up, a refusal to abide by the Court's decisions could adversely affect the GOP's chances to keep any control in either chamber. But to say the Court only has the power the Executive gives it is total crap.
Tell the Cherokee that, Mr Webster --

1761591693889.webp
 
No because it wouldn’t end there remember the Democrats did this to get cabinet nominees and lower court judges confirmed on the simple majority vote over the 60 it had been and then Republicans did the same thing with Supreme Court nominees.
 
The problem with the consequences is that the Progressives legislation is to the left of left. And they keep moving further in that direction with a growing number of them saying it is not enough when it is passed. So, it seems even the moderate Dems vote for it also under severe pressure from the party heads.
Voters make their decisions based on the policies that the pols run on. Trump and the Republicans ran on the BBB, got elected, and want to implement the BBB, but the democrats in the senate are blocking it. Not democracy.
if democrats run on socialism, and get elected, they should be able to pass their agenda. That is democracy.

Voters should get the government they elected. Good or bad outcomes. Then repeat the process.
 
15th post
No because it wouldn’t end there remember the Democrats did this to get cabinet nominees and lower court judges confirmed on the simple majority vote over the 60 it had been and then Republicans did the same thing with Supreme Court nominees.
The time for playing nice with the Scum Of The Earth has long passed. It should be our goal to destroy the most despicable political party in Human History and you can't do that by playing nice.

It's time for Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, X10
 
Voters make their decisions based on the policies that the pols run on. Trump and the Republicans ran on the BBB, got elected, and want to implement the BBB, but the democrats in the senate are blocking it. Not democracy.
if democrats run on socialism, and get elected, they should be able to pass their agenda. That is democracy.

Voters should get the government they elected. Good or bad outcomes. Then repeat the process.
We are a Republic. Not a democracy. It's how we roll in The Shire :thewave:
 
If it was too expensive 44m people wouldn't be on it.
If it wasn't too expensive, it wouldn't require massive subsidies.
The $35b subsidies can be paid for by cuts in spending as identified by DOGE, as well as claw-backs of democrat slush funds.
Yep. So its better to have ACA
Nope. They wouldn't all qualify for Medicaid.
So no healthcare insurance and no Medicaid, so who gets stuck with the bill?
Removing the cap gets us 100% of SS instead of 77%.
Not for the people paying more with no cap.
They should be thankful that they are making so much income.
Otherwise we could just raise the top tax rate to 40%, and eliminate the capital gains tax break to make SS whole from the IOUs given when the SS surplus was stolen under the "Unified Budget".
You won't pay twice as much.
Some will. And some will receive less, even after paying more in.
Taxes are always progressive. SS needs to be made whole, one way or another.
 
The $35b subsidies can be paid for by cuts in spending as identified by DOGE, as well as claw-backs of democrat slush funds.

So no healthcare insurance and no Medicaid, so who gets stuck with the bill?

They should be thankful that they are making so much income.
Otherwise we could just raise the top tax rate to 40%, and eliminate the capital gains tax break to make SS whole from the IOUs given when the SS surplus was stolen under the "Unified Budget".

Taxes are always progressive. SS needs to be made whole, one way or another.
Maybe SS is finally being shown to be as unsustainable as the ACA. Maybe a new program that takes the same contributions and put them in a personal account for the recipient to be drawn at retirement is a better idea than allowing a bloated gov't bureaucracy to control it. Just a suggestion.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom