It was a metaphor. It was agreement with your thesis. It was, "Yeah, no ****."
Cannonpointer » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ The repukes have an 8 seat lead. If the dems can flip five, the bill goes to take a **** and the bears eat it. Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick is a gimme. They need four more. Fitzpatrick of PA and Suozzi of New York and Josh Gottheimer out of Jersey and Ed Case our of Hawaii and Nicole Malliotakis outo f New York and Andrew Garbarino out of New York, they should easily be able to beat it - assuming the dems unite and no blue dogs **** in the punch bowl.
Those are not the only leaky vessels the republican house majority leader has to contend with - that is just one group of them: the republican members of the Problem Solvers Caucus. There are some main stream republicans who live to **** on trump if they can get away with it.
They need four to flip the senate. Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins a gimme. They need three more. The three exist - I won't belabor.
But the TRUTH is, the dems are not against the bill and will not work to stop it. It's a bomb they can throw to get the base **** itself. They're in on it. And you're falling for it.
too risky to have it passed.Cannonpointer » 19 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ The repukes have an 8 seat lead. If the dems can flip five, the bill goes to take a **** and the bears eat it. Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick is a gimme. They need four more. Fitzpatrick of PA and Suozzi of New York and Josh Gottheimer out of Jersey and Ed Case our of Hawaii and Nicole Malliotakis outo f New York and Andrew Garbarino out of New York, they should easily be able to beat it - assuming the dems unite and no blue dogs **** in the punch bowl.
Those are not the only leaky vessels the republican house majority leader has to contend with - that is just one group of them: the republican members of the Problem Solvers Caucus. There are some main stream republicans who live to **** on trump if they can get away with it.
They need four to flip the senate. Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins a gimme. They need three more. The three exist - I won't belabor.
But the TRUTH is, the dems are not against the bill and will not work to stop it. It's a bomb they can throw to get the base **** itself. They're in on it. And you're falling for it.
some republican elected officials have figured it outjerrab » 12 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ I am pretty sure the dems are against it all those cuts to food stamps and medicaid are horrendous.
any dem that votes for it will never getting elected..... ever.
And I take the firmer stance (firmer because it's smarter) that there are no republicans and democrats at the level of the oligarchs. Just actors, playing roles, and each are members of the same brotherhood with the same interests working toward the same ends.jerrab » Today, 8:32 am » wrote: ↑ I take the firm stand that republicans fight for republicans even though a few rich democrats might benefit as well.
I commiserate with you that the election of Trump threw a monkey wrench into the fascism and censorship that your party supports and relies on.jerrab » Today, 8:32 am » wrote: ↑ and if mark zuckerford is counted among the democrats, let me say that the rules on facebook are changed. perhaps trump promised him reduction in his taxes.
You can define woman - and bully for you.
Just notice that you are complaining about less censorship.jerrab » Today, 8:32 am » wrote: ↑as Mark Zuckerberg seeks to curry favour with Donald Trump.////////// ------------------------------/////////
Zuckerberg also loosened moderation rules around offensive speech ...
Perhaps you should cease to do mental gymnastics that cast the .01%er as a weakling who only gets HER tax breaks because they cannot figure out a way to gerrymander the code?
Thank you for sharing someone else's analysis of the bill that has you self-pissing. If the worse thing it does is that, it's one of the best bills of the century. I am confident it does a lot worse **** - and I'm not sweating it.jerrab » Today, 12:09 pm » wrote: ↑ it is put to the vote and not one democrat vote is needed to get it passed.
more about the bill.//////////////////////////////
The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" includes a provision that could significantly limit federal courts' authority to enforce contempt citations, particularly in cases involving the Trump administration. Specifically, the bill stipulates that courts cannot use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security bond was posted when the injunction was issued. This applies retroactively and prospectively, affecting orders issued prior to, on, or after the bill's enactment. Here's Erwin Chemerinsky in "Just Security" warning about it:
I agree. Now is not the time to limit the ability of federal courts to enforce their judicial orders.jerrab » Today, 12:29 pm » wrote: ↑ we have lost america when this bill passes.
----------------------------------
https://www.justsecurity.org/113529/ter ... mpt-court/
Now is not the time to limit the ability of federal courts to enforce their judicial orders.
That's why they have golden parachutes, son. Google, "Joe Lieberman." He mucked in. He did the dirty work. The other dems got to play innocent. And we didn't get the public option. And you fell for it. You put it on Joe, and you pretended the democ rats tried.jerrab » 28 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ I am pretty sure the dems are against it all those cuts to food stamps and medicaid are horrendous.
any dem that votes for it will never getting elected..... ever.
If AIPAC wants it, if President Netanyahu wants them to, your demonrats will vote for it, child. No matter what.
Cannonpointer » Today, 6:36 pm » wrote: ↑ Thank you for sharing someone else's analysis of the bill that has you self-pissing. If the worse thing it does is that, it's one of the best bills of the century. I am confident it does a lot worse **** - and I'm not sweating it.
I am equally confident that the democrats are in token opposition to it and will see that it passes, whatever it takes. If five of the house repukes flip, one democ rat that loses the rochambo will flip the other way. Google, "Joe Lieberman."
the person who answers to israel is trump.Cannonpointer » Today, 6:46 pm » wrote: ↑ If AIPAC wants it, if President Netanyahu wants them to, your demonrats will vote for it, child. No matter what.
One or more - whatever number it takes - will lose the round of rochambo and take one for the team.
They'll be okay, after. I promise. I truly promise.
you fell for the el salvador president has no authority to release a prisoner bit.Cannonpointer » Today, 6:44 pm » wrote: ↑ That's why they have golden parachutes, son. Google, "Joe Lieberman." He mucked in. He did the dirty work. The other dems got to play innocent. And we didn't get the public option. And you fell for it. You put it on Joe, and you pretended the democ rats tried.
jerrab » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ you fell for the el salvador president has no authority to release a prisoner bit.
If you're gonna hit reply, you should reply.jerrab » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑this is absolute scary or do you have a reason why trump needs to be all powerful.Cannonpointer » Today, 6:36 pm » wrote: ↑ Thank you for sharing someone else's analysis of the bill that has you self-pissing. If the worse thing it does is that, it's one of the best bills of the century. I am confident it does a lot worse **** - and I'm not sweating it.
I am equally confident that the democrats are in token opposition to it and will see that it passes, whatever it takes. If five of the house repukes flip, one democ rat that loses the rochambo will flip the other way. Google, "Joe Lieberman."
"The" person?
If by "fell for it" you mean laughed my *** off about it, ya got me, Pook.jerrab » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ you fell for the el salvador president has no authority to release a prisoner bit.
of course the el salvadore version of trump has no power in el salvadore.Cannonpointer » 46 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ If by "fell for it" you mean laughed my *** off about it, ya got me, Pook.
I didn't get too deeply into the issue - and I suspect that I still have a better understanding of it than you do.jerrab » 47 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ of course the el salvadore version of trump has no power in el salvadore.