- 22,148
- 24,075
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
fixed.
***Official Political Discussion Thread***
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rico x hood,
- Start date
fixed.
- 146,892
- 193,515
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
a man that has been married 3 times and committed adultery all 3 times is making 'commitments'
He also said we would get great healthcare back in 2016.
- 195
- 1,369
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
Interesting how none of the Trump Platinum Express Plan actually fixes problems, though. Lateral (and that word is doing a whooooooole lot of work here) legislation at best. Wonder why they don't address restoring the Voting Rights Act? Could it be that they don't want to give the game away that they themselves neutered it? 
- 146,892
- 193,515
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
nerw32
formerly 2chainz
- 140
- 285
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2012
No self respecting human being let alone a black man would consider the things you mentioned as reasonable bargaining chips to be re-elected. If Trump was serious why not sign an executive order and make it happen now or leverage your majority Republican senate to get it done? You have no issue with Trump forcing a Supreme Court Justice confirmation prior to the election, but you take no issue with Trump's black agenda as a whole? You sound ignorant as hell. I feel sorry for you please do not procreate, your bloodline deserves to end with you so you can keep all that self hate locked away with you forever.
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,260
- 189,794
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
But after you basically telling that Trump putting out a plan doesn't matter and we should just trust him to do something, it is really convenient for you to now run in here demanding that people give Trump credit for putting out something.
So you are a damn hypocrite. You were that replied on the assumption of Trump's trustworthiness, and handwave policy proposals.
Let us not even start with the fact you ignore Trump's past racism with with pathetic excuse he was out of office. Or the fact you refuse to debate the crime bill in a good faith manner.
Do better Darius, no one's gonna take this pearl clutching serious.
Anyway, I can objectively say that Biden's plan is much much better.
If you would like to debate the economics to both plans, I am game.
Last edited:
- 1,457
- 4,519
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2020
they can force a supreme court pick through right now but not a stimulus package or the famed second step act so let's give them 4 more years to try?
aepps20
Supporter
- 40,580
- 85,831
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2004
Florida wildin
Bars fully open. No masks required.
What an idiot. Florida is a cesspool.
- 11,974
- 3,257
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
Hope you feel better fam
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,260
- 189,794
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
It is not 500B, it says so in the damn article.
Learn to read. They are saying if they invest 50 billion, that down the road that could lead to 500B in new capital. They don't explain how they are getting this multiplier.
nerw32
formerly 2chainz
- 140
- 285
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2012
I am anything but your fam, and I always feel good.
- 11,974
- 3,257
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
Which is why I said the full details haven’t been announced.
You are one of the people that asked for me to link you to Trump’s plan. So why is it when I post an article about his plan—without comment—it is an issue?
- 11,974
- 3,257
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
Sounds good
- 11,974
- 3,257
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
they can force a supreme court pick through right now but not a stimulus package or the famed second step act so let's give them 4 more years to try?
Different parties control the House and Senate.
Confirming a judge only requires the Senate. Stimulus legislation requires the House and Senate.
- 146,892
- 193,515
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,260
- 189,794
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
When did I say it is an issue you posted the article?
I said your pearl clutching in regards to other people comments is hypocritical. I took issue with your clear hypocrisy.
I corrected something you said in regards to the comment of the article.
But I didn't take issue with you posting the article itself. I even said if you wanted to debate plans now, I am game.
But you rather play victim.
- 41,839
- 175,482
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2013
- 11,974
- 3,257
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
Fair enough.
To be clear, you said you are game to discuss the economics of each plan.
That’s a narrow issue, and as an economist you are a subject-matter expert. So I—as always—will defer to your expertise on it.
Without even reading Trump’s plan I can pretty much guess that, in your expert opinion, the economics of Biden’s plan is far superior. Am I right?
- 146,892
- 193,515
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
- 11,974
- 3,257
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
Speaker Pelosi and Schumer aren’t in the integrity seats?
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,260
- 189,794
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
The House already passed the George Floyd Bill. It would only take the Senate passing it. It would not even need hearings. They could have it signed into law in a couple days.
Yet you claim that Trump may sign it one day. Welp it has been around for a while now. Why is the Scotus pick taking priority over something he supports, would have more support (since you say he has a unique power over Republican Senators), and would be quicker to pass?
- 22,819
- 32,942
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
they’re in the ethics class across the hall
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,260
- 189,794
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
Nice try.
I'll wait to read the whole thing. But if the main economic program in his plan is the 50B, which the article seems to imply, then yes then Biden would be better.
I'll be sure to give you a detailed breakdown when I read the whole things. Sound good to you Delk?
- 11,974
- 3,257
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
He was able to get the First Step Act passed. There is no reason to assume that he won’t be able to get further meaningful legislation passed.
It is clear that the focus is on the Supreme Court pick because they fear he may lose and the Republicans may lose the Senate in the election and they want a young pick on the court.
