August 3, 20223 yr 4 minutes ago, The_Omega said: If the Democrats are so desperate to help the veterans, as they're claiming, then why haven't they just passed this using budget reconciliation, which only requires a simple majority? Being a spending bill, it should be eligible to do so. Do you dictate Tucker’s monologues while he’s saying them or do you go online and get the transcripts and then copy and paste?
August 3, 20223 yr Just now, VanHammersly said: Do you dictate Tucker’s monologues while he’s saying them or do you go online and get the transcripts and then copy and paste? Do you just have a useless short list of antagonistic comebacks and continually recycle them?
August 3, 20223 yr 17 minutes ago, The_Omega said: If the Democrats are so desperate to help the veterans, as they're claiming, then why haven't they just passed this using budget reconciliation, which only requires a simple majority? Being a spending bill, it should be eligible to do so. They didn't have to. The feckless losers who tried to go back on their approval backed down quickly after it become abundantly clear that "not giving needed healthcare to sick and dying veterans" didn't go over well publicly. Who've guessed? Now they can save a budget reconciliation vote for the next times the spineless weasels try to pull some BS. Great day for America.
August 3, 20223 yr 25 minutes ago, The_Omega said: If the Democrats are so desperate to help the veterans, as they're claiming, then why haven't they just passed this using budget reconciliation, which only requires a simple majority? Being a spending bill, it should be eligible to do so.
August 4, 20223 yr 37 minutes ago, The_Omega said: Do you just have a useless short list of antagonistic comebacks and continually recycle them? No, it’s a long list.
August 4, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, The_Omega said: If the Democrats are so desperate to help the veterans, as they're claiming, then why haven't they just passed this using budget reconciliation, which only requires a simple majority? Being a spending bill, it should be eligible to do so. Take the L, Sarah. You'll have plenty of other things to blame the Democrats on but the GQP showed their ass on this one and no doubt lost some voters in the process.
August 4, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, The_Omega said: If the Democrats are so desperate to help the veterans, as they're claiming, then why haven't they just passed this using budget reconciliation, which only requires a simple majority? Being a spending bill, it should be eligible to do so. 1) why go the budget reconciliation process on a bill that received 84 votes???? 2) in order to go the budget reconciliation route, they would have had to re-write the bill to make it comply with the Byrd rule. It’s not like Chuck Schumer can just stand up and yell Michael scott style "I declare reconciliation!!!” And then magically only 50 votes are needed to pass it. and again, why on earth go through that process for a bill that already had incredible bipartisan support?
August 4, 20223 yr 4 hours ago, The_Omega said: If the Democrats are so desperate to help the veterans, as they're claiming, then why haven't they just passed this using budget reconciliation, which only requires a simple majority? Being a spending bill, it should be eligible to do so. Huh? You do already know that R's already reversed course and voted for it, right?
August 4, 20223 yr 6 hours ago, mayanh8 said: Huh? You do already know that R's already reversed course and voted for it, right? Shhh, let him go. He’s on a roll
August 4, 20223 yr Author 11 hours ago, The_Omega said: If the Democrats are so desperate to help the veterans, as they're claiming, then why haven't they just passed this using budget reconciliation, which only requires a simple majority? Being a spending bill, it should be eligible to do so. Tell us again about what the house added, the trick, that made those Republicans change their vote. We're still waiting, sweetie.
August 4, 20223 yr On 8/3/2022 at 2:29 PM, Toastrel said: Election deniers talking about logical. What is logical about claiming an election was stolen when you are unable to prove it in ANY WAY in ANY STATE? I go to get proof, and then you will say what happened with the court cases, must not be legit. Then I tell you what happened with the court cases, and you talk about proof. This is circular reasoning that points more to siding with the current authority than with truth. I get it, it feels safe and cool to be with the establishment's narrative. Like you've achieved something, belonging to the current "authority". It's a common psychographic.
August 4, 20223 yr On 8/3/2022 at 2:24 PM, mr_hunt said: they had a bunch of theories...all they needed was proof. They had proof, all they needed was someone to hear the cases and a media that doesn't gaslight.
August 4, 20223 yr Author 17 minutes ago, matchew88 said: I go to get proof, and then you will say what happened with the court cases, must not be legit. Then I tell you what happened with the court cases, and you talk about proof. This is circular reasoning that points more to siding with the current authority than with truth. I get it, it feels safe and cool to be with the establishment's narrative. Like you've achieved something, belonging to the current "authority". It's a common psychographic. No, you don't. You pretend 2000 mules is proof, because you have no concept of what it means. However, please, let's see your proof. Real proof that holds up to scrutiny.
August 4, 20223 yr 19 minutes ago, matchew88 said: I go to get proof, and then you will say what happened with the court cases, must not be legit. Then I tell you what happened with the court cases, and you talk about proof. This is circular reasoning that points more to siding with the current authority than with truth. I get it, it feels safe and cool to be with the establishment's narrative. Like you've achieved something, belonging to the current "authority". It's a common psychographic. He lost, stupid. Now don't take that as me telling you to stop, by all means keep explaining how he really won the election and it was stolen. Do so in detail, please.
August 4, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, matchew88 said: They had proof, all they needed was someone to hear the cases and a media that doesn't gaslight. Oh we have plenty of proof. Proof that this country is full of morons.
August 5, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, matchew88 said: I go to get proof, and then you will say what happened with the court cases, must not be legit. Then I tell you what happened with the court cases, and you talk about proof. This is circular reasoning that points more to siding with the current authority than with truth. I get it, it feels safe and cool to be with the establishment's narrative. Like you've achieved something, belonging to the current "authority". It's a common psychographic. You know what else is a common psychographic? People who desperately want to feel as if they have some secret truth about the world that the others don't see. That they're special, and too smart to be tricked like the sheep around them. Common particularly in the unintelligent, it helps them cope with their insecurities about their own shortcomings mentally and in life. A bunch of deluded idiots unable to accept the fact that they offer nothing worthwhile to society, and therefore twist logic in order to make it so the society is the enemy. Sound familiar?
August 5, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, matchew88 said: They had proof, all they needed was someone to hear the cases and a media that doesn't gaslight.
August 5, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, matchew88 said: They had proof, all they needed was someone to hear the cases and a media that doesn't gaslight.
Create an account or sign in to comment