What the right offers

jbander · Jul 14, 2019

rwee2000 said:
The president can't spend a single dime without congress's approval. And while the president can veto a spending bill, he cannot line-item veto, so he has accept the whole bill, or none of it. And there is a process to override the president. You will notice the judicial branch is not included in that process, it's only after the bill is approved that judicial could get involved. And only if someone objects to it. If a bill doesn't pass there is no real remedy in the courts.

So given that when Clinton had a balanced budget, it was congress that balanced it, not Clinton, his only part was accepting the spending bill.

Buddy you have no idea what your talking about, The president vetoes it and that is almost always the end of it. Congress can do nothing.They need 2/3 to override which is right next to impossible. Look at the numbers and keep your bull****,

jbander · Jul 14, 2019

Checkerboard Strangler said:
And the Right, in your opinion, doesn't do much the same thing?
Oh my God, that's funny.

Mister eohrnberger, the two sides are simply too polarized and tribalized to allow any outreach.
Blaming one side only isn't going to change anything.

But from where I sit, I see an awful lot of talk from the Right that sounds identical to the McCarthy Era, the Hollywood Blacklist and the House Unamerican Activities panel. (HUAC)
We're now being told that we "hate America" because we don't agree with EVERY SINGLE POLICY POSITION that the Right wants.
We've watched you cast out your own people the moment they don't reflexively rubber stamp absolutely EVERYTHING without question.
People in your own party are TERRIFIED of speaking out...even whispering.
And that's YOUR people.
For OUR people, your side makes it clear in no uncertain terms that we should be jailed, censured, accused of everything from Hell to breakfast.
Your side doesn't even believe that we are HUMAN BEINGS.

Look in the mirror.
No...not CLOSE UP, step back and check out who's behind you in that reflection.
Open your ears and listen to what they're saying.

I in no way go along with the concept that the left is the same as the right or the left is as bad as the right, that bull. The right offers almost nothing that is needed for this country and it's people , who they are in 2019 is simple something that has to be gotten rid of. This hate group they call a party is the worse thing that has happened to this country, they are one ugly group that is driven by their hatred of just about everything. They exist now as a party of hate. How else could the hate candidate they have now get in power. This ugly group has to be disposed of to save this country. Get something straight . I'm in no way suggesting that a conservative voice isn't needed in this country, it is just as important as the liberal voice is in this country. But I'm not talking about a conservative faction of the right but they are few and far between in this hate group, such a small group in fact that they are best disposed of totally and with the support of the patriots in this country a new Conservative group will be put together and I will support that with my time and money to accomplish that but if it starts to look like this ugly group again , it will have to be dumped again. They simply are this countries biggest threat and in my opinion this countries biggest enemy.

Rickeroo · Jul 14, 2019

jbander said:
The rights moral compass has been in rewriting the values of the bible and our constitution. In both cases distorting to the point that it is not recognizable. Twisted to allow their hatred, bigotry, homophobia, chavenism, Islamophobia and hatred of our government To be acceptable and a respected direction when it's not.. They operate on the politics of fear.

The right Favor's the wealthy, seek to subjugate, seek to divide, seek to exploit, seek to disenfranchise, encourage conformity, fear diversity, appose science and art, promote aggression, promote fear, promote ignorance, indulge in deception, believe humans are sinful. This is in no way the direction that this country should be going in. I'm litterally apposed to every aspect of the values of the right. They offer nothing for our country that is worth retaining at the price that those changes cost the people and this country.

.

It is true that the right favors the wealthy. Statistically, those above the median income vote republican, those below vote democrat. Democrats lose votes as income increases, republicans gain votes. Which party benefits from more poor people?

Bullseye · Jul 14, 2019

Checkerboard Strangler said:
Europe and Japan had much of their manufacturing up and running within two years of the aftermath of the war.
That's a FACT, Jack.
I didn't say we didn't help. I'm saying that a cockamamey excuse that we had the only functioning economy for a decade after WW2 is BS.
The only people who believe that are the kind of people who tried to mount "The Business Plot" in the 1930's in an effort to overthrow the FDR administration by force.
You're basically pushing nonsense being spewed by their living descendants today. Same kind of thinking, same kind of mindset, same kind of denialism, same kind of orwellian historical revisionism and the facts refute ALL of what they are saying.

Maybe this will clear up your misunderstandings.

The reconstruction of Germany after World War II was a long process. Germany had suffered heavy losses during the war, both in lives and industrial power. 6.9 to 7.5 million Germans had been killed, roughly 8.26 to 8.86 percent of the population (see also World War II casualties).[1][2] The country's cities were severely damaged from heavy bombing in the closing chapters of the War and agricultural production was only 35 percent of what it was before the war.

As agreed at Potsdam, an attempt was made to convert Germany into a pastoral and agricultural nation, allowed only light industry. Many factories were dismantled as reparations or were simply destroyed (see also the Morgenthau Plan). Millions of German prisoners of war were for several years used as forced labor, both by the Western Allies and the Soviet Union

By mid-1947, the success of denazification and the start of the Cold War had led to a re-consideration of policy, as the Germans were seen as possible allies in the conflict and the dawning realization that the economic recovery of Europe was dependent on the reactivation of German industry.

I'm sure you're aware of what happened in 1947 - you mentioned it above.

eohrnberger · Jul 14, 2019

Checkerboard Strangler said:
And the Right, in your opinion, doesn't do much the same thing?

True conservatives and libertarians are not supporting ever greater government control over the population. Sure, there are some that claim to be conservative, but really aren't.

Oh my God, that's funny.

Odd sense of humor, considering the left has made a career of constantly running any public policy decision they disagree with to liberal courts to get instituted what they want.

Mister eohrnberger, the two sides are simply too polarized and tribalized to allow any outreach.

A fair observation. US politics has become excessively polarized and tribalized, this especially the case when conservatives defend themselves against unfounded liberal, progressive, leftist, and Democrat attacks. Which part of something a non-leftist said was 'racist' now?

Blaming one side only isn't going to change anything.

Probably true, but not necessarily accurate. Which part of something a non-leftist said was 'racist' again?

But from where I sit, I see an awful lot of talk from the Right that sounds identical to the McCarthy Era, the Hollywood Blacklist and the House Unamerican Activities panel. (HUAC)

Laughable. Which party is control of the House again? I'd agree that the House committees are in fact sounding a lot like 'the House Unamerican Activities panel' with little more than a single sole target of their hate, abusing government power, laughing called 'proper and appropriate oversight', which is little more than a politically targeted missing in life. All you have to do is compare against what little oversight, in comparison, previous administrations received.

We're now being told that we "hate America" because we don't agree with EVERY SINGLE POLICY POSITION that the Right wants.

This from the party that is advocating the destruction of not only the US economy, but also the US middle class (whom they mouth some sort of concern over), the abdication of any border law enforcement, and open borders? Who's public policies have turned large cities into little more than migrant encampments, who clearly favor illegal aliens and their well being over US citizenry?

No one is looking for agreement on "EVERY SINGLE POLICY POSITION" except the liberal, progressive, leftist, and Democrats, which they enforce on their own with vindication.

We've watched you cast out your own people the moment they don't reflexively rubber stamp absolutely EVERYTHING without question.
People in your own party are TERRIFIED of speaking out...even whispering.
And that's YOUR people.

That's a lot of projection there. I'm seeing a lot more of this from the left than the right.

For OUR people, your side makes it clear in no uncertain terms that we should be jailed, censured, accused of everything from Hell to breakfast.
Your side doesn't even believe that we are HUMAN BEINGS.

Who's always accusing whom of being Nazis without any sort of foundation?

Look in the mirror.
No...not CLOSE UP, step back and check out who's behind you in that reflection.
Open your ears and listen to what they're saying.

I think it is you that needs to open your ears and listen to what the liberal, progressive, leftist, and Democrats are pedaling.

Checkerboard Strangler · Jul 14, 2019

Bullseye said:
Maybe this will clear up your misunderstandings.

I'm sure you're aware of what happened in 1947 - you mentioned it above.

You just reinforced my argument.

By 1950, the UK and France were finally induced to follow the U.S. lead, and stop the dismantling of German heavy industry.
The country's economic recovery under the newly formed democratic government was, once it was permitted, swift and effective.

By NINETEEN FIFTY.
And by the way, the main industries being dismantled were any industries that might be repurposed for WAR, hence the sudden appearance of tiny German microcars, like these:

Tiny Pioneers: German Museum Celebrates Vintage Microcars

Those microcars were all the Germans were allowed to manufacture for the first couple of years.
But by 1950 those restrictions were lifted.

Checkerboard Strangler · Jul 14, 2019

eohrnberger said:
True conservatives and libertarians are

Ahhhh, the "No True Conservative" argument, which is closely related to the No True Scotsman argument or the No True Muslim argument, all of which might sometimes be valid, except for the fact that Trump IS NOW the FACE of the Republican Party.

Yeah, so you're an apologist, a blind one at that.
Snipped and hard pass.

Nice talkin' to ya. (said no one ever)

Bullseye · Jul 14, 2019

Checkerboard Strangler said:
You just reinforced my argument.

By 1950, the UK and France were finally induced to follow the U.S. lead, and stop the dismantling of German heavy industry.
The country's economic recovery under the newly formed democratic government was, once it was permitted, swift and effective.

By NINETEEN FIFTY.

And by the way, the main industries being dismantled were any industries that might be repurposed for WAR, hence the sudden appearance of tiny German microcars, like these:

Tiny Pioneers: German Museum Celebrates Vintage Microcars

Those microcars were all the Germans were allowed to manufacture for the first couple of years.
But by 1950 those restrictions were lifted.

You're getting desperate. BY 1950 the uS STOPPED dismantling . . . Do you think the system just spontaneously rebuilt? Micro cars? BFD. What was being dismantled was WHAT WAS LEFT after intense bombing for years. What part of "heavy losses in industrial power" do you find confusing?

jbander · Jul 14, 2019

Rickeroo said:
It is true that the right favors the wealthy. Statistically, those above the median income vote republican, those below vote democrat. Democrats lose votes as income increases, republicans gain votes. Which party benefits from more poor people?

Problem is what your saying is bull**** as usual , you haters live and die on your lies , this time you die.

Pew Institute
You people's only reality is the lie that your party member tells you. In fact you have it 180 deg off. Democrats are way wealthier on average then hate party members. The difference is that liberal have a conscience something totally vacant in the hate party.

jbander · Jul 14, 2019

Checkerboard Strangler said:
Ahhhh, the "No True Conservative" argument, which is closely related to the No True Scotsman argument or the No True Muslim argument, all of which might sometimes be valid, except for the fact that Trump IS NOW the FACE of the Republican Party.

Yeah, so you're an apologist, a blind one at that.
Snipped and hard pass.

Nice talkin' to ya. (said no one ever)[/QUOTE your comment at the end of your remarks "I think Trump is much better than Hitler." is only because he hasn't had the time to mature that Hitler had , But two years into each one of their move to gain in the political world, Scum bag is worse then Hitler at the same two year time period. If he was allowed to mature as a ugly, he has all the tools to be another Hitler.

eohrnberger · Jul 14, 2019

Checkerboard Strangler said:
Ahhhh, the "No True Conservative" argument, which is closely related to the No True Scotsman argument or the No True Muslim argument, all of which might sometimes be valid, except for the fact that Trump IS NOW the FACE of the Republican Party.

Nothing that backups the assertions you've posted. OK. Got it.

Yeah, so you're an apologist, a blind one at that.

No, no apologist here.

Snipped and hard pass.

Run away. OK.

Nice talkin' to ya. (said no one ever)

And snippy as well.

Have a good evening.

Rickeroo · Jul 15, 2019

jbander said:
Problem is what your saying is bull**** as usual , you haters live and die on your lies , this time you die.
View attachment 67259878
Pew Institute
You people's only reality is the lie that your party member tells you. In fact you have it 180 deg off. Democrats are way wealthier on average then hate party members. The difference is that liberal have a conscience something totally vacant in the hate party.

Where is the income breakdown of the 2008, 2012, and 2016 elections? Here's one that has Hillary carrying the "under $50,000's" by 12 points:

How Groups Voted in 2016 | Roper Center for Public Opinion Research

Poor people vote for the democrat. Show me an election where this hasn't happened.

rwee2000 · Jul 15, 2019

jbander said:
Buddy you have no idea what your talking about, The president vetoes it and that is almost always the end of it. Congress can do nothing.They need 2/3 to override which is right next to impossible. Look at the numbers and keep your bull****,

"...almost alwas the end o fit.."

Wow, you don't seem to know how our government works. While the president can and does veto a bill, it doesn't mean that's the end of it. It means congress can override the veto or make a compromise with the president and re-introduce the bill. To say congress can do nothing is a lie.

But let's look at the number Trump has vetoed 2 bills, Obama 12 vetoes, Bush 12, Clinton 36, so it really not happening that often. In total there were 2572 (regular and pocket vetoes), of which 111 were overridden, or about 4%. If you only talk about regular vetoes there were 1505, which means a regular veto is overridden 7% of the time. (Congress isn't in session for a pocket veto so they can't be overridden)

Irwin Corey · Jul 15, 2019

What the right offers

Which right? tRumps right, wrong as it is, is "the right" in our current political climate and what he/they have to offer is a steaming pile of dog **** dressed up as "great". No, no, no; it's dog ****; everything upside down Midas touches turns to … ****!

jbander · Jul 15, 2019

rwee2000 said:
"...almost alwas the end o fit.."

Wow, you don't seem to know how our government works. While the president can and does veto a bill, it doesn't mean that's the end of it. It means congress can override the veto or make a compromise with the president and re-introduce the bill. To say congress can do nothing is a lie.

But let's look at the number Trump has vetoed 2 bills, Obama 12 vetoes, Bush 12, Clinton 36, so it really not happening that often. In total there were 2572 (regular and pocket vetoes), of which 111 were overridden, or about 4%. If you only talk about regular vetoes there were 1505, which means a regular veto is overridden 7% of the time. (Congress isn't in session for a pocket veto so they can't be overridden)

Thanks for totally supporting my point. I said "The president vetoes it and that is almost always the end of it." You took my advice and looked at the numbers and they totally supported my point. 4% of the vetoes have been over ridden but it doesn't stop there 3/4th of the over rides were expected by the president and they were only trying to make a point and not really have the bill passed. Your down to about 1% are over ridden , just like I said you have no idea what your talking about. Thanks for proving that point for me.

rwee2000 · Jul 15, 2019

jbander said:
Thanks for totally supporting my point. I said "The president vetoes it and that is almost always the end of it." You took my advice and looked at the numbers and they totally supported my point. 4% of the vetoes have been over ridden but it doesn't stop there 3/4th of the over rides were expected by the president and they were only trying to make a point and not really have the bill passed. Your down to about 1% are over ridden , just like I said you have no idea what your talking about. Thanks for proving that point for me.

No it doesn't prove your point, you have a 7% chance that the bill will be overridden, what's not included is the bills that congress rework, passed and the president signed. Given the TINY number of bills that have have ever been vetoed, 2572, since the first president, vetoes themselves are rare. And given the president can't spend anything, there is a huge incentive for the president to keep the government running, as the backlash is generally huge. Eventually he's got to sign a spending bill (which what this was about) so a veto in this case would not " almost always the end of it." With some bill, yea that would be the end, sometimes congress passed a bill knowing the president will veto it so they can point the finger and say we tried but the PRESIDENT stopped it.

jbander · Jul 15, 2019

rwee2000 said:
No it doesn't prove your point, you have a 7% chance that the bill will be overridden, what's not included is the bills that congress rework, passed and the president signed. Given the TINY number of bills that have have ever been vetoed, 2572, since the first president, vetoes themselves are rare. And given the president can't spend anything, there is a huge incentive for the president to keep the government running, as the backlash is generally huge. Eventually he's got to sign a spending bill (which what this was about) so a veto in this case would not " almost always the end of it." With some bill, yea that would be the end, sometimes congress passed a bill knowing the president will veto it so they can point the finger and say we tried but the PRESIDENT stopped it.

yes 1% real over rides proves my point ,it is as rare as hens teeth. Do you know what is a narcissistic personality disorder , you should look into it , You can be helped. I told you to look into the numbers because they support my point 100% , you did just that and it supported my point 100% but that then makes you 100% wrong and your not handling that very well are you?

rwee2000 · Jul 16, 2019

jbander said:
yes 1% real over rides proves my point ,it is as rare as hens teeth. Do you know what is a narcissistic personality disorder , you should look into it , You can be helped. I told you to look into the numbers because they support my point 100% , you did just that and it supported my point 100% but that then makes you 100% wrong and your not handling that very well are you?

No they don't, or did you forget we were talking about the president spending money? You know something that only Congress can do, and while the president can veto a budget bill, the certainly doesn't end it, which was your statement. The president has vetoed the spending bill and shut the government down, yet, it didn't end there. Congress and the president managed to pass a spending bill, so how did it end there?

jbander · Jul 16, 2019

rwee2000 said:
No they don't, or did you forget we were talking about the president spending money? You know something that only Congress can do, and while the president can veto a budget bill, the certainly doesn't end it, which was your statement. The president has vetoed the spending bill and shut the government down, yet, it didn't end there. Congress and the president managed to pass a spending bill, so how did it end there?

Your lying the subject is not the president spending money and what I said as clear as day is ""The president vetoes it and that is almost always the end of it."" and 1% real over ride is almost always. Did you look up narcissistic personality disorder ,you can get help with this.

jbander · Jul 16, 2019

Rickeroo said:
Where is the income breakdown of the 2008, 2012, and 2016 elections? Here's one that has Hillary carrying the "under $50,000's" by 12 points:

How Groups Voted in 2016 | Roper Center for Public Opinion Research

Poor people vote for the democrat. Show me an election where this hasn't happened.

Poor people vote for every candidate, so whats the point? this is the numbers and you not liking those numbers changes nothing

jbander · Jul 16, 2019

Here's rickaroos comment "It is true that the right favors the wealthy. Statistically, those above the median income vote republican, those below vote democrat. Democrats lose votes as income increases, republicans gain votes. Which party benefits from more poor people?" and this proves he is totally wrong.

rwee2000 · Jul 17, 2019

jbander said:
Your lying the subject is not the president spending money and what I said as clear as day is ""The president vetoes it and that is almost always the end of it."" and 1% real over ride is almost always. Did you look up narcissistic personality disorder ,you can get help with this.

Originally Posted by Jesse Booth
What gets me is that they don't even have economics on their side. The American economy hasn't blazed for the middle class since it did in the aftermath of the New Deal, and the last President to balance the budget was Clinton.

My post
“Hate to tell you this be the president can't spend a dime and can only suggest a budget. So it wasn't the president to balance the budget it's congress, and if I remember right the Republicans were in charge of congress at that time.”
Your reply
“Bull, the president has almost total control of all bills in this country, The balance of the three branches of our government is just not accurate, This opinion that is shared by few others ,is mine and I will stand by it.”

My reply
“The president can't spend a single dime without congress's approval. And while the president can veto a spending bill, he cannot line-item veto, so he has accept the whole bill, or none of it. And there is a process to override the president. You will notice the judicial branch is not included in that process, it's only after the bill is approved that judicial could get involved. And only if someone objects to it. If a bill doesn't pass there is no real remedy in the courts.

So given that when Clinton had a balanced budget, it was congress that balanced it, not Clinton, his only part was accepting the spending bill.”

Your reply
“Buddy you have no idea what your talking about, The president vetoes it and that is almost always the end of it. Congress can do nothing.They need 2/3 to override which is right next to impossible. Look at the numbers and keep your bull****,”

I’ll let you go through the rest of the thread, but clearly it was about the president spending money and a balanced budget. Which I correctly pointed out that the president can’t spend a dime.
You point that a veto ends it most of time when it comes to the spending bill, which is what this was about, if you follow the thread, is false as the government cannot continue without a spending bill that the president has signed.
But given that you think that a 7% override proves your point, then when congress passed a bill that ends it also. Give that out of the 20,000+ bills passed by congress the president has only vetoed 1505 bills (about 7.5%), in which congress had the chance to override (that is not counting pocket vetoes). And given congress has overridden them by almost the same percentage.

jbander · Jul 17, 2019

rwee2000 said:
Originally Posted by Jesse Booth
What gets me is that they don't even have economics on their side. The American economy hasn't blazed for the middle class since it did in the aftermath of the New Deal, and the last President to balance the budget was Clinton.

My post
“Hate to tell you this be the president can't spend a dime and can only suggest a budget. So it wasn't the president to balance the budget it's congress, and if I remember right the Republicans were in charge of congress at that time.”
Your reply
“Bull, the president has almost total control of all bills in this country, The balance of the three branches of our government is just not accurate, This opinion that is shared by few others ,is mine and I will stand by it.”

My reply
“The president can't spend a single dime without congress's approval. And while the president can veto a spending bill, he cannot line-item veto, so he has accept the whole bill, or none of it. And there is a process to override the president. You will notice the judicial branch is not included in that process, it's only after the bill is approved that judicial could get involved. And only if someone objects to it. If a bill doesn't pass there is no real remedy in the courts.

So given that when Clinton had a balanced budget, it was congress that balanced it, not Clinton, his only part was accepting the spending bill.”

Your reply
“Buddy you have no idea what your talking about, The president vetoes it and that is almost always the end of it. Congress can do nothing.They need 2/3 to override which is right next to impossible. Look at the numbers and keep your bull****,”

I’ll let you go through the rest of the thread, but clearly it was about the president spending money and a balanced budget. Which I correctly pointed out that the president can’t spend a dime.
You point that a veto ends it most of time when it comes to the spending bill, which is what this was about, if you follow the thread, is false as the government cannot continue without a spending bill that the president has signed.
But given that you think that a 7% override proves your point, then when congress passed a bill that ends it also. Give that out of the 20,000+ bills passed by congress the president has only vetoed 1505 bills (about 7.5%), in which congress had the chance to override (that is not counting pocket vetoes). And given congress has overridden them by almost the same percentage.

The thread is not about anything other then what my point was and that is that Quote"“Buddy you have no idea what your talking about, The president vetoes it and that is almost always the end of it. Congress can do nothing.They need 2/3 to override which is right next to impossible. Look at the numbers and keep your bull****,” 100% accurate. 1% OVER RIDE IS JUST WHAT I SAID "“The president vetoes it and that is almost always the end of it. Congress can do nothing.They need 2/3 to override which is right next to impossible."

jbander · Jul 17, 2019

narcissistic personality disorder- look that up.

bluesmoke · Jul 17, 2019

ttwtt78640 said:
While it is true that Clinton had a brief period of balanced federal "budgets" the national debt continued to grow during his terms in office.

https://www.debtconsolidation.com/us-debt-presidents/

While what you say is true, the continued debt growth under Clinton is hardly significant. The economic expansion was considerable though the cost was low but for the recession that followed therefrom early in the Bush2 years. Debt under Clinton rose at a lower percentage rate, less than 1% per year, than under the other presidents in the comparison shown. The other presidents didn't even have a "brief" period of balanced budget.

What the right offers

jbander

jbander

Rickeroo

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter

eohrnberger

Checkerboard Strangler

Make Video Horizontal Again

Checkerboard Strangler

Make Video Horizontal Again

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter

jbander

jbander

eohrnberger

Rickeroo

rwee2000

Active member

Irwin Corey

Proud AmeriCAN

jbander

rwee2000

Active member

jbander

rwee2000

Active member

jbander

jbander

jbander

rwee2000

Active member

jbander

jbander

bluesmoke