US Election 2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
konfab said:
It is a stupid provision anyway. Signed in full by both parties. Everyone in the Democrat side of things knows that Trump doesn't give a ****, so why do they give him an opportunity to misbehave? It is because of this:

The Democrats want to use this bailout to gain control over companies. Why do you think they were putting in things like CO2 targets for airlines etc?
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...for-airlines-cruises-should-include-pollution
The Republicans wanted to use this bailout to favour their buddies in the corporate sector.

They should have rather done what Switzerland and buffered the US equivalent of UIF. That cannot really be used for cronyism or control, and is fair to all businesses.
Click to expand...

Buffered UIF? But... but... but... Then folk might take home a tiny bit more than they are now... And that might lead to them staying home rather than working.

I mean, just ask Lindsey, Ben and Rick.
 
Randhir said:
M'uH BoTh sides
Click to expand...
Well it was as close to Bipartisan as you get, so I don't know what else I was meant to call it.
The lower chamber approved the measure with an overwhelming 415-2 vote. It now heads to the Senate, which could clear the bill as soon as Thursday and send it to President Donald Trump for his signature. The two nay votes were from Republican Reps. Andy Biggs of Arizona and Ken Buck of Colorado.
Click to expand...
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/04/house-coronavirus-funding-121065

Oh right, I know how this works.
Anything the Democrats do is good and just.
Anything the Republicans do is bad and unjust.

Maybe the Democrats should use their majority to pass bills that cannot be abused by Trump and his administration. But that would mean they would have to give up their socialist dream of controlling every facet of society.
 
The Trumptards insist that you get your facts from Orangutanman's rodeo clown.

www.businessinsider.com

Twitter deleted a tweet by Rudy Giuliani for spreading coronavirus misinformation

Giuliani quoted a right-wing conspiracy theorist pushing hydroxychloroquine as a coronavirus cure. The drug is unproven and potentially dangerous.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com

5e806b9e0c2a626b8f6a3033
 
greg0205 said:
Buffered UIF? But... but... but... Then folk might take home a tiny bit more than they are now... And that might lead to them staying home rather than working.

I mean, just ask Lindsey, Ben and Rick.
Click to expand...
This bill pays you more not to work than if you were working,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who along with Republican Sens. Ben Sasse (NE), Tim Scott (SC), and Rick Scott (FL) expressed concerns about the amount of money workers would be able to secure from unemployment insurance. They’re pushing for a vote on an amendment that would cap the amount of unemployment support workers could receive so it’s limited to 100 percent of their previous salaries.
Click to expand...

Tell me what is so unreasonable about that? No-one should get paid more to be unemployed than if they were employed. Getting 100% of your salary via UIF is a bloody good deal.

Do you understand incentives?
 
konfab said:
Well it was as close to Bipartisan as you get, so I don't know what else I was meant to call it.
Click to expand...

Lmao. As if that's what you meant.

konfab said:
Oh right, I know how this works.
Anything the Democrats do is good and just.
Anything the Republicans do is bad and unjust.
Click to expand...

Yeah sure, you can misrepresent what I said. It's not like you have an actual argument against the moron-in-chief wanting zero oversight over spending of federal funds. It's not like only bootlickers wouldn't have a problem with that, right? ;) But m'uh both sides....
 
Randhir said:
Lmao. As if that's what you meant.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what I meant. The spending bill was passed by a Democrat majority with full republican support. You don't have to be a professor of political science to observe that Trump tends to do what he wants. So why did the Democrats, who would reasonably think this would happen, go along with it anyway?

Randhir said:
Yeah sure, you can misrepresent what I said. It's not like you have an actual argument against the moron-in-chief wanting zero oversight over spending of federal funds. It's not like only bootlickers wouldn't have a problem with that, right?
Click to expand...
I stated that I don't want Trump to be able to spend federal funds on bailouts in the first place because he has a track-record of not listening to people.

Everyone in the Democrat side of things knows that Trump doesn't give a ****, so why do they give him an opportunity to misbehave?
Click to expand...

That is the root of the problem. Wanting oversight is like giving your bankrupted cousin who has a spending problem your credit card and making them a pinky promise that they won't spend it badly.

Why did the Democrats do this? Because they wanted to use that oversight office to gain control over companies. This is what they have said they want. I don't know why pointing this out triggers you so much. I thought you would be happy that they are not compromising their principles to control the economy, even if it means giving Trump a $500bn cheque (or check if you are speaking Amerilard).
 
cerebus said:
You're just trying to justify your diet of garbage youtube propaganda
Click to expand...
I say, read both sides so you can get a balanced view, especially look at those not affiliated with the mainstream that has an agenda.

And this is your take-away.
Right-wingers are stupid. But dang, leftists are a special brand of stupid.
 
Brenden_E said:
I say, read both sides so you can get a balanced view, especially look at those not affiliated with the mainstream that has an agenda.

And this is your take-away.
Right-wingers are stupid. But dang, leftists are a special brand of stupid.
Click to expand...

Whom do you read?
 
konfab said:
Tell me what is so unreasonable about that? No-one should get paid more to be unemployed than if they were employed. Getting 100% of your salary via UIF is a bloody good deal.

Do you understand incentives?
Click to expand...

It's adorable how you defend folk who celebrate a one-and-a-half Trillion Dollar tax cut for donors and the 1% in the Rose Garden, but fight tooth and nail to stop regular folk getting $600,00 more than they should.
 
konfab said:
That is exactly what I meant. The spending bill was passed by a Democrat majority with full republican support. You don't have to be a professor of political science to observe that Trump tends to do what he wants. So why did the Democrats, who would reasonably think this would happen, go along with it anyway?
Click to expand...

Utter BS. If they had passed no bills due to Trump ignoring any regulations, you'd be blaming them, not him.

konfab said:
I stated that I don't want Trump to be able to spend federal funds on bailouts in the first place because he has a track-record of not listening to people.
Click to expand...

Sure, but even though it's a president who isn't able to be trusted, who are the majority of your posts aimed at? Is it Trump? Lol.

konfab said:
That is the root of the problem. Wanting oversight is like giving your bankrupted cousin who has a spending problem your credit card and making them a pinky promise that they won't spend it badly.
Click to expand...

And yet unless pressed, you have zero to say about it, and like the others, cry about the Democrats.
 
cerebus said:
Whom do you read?
Click to expand...
What does it matter, you'll do your best to interpret it in some ridiculous way as you have done so far. I mean really, by this conversation I can see you are so indoctrinated that you can have a reasonable reflection on anything. The leftist media programmed you like a muppet.
 
greg0205 said:
It's adorable how you defend folk who celebrate a one-and-a-half Trillion Dollar tax cut for donors and the 1% in the Rose Garden, but fight tooth and nail to stop regular folk getting $600,00 more than they should.
Click to expand...

And this is without the Republican senator Richard Burr selling off shares due to information gained as Senate Intelligence Chairman. But only Democrats bad, right?

Back in February, as the novel coronavirus spread across the United States, Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr penned an op-ed insisting that Americans had nothing to worry about because, he claimed, “the United States today is better prepared than ever before to face emerging public health threats, like the coronavirus.” Some other things Burr got up to that same month? Warning “a small group of well-connected constituents” that the virus was “much more aggressive in its transmission than anything that we have seen in recent history” and dumping as much as $1.72 million in stock shortly before the market tanked in response to the growing COVID-19 threat, a move now under review by the federal government.

According to ProPublica, the senator from North Carolina sold between $628,000 and $1.72 million in 33 separate transactions on February 13, less than a week after he told the American public it had absolutely nothing to fear. Among the sales were shares of Wyndham Hotels and Resorts worth up to $150,000 and shares of Extended Stay America, i.e. companies extremely vulnerable to a slowdown.
Click to expand...
 
Brenden_E said:
What does it matter, you'll do your best to interpret it in some ridiculous way as you have done so far. I mean really, by this conversation I can see you are so indoctrinated that you can have a reasonable reflection on anything. The leftist media programmed you like a muppet.
Click to expand...

Oh come on now, you're free to insult people for reading CNN and MSNBC so what do you have that's so much more factual and unbiased?
 
Randhir said:
And this is without the Republican senator Richard Burr selling off shares due to information gained as Senate Intelligence Chairman. But only Democrats bad, right?
Click to expand...

Only Democrats. Always, only Democrats. SMDH.
 
cerebus said:
Oh come on now, you're free to insult people for reading CNN and MSNBC so what do you have that's so much more factual and unbiased?
Click to expand...
No, I insult people that think those outlets are balanced reporting. I read CNN and MSNBC myself - they often have good insights.
 
Randhir said:
Utter BS. If they had passed no bills due to Trump ignoring any regulations, you'd be blaming them, not him.
Click to expand...
All they had to do was pass bills that didn't require Trump to be an honest politician(which I feel is an oxymoron). And like it or not, Trump is still the president and they haven't been able to remove him. That is the reality of the situation in the US.

Here is an obligatory OrangeManBad for you if it will make you happy.


Randhir said:
Sure, but even though it's a president who isn't able to be trusted, who are the majority of your posts aimed at? Is it Trump? Lol.
Click to expand...
They are aimed at the people giving power to Trump. :rolleyes:

Lets look at Hungary, who do you think is to blame for the new little dictatorship there? The President, or the parliament that gave him power?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X