Jump to content

Are you guys tired of winning yet?

westend1

By westend1
in Political Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

PhatMack19

PhatMack19

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, PAMFAM10 said:

For someone who championed himself on draining the swamp, to be under investigation from the FBI for involvement with Russia.

Man Trump better start building that wall soon.

 

 

I think that's part of the problem.  The swamp doesn't want to be drained and they are putting up a pretty good fight.  It's a lot easier when they have the media in the back pocket.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PAMFAM10

PAMFAM10

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Englebert said:

Really, do you want to play this game? Going on past history, I really don't think you do. But I'll play along because "that's just my game". (The "Well, bye" and "I'm your Huckleberry" lines get quoted so much I figured I would add another quote from Tombstone.)

Paul Ryan proposed a healthcare plan. Many members evaluated the plan and individually came to the conclusion that the plan deserved a no vote. Trump met with them to negotiate changes, but after negotiations many members still thought the plan was not in the best interest of the American people.

Contrast that to the Democrats/Obama's method. The Democrats proposed a plan which many members didn't like. There was no negotiation of terms of the bill. Obama and Pelosi threatened many by withholding campaign money and support. Obama promised to provide some with various other incentives in exchange for their vote. Many voted for the plan just because Obama told them to, and they did not want to go against a fellow party member. And none of them even read the bill before they voted yes to it. And you seem to have had no problem with this, but try to disparage Trump for not being able to negotiate a healthcare plan with his party members. Thus you support blind following of the party. Even a third grader can see that thought process.

Your turn. Please explain your rationale for stating "Couldn't even get his party to get on board". Do you think Trump should have used the same lock-step method employed by the Democrats to whip his party members into shape and to vote on a terrible bill? Or would you rather a method in which members negotiate to come up with a better product that serves the greater good? Please explain how you can make your statement without supporting the lock-step method. You might have to do some rather phenomenal mental gymnastics to come up with an answer.

Not saying it was you but me and others posters got told time after time bush is no longer in office . So compare Trump to Trump.

I think trump owes it to his voters to be the master negotiator he claim he is.

Trump viewed the bill gave his blessings and pushed for it. Just came up short. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
baddog

baddog

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, PAMFAM10 said:

Not saying it was you but me and others posters got told time after time bush is no longer in office . So compare Trump to Trump.

I think trump owes it to his voters to be the master negotiator he claim he is.

Trump viewed the bill gave his blessings and pushed for it. Just came up short. 

It took eight months to get Obamacare going. The left is quick to pounce but hey, you gotta do what you do best.

I don't want government healthcare except for the elderly who paid their way and to help the truly needy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Englebert

Englebert

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, PAMFAM10 said:

Not saying it was you but me and others posters got told time after time bush is no longer in office . So compare Trump to Trump.

I think trump owes it to his voters to be the master negotiator he claim he is.

Trump viewed the bill gave his blessings and pushed for it. Just came up short. 

I'm not comparing people, I'm comparing methodology on how to get things done. You seem to prefer the lock-step method in which you vote for your party instead of the merits of the bill. You are trying to disparage Trump's methodology by spouting he is not competent enough to get a deal on a bad bill. I contrasted that to Obama's methodology in which he got something done, which was an extremely bad bill, and very bad for the country. Getting things passed regardless of the merits is not a good way to conduct business.

You disparage Trump for not getting a bill passed. But if he did, you would complain about how bad the bill is. We've seen this story a million times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Englebert

Englebert

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, westend1 said:

You mean with expanded Medicaid?   Sure.  Why not.  Some states have done it and it seems to be working fine 

I would have to know the details of expanded Medicaid. But this sounds so much better than Obamacare/Hillarycare/Trumpcare/Ryancare/Romneycare/Obamacare Lite/ or whatever other "care" the government wants to implement. From what little I have read about Rand Paul's plan, his seems to be a pretty good idea. It's basically just allowing people that don't get insurance from their employer to be able to bargain with the insurance companies as a group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
westend1

westend1

Posted
  • Author
Posted
6 hours ago, Tigers2010 said:

I bet if Congress and the others had to actually have Obamacare, it would get repealed rather quickly. Tell me our Liberal friends, if Obamacare is so wonderful why doesn't the creators of it use it? Why did they exempt themselves from the get go. Why is it not good enough for them, but just shitty enough for us? Some of us actually took the time and effort to have our own plans before this crap. 

You don't seem to have understand Obamacare.   They could use it, but they have better options, just like 50 percent of all Americans.  Have you been to the exchange?   I haven't 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
texanabroad

texanabroad

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, baddog said:

The ones the programs are designed to help. Not the ones who play the system.

Thanks for the response. As usual, nappy has avoided answering. The elderly and those unable to work should be helped. I have very little sympathy for those who refuse to work. No exceptions. If they are able and receive a handout, they should be earning it. The government should require it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tvc184

tvc184

Posted
Posted

I was never for Trump. I did not want him to be the nominee for the Republicans and would have likely chosen 15 of the other 16 candidates over him.

But he and all others outclass Hillary.

If Gorsuch gets approved for the SCOTUS, I will call it winning. 

If Trump gets another similar pick to replace a retiring Ginsburg, I will call it game-set-match and a very successful presidential term. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PAMFAM10

PAMFAM10

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, tvc184 said:

I was never for Trump. I did not want him to be the nominee for the Republicans and would have likely chosen 15 of the other 16 candidates over him.

But he and all others outclass Hillary.

If Gorsuch gets approved for the SCOTUS, I will call it winning. 

If Trump gets another similar pick to replace a retiring Ginsburg, I will call it game-set-match and a very successful presidential term. 

Why set the bar so low. No wall nothing on imagination nothing on healthcare etc. and after 4 years you'll be satisfied with just a judge.

He owes it to his voters to accomplish more than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tvc184

tvc184

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, PAMFAM10 said:

Why set the bar so low. No wall nothing on imagination nothing on healthcare etc. and after 4 years you'll be satisfied with just a judge.

He owes it to his voters to accomplish more than that.

I would love to see many things done. My biggest concern by far was the makeup of the SCOTUS.

With my comparison to Hillary however, the bar can be set very low.  To outdo a potential Hillary administration, victory will be achieved if Gorsuch is confirmed. Anything else in the next 3 years and 10 months is dessert. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nappyroots

nappyroots

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Englebert said:

Does this mean you agree that Medicare and Medicaid is enough and we should repeal Obamacare without a replacement?

People with pre existing conditions need help also. Most people with pre existing conditions can't afford to pay off politicians. All of this big money donatesd to politicians to win the presidency last year was from rich folks that want something in return. And that goes for both lying, cheating, stealing, screw the working man parties. No political party puts the working man first. To much money being thrown around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Englebert

Englebert

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, nappyroots said:

People with pre existing conditions need help also. Most people with pre existing conditions can't afford to pay off politicians. All of this big money donatesd to politicians to win the presidency last year was from rich folks that want something in return. And that goes for both lying, cheating, stealing, screw the working man parties. No political party puts the working man first. To much money being thrown around.

Wouldn't they covered under the "truly needy", to quote you. So does this mean you agree that Medicare and Medicaid is enough and we should repeal Obamacare without a replacement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
baddog

baddog

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, nappyroots said:

People with pre existing conditions need help also. Most people with pre existing conditions can't afford to pay off politicians. All of this big money donatesd to politicians to win the presidency last year was from rich folks that want something in return. And that goes for both lying, cheating, stealing, screw the working man parties. No political party puts the working man first. To much money being thrown around.

A presidential election with all kinds of money being thrown around. Imagine that. First time for everything.

How is creating jobs not helping the working man? That's a tough one.

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...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

    46,204
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    TJ_40
    Newest Member
    TJ_40
    Joined


  • Posts

    • LumRaiderFan
      Happy Thanksgiving To All!

      By LumRaiderFan · Posted

      Happy Thanksgiving 
    • baddog
      Newsom Proof

      By baddog · Posted

      What news station do you watch?…..never mind.    What age are the children you take care of. Refugees from where? Are they in a hospital? Now children compared to criminals…..geeeez. The mayor of Denver and a few governors, including Newsom, have said they will not turn over incarcerated criminals to ICE. This is a felony. They are harboring criminals and fugitives. Gee, I’m so glad you want criminals protected. Anyone who crossed illegally into our country is a criminal. Happy Holidays to you and yours.
    • Tiger33
      2024 WOS Mustangs

      By Tiger33 · Posted

      Sorry sir on my miss count. I was in hurry
    • Big girl
      Newsom Proof

      By Big girl · Posted

      Are they offering refuge to criminals? Or is it a Trump talking point? Refugees are people who leave their country due to unwarranted prosecution. I actually take care of 2 refugee kids who have complex medical needs   No, refugees are not criminals, and the assumption that they are more likely to be criminals than the general population is incorrect:                                                                                          Research shows immigrants commit crimes at lower rates Immigrants in the United States commit crimes at lower rates than the U.S.-born population, including unauthorized immigrants. This is true across immigrant groups.                  Immigration doesn't raise crime rates Immigrants don't raise crime rates in the communities where they settle. In fact, some studies suggest that immigration can lower crime rates, especially violent crime.                  Anti-immigration politicians have spread a myth Anti-immigration politicians have repeatedly tried to link immigrants to crime, but research shows this is a myth.                  Refugees don't cause crime in Turkey A study found that refugees don't have a causal effect on crime rates in Turkey. In fact, the study found that refugees may have a negative effect on crime rates per capita. 
    • Setx fan
      Can I get some respect now!!!. Woodville goes to state!!

      By Setx fan · Posted

      I think it's actually the first time ever to get past the second round. Some older folks might try to tell you about Scott High but I wasn't here when that school was around 😆

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...