Tzees, are you going to keep electing people like this?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/30/politics/corey-lewandowski-kristi-noem-2024/index.html
Tzees, are you going to keep electing people like this?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/30/politics/corey-lewandowski-kristi-noem-2024/index.html
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
Well, Alford was indicted on Aug.31. So that's a rather old news. And Gaetz has been lawyering up, even though he was "exonerated" according to the Fake News (townhall). ;)
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndfl/pr/fort-walton-beach-man-faces-federal-indictment-25-million-scheme-defraudhttps://news.yahoo.com/matt-gaetz-preparing-fight-102029298.htmlTrollminator wrote:
So... where is your proof of exoneration? Is this like the Mueller investigation where people pretend that trump was exonerated but in fact it was never determined?
LOL, butthead hired Epstein's lawyer and the retainer is gigantic.
Seems to sum it up pretty well.
Dems are just bad at this. Why??????
Probably has something to do with how Dems believe in gummint and try to perfect it. So less gets done. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
https://twitter.com/jrubinblogger/status/1443645048260808712?s=21
agip wrote:
Seems to sum it up pretty well.
Dems are just bad at this. Why??????
Probably has something to do with how Dems believe in gummint and try to perfect it. So less gets done. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
https://twitter.com/jrubinblogger/status/1443645048260808712?s=21
That does sum it up well. I think the outcome will be the second choice in some form. I think it's looking good to get reconciliation done unless Sinema is ready to switch parties. It's a must-pass situation.
This outcome would not show Dems are bad at this. Quite the contrary. It would possibly be the most amazing legislative accomplishment in US history. Think about what it would mean to get both bills of this magnitude passed at a time when there is not a single vote to spare.
The whole idea of the two track legislation sounded totally nuts when I first heard about it. But this just might work. Linking the widely popular smaller bill to the larger bill that most Democrats want means there is enormous pressure and leverage to get both of them done. Even if it doesn't work, it's legislative brilliance.
agip wrote:
Seems to sum it up pretty well.
Dems are just bad at this. Why??????
Probably has something to do with how Dems believe in gummint and try to perfect it. So less gets done. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
https://twitter.com/jrubinblogger/status/1443645048260808712?s=21
Because they are not an organized political party. Just ask Will Rogers.
Fat hurts wrote:
agip wrote:
Seems to sum it up pretty well.
Dems are just bad at this. Why??????
Probably has something to do with how Dems believe in gummint and try to perfect it. So less gets done. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
https://twitter.com/jrubinblogger/status/1443645048260808712?s=21That does sum it up well. I think the outcome will be the second choice in some form. I think it's looking good to get reconciliation done unless Sinema is ready to switch parties. It's a must-pass situation.
This outcome would not show Dems are bad at this. Quite the contrary. It would possibly be the most amazing legislative accomplishment in US history. Think about what it would mean to get both bills of this magnitude passed at a time when there is not a single vote to spare.
The whole idea of the two track legislation sounded totally nuts when I first heard about it. But this just might work. Linking the widely popular smaller bill to the larger bill that most Democrats want means there is enormous pressure and leverage to get both of them done. Even if it doesn't work, it's legislative brilliance.
You have no clue about anything.
Critics of President Joe Biden’s spending plans have focused on its extraordinary multi-trillion-dollar price tag. But the real problem with the legislation isn’t the exorbitant headline cost; it’s the addiction to government cash that follows, resulting in irreversible growth in economy-crushing spending, debt, and taxes for decades to come.
One of the biggest mistakes most critics of Biden’s spending plans have made is to concede the numbers being thrown around. The $3.5 trillion dollar price tag that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer have marketed drastically understates what’s really being proposed.
Democrats are using standard Washington budget gimmicks—phasing in programs to make costs look lower up front; pretending programs will expire that obviously will not—in order to hide the real costs of their proposals. But strip out the accounting games and America is left with is a real cost over 10 years that’s much closer to $5.5 trillion—well over 50% more than what Democrats claim they’re spending.
The dishonesty doesn’t end there. President Biden has made the head-scratching claim that all this spending is "going to cost nothing." The most charitable interpretation of his words is that all of the spending will be covered by new tax revenue, adding nothing to debt. But even charity can’t rescue the integrity of Biden’s promise. Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation pegs the new tax revenue raised by the bill—taxes that will certainly cost something for businesses, workers, savers, and investors—at just $2.1 trillion.
In other words, if President Biden gets his way and we’re honest about the numbers, America will pay more than $2 trillion in new taxes for the privilege of seeing its national debt increase by more than $3 trillion.
$3.5T SPENDING PACKAGE INCLUDES BIG MONEY FOR 'TREE EQUITY,' BIAS TRAINING AND MORE
And that’s just the effect over the next decade.
The real gut punch to American taxpayers, now and for decades to come, happens when all of these new entitlement programs for Pre-K, universal childcare, college tuition, Medicare and more grow roots that can’t be pulled up.
As the Wall Street Journal points out, Biden’s plans for redistributing income run all the way up the income ladder to families earning $400,000. If everyone’s addicted, progressives don’t have to worry about anyone staging an intervention.
As America’s reliance on government cash spreads farther and wider, the gaping budget hole we can see over the next decade will dig itself deeper and wider, necessitating dangerous borrowing or significantly higher taxes up and down the income ladder. It won’t take long before the middle-class experience how devastatingly expensive "nothing" can turn out to be.
The budget debates happening in Congress this week are about much more than the spending and debt we’ll saddle ourselves with over the next decade.
What’s really at stake is the creation of new government entitlement machinery running on autopilot that will strain American taxpayers with trillions in new debt and taxes for decades and decades to come.
Americans are right to be skeptical of Congress jamming $3.5 trillion in spending through a divided Congress in a time of perilous deficits and debt. But they ought to be incensed by the dishonesty of a price tag that cloaks the real costs of a growing government spending addiction.
Trollminator wrote:
https://twitter.com/mobozzen/status/1443376264212066307?s=20
more people apparently voted for the losing candidate in the NYC mayoral election than voted for Manchin.
Ouch.
agip wrote:
nonequals wrote:
I particularly agree with #1-4, with #4 being at the absolute top of the list.
And if #7 keeps the Rs from power while they're still the party of Trump, or ANYTHING close.....OK, perhaps. But honestly, the last thing that I want to hear (as a citizen, and not a political operative I'd never want to be) is more self-congratulation from ANY politician. In fact, it particularly bothers me when I hear any politician - and particularly the president or other other executive branch leaders - touting their accomplishments (anywhere other than the campaign trial). I think, "F***, you were elected to do stuff. I do NOT want to hear you self-congratulating yourself. Leave that to others. Tell us what you will or have done, and perhaps why,, and get the f- off camera !!"
Well I think you are living in some other world of democracy where voters do lots of good research, read the NY Times and compare policy results across decades and parties. I mean come on. Politicians always have to toot their horn - only 1% of hardcore politicos will know anything about them otherwise. And sure, get others to brag about you too.
One of Obama's major, major faults is that he rarely said anything good about what was happening. So the Rs were able to cast the Obama economy as garbage and that stuck. Politicians need to get out on the soapbox and brag about accomplishments. Yell that child poverty is down around 40%. Scream that GDP is rising fastest in a generation. Shout that we are a nation no longer at war after 20 years.
Doing that in an appealing , non-obnoxious way isn't that hard. Rs do it all the time and win national elections despite being the permanent minority party. People think Rs get results and Ds fail, when the numbers are precisely the opposite. R presidents have put the US into recession in each of their last 3 admins, while starting two forever wars. Dems haven't had a recession on their WH watch since...I dunno...carter? Obama had the longest growth streak in modern US history I believe. No one knows this because the dems dont say anything,
here's a list of recessions on Wh watches
Republican:
Reagan: 1
Bush 1: 1
Bush 2: 2
Trump: 1
Democrat:
Carter: 1
Clinton: 0
Obama: 0
Biden: 0
First off, it was mostly a personal preference. Again, not an operative, and I DO NOT want to hear annoying politicians of either party tooting their horns.
Second, not sure that you're not giving a hell of a lot of Americans too much credit. Are most of them listening to ANYTHING that politicians are saying? Could it be the reasonably well informed consume 99% of the boasting from politicians.....that THEY don't need to hear?
About Obama, I hear that a lot. But I'm skeptical. Hillary (and other Ds) lost because Obama was too modest? (and even if he was, the media did a pretty damn "good" job appreciating him). No, I don't think so, not mostly. Hillary lost because she's Hillary AND because WAY too many Americans ACTUALLY can't see through Trump. I'm reasonably conservative living in a very blue state who voted for dead cats. After seeing what Trump did for 4 years, I'm a bit embarrassed that I didn't cast one for Hillary, but......no actual harm.
agip wrote:
FWIW, here' the rationale for the quick escape from Afghanistan:
The US generals felt that if the US unilateraly broke the deal Trump agreed to with the Taliban, not to attack US soldiers, there would be an open war on the US in Afghanistan. And to keep US troops safe we'd have to surge in 30,000 troops. No one wants that. Even the generals who said 'keep 2,500' meant they would be sort of diplomatic corps.
In other words, the taliban agreed not to fight the US if the US troops left by 8/31. We felt the the taliban would start attacking on 9/1. So we skedaddled, honored our agreement.
No idea why Dems never explain these things.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/we-now-know-why-biden-was-in-a-hurry-to-exit-afghanistan/ar-AAOXZpB?ocid=undefined
I'm going to have to do some homework on exactly what Milley said. Because at first blush, it doesn't seem to make sense that we'd need 30K to stay reasonably safe. If my memory serves, we had considerably less than this before the agreement, and casualties were quite low. Shoot, if nothing else a few thousand in Kabul for the embassy and airport, and a few thousand in Bagram for a great lillypad (plus relative handfuls of SF folks here and there).....and I don't think that you'd get anywhere near 30K..... I would have guessed that the number was in the vicinity of 10K.
nonequals wrote:
agip wrote:
FWIW, here' the rationale for the quick escape from Afghanistan:
The US generals felt that if the US unilateraly broke the deal Trump agreed to with the Taliban, not to attack US soldiers, there would be an open war on the US in Afghanistan. And to keep US troops safe we'd have to surge in 30,000 troops. No one wants that. Even the generals who said 'keep 2,500' meant they would be sort of diplomatic corps.
In other words, the taliban agreed not to fight the US if the US troops left by 8/31. We felt the the taliban would start attacking on 9/1. So we skedaddled, honored our agreement.
No idea why Dems never explain these things.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/we-now-know-why-biden-was-in-a-hurry-to-exit-afghanistan/ar-AAOXZpB?ocid=undefinedI'm going to have to do some homework on exactly what Milley said. Because at first blush, it doesn't seem to make sense that we'd need 30K to stay reasonably safe. If my memory serves, we had considerably less than this before the agreement, and casualties were quite low. Shoot, if nothing else a few thousand in Kabul for the embassy and airport, and a few thousand in Bagram for a great lillypad (plus relative handfuls of SF folks here and there).....and I don't think that you'd get anywhere near 30K..... I would have guessed that the number was in the vicinity of 10K.
the difference is that now the Taliban was going to be shooting at Americans. To build a perimeter the americans would have needed tens of thousands of troops.
Through the spring and summer the taliban weren't shooting at us. Because Trump agreed to leave. That non-shooting was about to end.
Trollminator wrote:
Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:
General Milley being taken to the woodshed by Matt Gaetz (a true patriot). Milley and the Sec. of Defense are shown here to be clowns. Just humiliated themselves. Good job, Matt!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hjjXi_0Vp4LOLz if you watch the video it was quite the opposite and clearly the GQP is no longer the pro-military party. Butthead is happy to disrespect any ranking officer, but wouldn't last a few hours in bootcamp.
Exactly. The self-described "conservative" is cheering on the loser fratboy who's never spent a second in uniform who's TRYING (unsuccessfully) to embarrass two combat veterans with 8 stars between them. Yes, Reagan would no doubt be proud.....
Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:
agip wrote:
Really is amazing that the Republican Party has outright laid out its plan to end democracy and there is almost no hullaballoo. An actual 12 point plan.
I think Americans are getting sick of democracy's chaos, to tell you the truth. People just want to live their lives and not have to deal with such crazy. So they are retreating a bit. The question is if enough people would prefer the quiet of the autocracy the GOP plans...or the louder more chaotic democracy the Dems plan.
For a long time the GOP and Dems were so close that democracy sort of ran in the background. There was no big clash of civilizations that made people hate other people.
Trump's plan to end democracy and divide the nation into two parts has amped it all up and maybe people would prefer just giving him power if it will stop the political combat. Lots of people prefer surrender to fighting. Have we lost a common vision of America and are there enough people who want to preserve it?
Where was the common vision when Hillary developed her health care program behind closed doors with nary a conservative present?
Where was the common vision when Obamacare was rammed through Congress with nary a single Republican involved in its creation?
Where is the common vision when Biden is expunging every conservative from previous administrations from any role in the current government?
Where is the common vision when this pork-laden "infrastructure" bill was drafted by Liberals with nary a conservative on board?
Where is the common vision when Dems are planning on reconciliation to ram through this $3.5 trillion liberal pork bill.
The futile attempts at simple education never end. Here's another:
1) Not being "bi-partisan" enough. Bad. Maybe. Kinda. Sometimes. Certainly not close to illegal, immoral or unethical. Kinda just democracy.
2) Trying to steal elections. Super, super bad all the time and in every situation. The exact opposite of democracy.
Both parties do #1 ALL the time. Only 1 party has ever virtually put #2 on their platform.
Got that?
agip wrote:
nonequals wrote:
I'm going to have to do some homework on exactly what Milley said. Because at first blush, it doesn't seem to make sense that we'd need 30K to stay reasonably safe. If my memory serves, we had considerably less than this before the agreement, and casualties were quite low. Shoot, if nothing else a few thousand in Kabul for the embassy and airport, and a few thousand in Bagram for a great lillypad (plus relative handfuls of SF folks here and there).....and I don't think that you'd get anywhere near 30K..... I would have guessed that the number was in the vicinity of 10K.
the difference is that now the Taliban was going to be shooting at Americans. To build a perimeter the americans would have needed tens of thousands of troops.
Through the spring and summer the taliban weren't shooting at us. Because Trump agreed to leave. That non-shooting was about to end.
I said BEFORE the agreement. I believe that we had far under 30K for a good period of time before the Taliban agreed to anything with respect to attacking US or NATO troops.
And I'm no military planner (but did have 21 months in country), but I'm 99.99% sure that, presuming at least half-functioning Afghan forces, US/NATO would not need tens of thousands of troops to secure parts of Kabul and all of Bagram.
But perhaps Milley was talking about doing more than that? Adding other bases? And/or presuming an even more incompetent (and continually declining) ANSF? Just not sure.
nonequals wrote:
agip wrote:
the difference is that now the Taliban was going to be shooting at Americans. To build a perimeter the americans would have needed tens of thousands of troops.
Through the spring and summer the taliban weren't shooting at us. Because Trump agreed to leave. That non-shooting was about to end.
I said BEFORE the agreement. I believe that we had far under 30K for a good period of time before the Taliban agreed to anything with respect to attacking US or NATO troops.
And I'm no military planner (but did have 21 months in country), but I'm 99.99% sure that, presuming at least half-functioning Afghan forces, US/NATO would not need tens of thousands of troops to secure parts of Kabul and all of Bagram.
But perhaps Milley was talking about doing more than that? Adding other bases? And/or presuming an even more incompetent (and continually declining) ANSF? Just not sure.
ah sorry for the poor reading comprehension.
I'd add that the Taliban was not very powerful for a long time. So not much US presence was needed.
As the US gathered its bags the Taliban got its act together and started advancing.
So the taliban of 2020 was far weaker and easier to defend against than the taliban of summer 2021.
We can see its increased strength by how quickly it defeated the Afghan army in 2021.
agip wrote:
Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:
Where was the common vision when Hillary developed her health care program behind closed doors with nary a conservative present?
Where was the common vision when Obamacare was rammed through Congress with nary a single Republican involved in its creation?
Where is the common vision when Biden is expunging every conservative from previous administrations from any role in the current government?
Where is the common vision when this pork-laden "infrastructure" bill was drafted by Liberals with nary a conservative on board?
Where is the common vision when Dems are planning on reconciliation to ram through this $3.5 trillion liberal pork bill.
Stop lying sally.
Might as well ask him to stop breathing.
I thought you'd be interested in this story from the New York Post.<BR><BR>Complete collapse: Team Biden's made a mess on every front<BR>https://nypost.com/2021/09/30/complete-collapse-team-bidens-made-a-mess-on-every-front/?utm_source=email_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons<BR><BR>For more on the New York Post and to download our apps, visit https://nypost.com
New substack post is out. Has nothing to do with Bidementia, but a good read about running nonetheless.
https://rffew.substack.com/p/in-the-long-run?r=f34ro&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=
In freedumb land this is bad news. Saving lives with medicine is tyrannical to them.
And we are supposed to let this minority party run the country into the ground.
https://twitter.com/petemuntean/status/1443620670173241344?s=21
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
I thought you'd be interested in this story from the New York Post.<BR><BR>Complete collapse: Team Biden's made a mess on every front<BR>
https://nypost.com/2021/09/30/complete-collapse-team-bidens-made-a-mess-on-every-front/?utm_source=email_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons<BR><BR>Formore on the New York Post and to download our apps, visit
https://nypost.com
Ah opinion pieces in the tabloids. Yeah good one Igy.