W.TN.Orange Blood
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2012
- Messages
- 144,572
- Likes
- 385,777
Nice try to move the goalposts. Those roads are allocated (built) because they're in an economically lagging area. There's no way to justify their construction other than economic development. Since you mention it though, mainly the needy will access them.Only the needy can access those roads? Some sort of inverted toll in place?
Your post was some skit insinuating Trump would back down on some of these deals. I simply gave proof that his tough stance on issues is/has paid dividends. This is what a true leader does and what we have sorely missed over the last 4 years.Huh? A couple more what? My post was about looking stupid in the trade wars. I try to avoid useless posters who deal in deflections. Go on this tangent alone.
from ACLU website:Then why would an EO be necessary?
The potus does not control the judicial. This is basic civicsIt's the leftist frivolous lawsuits that are the problem, not Trump's EOs
if gov't is removed from GDP then we have been in a recession last 4 years. Since DOGE is reducing gov't growth it will have a negative impact on GDP which the liberal media will accuse Trump of creating a bad GDP even though that bad GDP only effects the gov't not private citizens/businesses.No, govt spending should not be included in GDP numbers. It needs to be separated.
if gov't is removed from GDP then we have been in a recession last 4 years. Since DOGE is reducing gov't growth it will have a negative impact on GDP which the liberal media will accuse Trump of creating a bad GDP even though that bad GDP only effects the gov't not private citizens/businesses.
I don't think the Rs want to do that. Their policies add costs to the middle class and down while taking taxes off the plate of those at the top. The current proposal hits the middle of the road payer with something like $1500 more a year.as usual the Rs and the Ds see the same issue and want to approach it in two different ways.
The Ds want to take more money from some, so that they can give more money to a different group. even though the taking creates more of the needy.
the Rs want* to take less money from all, so that people don't need as many government handouts.
*trump is just a D in disguise.
When you do, you'll see that he's the first being censured for this, at least from what I could tell. Again, are we censuring everyone that does this or only guys on the other side of the aisle?You see a black man interrupting. I see a man.
You see his interruption as justified. I see it as wrong time, wrong place.
You see a slippery slope to bigger issues. I see partisan politics.
Other Reps have been censured. We didn't return to the 50s then. We won't know. Which makes her bombastic, irrational rhetoric worthy of mocking.
You don't condone. Great. A point of agreement. You are rationalizing the behavior. I am not.
The last disrupting rep I recall was Joe Wilson. He was reprimanded. I can google all the ones who have been censured if it would help the discussion.
If I understand politics like I think I do, the party in power would likely reprimand or censure an opposing party Rep and not "punish" their own.When you do, you'll see that he's the first being censured for this, at least from what I could tell. Again, are we censuring everyone that does this or only guys on the other side of the aisle?