Civil War

[IBDaMann]

But no, again it looks like you're just complaining about someone else's without offering an alternative

This is because you cannot read English with any sort of proficiency. I suggested that all the items be broken out individually rather than proposed in your one big bulky bill that risks blowing everything. You probably didn't catch that because you didn't understand the words.

 

[Tobytone]

Admittedly, Democrats are cowards when push comes to shove, but civil war on some levels has already started. Democrats ARE willing to kill for their agenda.

With you here

And conservatives, no, they are not willing to die for their side any more than Democrats, but many have ALREADY served in the military. They ARE willing to fight for their side, to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and to put their lives on the line to do it.

It's obviously impossible to predict with certainty how one would act in a hypothetical future scenario. However, for instance, although it's never happened, I am utterly confident that if someone were to strike my daughter, whether I was there or not, I would ensure they received retribution in a profoundly violent manner. Can I prove it? No, unless someone were foolish enough to test me. Similarly, in a scenario where the libtards organized and declared war on their fellow citizens, I would respond in kind, multiplying their losses with casualties if I were blessed with the precision to get that done. The only way libtards could confirm this would be by starting the fight.

I might have echoed your thoughts a several years ago. But I was struck by the attitude and readiness of what I initially perceived as soft, young men raised in an environment fostering selfishness, disrespect, and a lack of honor. Oh, how wrong I was. I'm just highlighting how it might be a reasonable stance or opinion if one only considers the sensationalized, rating-driven stories that paint a very cynical picture of the majority of Americans through a steady diet of the most 'media sexy' examples.

There are also people willing to risk their own lives to defend themselves, their homes, their families, their property, etc.

True that, I only think you might be underestimating that number. Again, this is purely an opinion I can't back up with any certainty.

 

[IBDaMann]

This was unnecessary, dude. Cool your jets. He is simply proposing a theoretical bill to try to stop civil war. It wouldn't work, even if such a bill were to be put together, since the Church of Hate would only use it to justify their war.

Maybe you could ask him to axe the shit attitude. I asked him a polite question and offered a suggestion and he became a shitbag. Fine. Game on. He can blow me.

 

[Tobytone]

You were done when you made your suggestion without thinking it through.


You certainly can be.


I wouldn't go that far.


You are suggesting they go out and push a stupid idea of bundling everything together. You were very clear.


There you go. You would risk the Senate jeopardizing everything as opposed to getting 98% passed today.


Nope. The Senate might not pass it. That's the problem with your ill-thought out plan. You're welcome.


I wasn't sure how CRAZY your deluded view was, but I think we have it straightened out now. We do have it straightened out, yes?


Go back to your Arab-HATING rants and leave discussions about the US government to the adults who don't put much stock in anyone who cheers on a Nazi-style genocide with thunderous applause.

You're welcome.

Look who's back. LOL. I think my new favorite comeback for the brainless, repetitive drivel from libtard drones fits you like a glove. So buckle up, 'cause I'll be grinning every time you're down in the dumps, scrounging for someone to throw your pathetic arguments and criticisms at for your hate fix, and I'll rightfully treat you like a libtard.

That reminds me, I got sick of searching and couldn't find a single original thought from your pathetic excuse for a brain - just complaints, calling people morons, and declaring everyone else wrong without ever offering a single shred of your own feeble-minded ideas. That's why I won't bother reading even the first word of your reply; I'll just hit you with the libtard response. Except if I happen to catch you spewing hate or bitching about someone's comment on a thread, I might pop in to remind you what a complete door knob you are. So, without further ado...

YOUR CONCERNS ARE NOTED

 

[Tobytone]

They don't have to. They water down anything even remotely controversial and pass something nobody wants. Only Trump suffers because nobody ever blames Congress; they just blame the President for not delivering on his campaign promises.

YOUR CONCERNS ARE NOTED LOL

 

[Tobytone]

This is because you cannot read English with any sort of proficiency. I suggested that all the items be broken out individually rather than proposed in your one big bulky bill that risks blowing everything. You probably didn't catch that because you didn't understand the words.

YOUR CONCERNS ARE NOTED LOL

 

[Into the Night]

omnibus bills = pork

wait and see.

You already said this. You haven't explained why his proposal is a bad idea.

 

[Into the Night]

I see your point, but it might actually strengthens mine. I believe Trump has a good chance of including every important item in the OBBB. Why? Congress wouldn't dare to reject his very first bill after his historic win, especially when they've been brought along for the ride. I don't think any Agenda 47 item or other campaign promises in the bill would be unpopular enough to give any individual representative or senator cover to oppose it. Finally, the statement about having 'a LOT of trouble' points to one reason why he shouldn't risk not passing the second bill.


True, and he should, but as you know, getting anything through Congress makes it much harder to reverse, and again, he'll never have as much political capital as he does right now. I think this is a sort of unique situation. In some ways, this is like Trump's first real go at it. Last time, he got a lot done but was on the defensive from day one, facing opposition from almost as many in his own party as from the entire liberal establishment and beyond. This time, it's completely different. He's already been building an enormous chest of political capital which he could, and I think should, use as much as possible to get this done. The way Congress works, with its many recesses and 'vacation time,' not to mention all the typical bills that have little to do with OBBB agenda, gives few opportunities for major legislation. Again, this doesn't need to have a bunch of controversial ideas. Agenda 47 works just fine.


My idea may be vague, but the bill doesn't need to be. It won't need or have the usual 2000 pages of Democrat or Republican pork. In fact, I think that's one of the prerequisites for success; maybe I wasn't clear about that, but it's definitely a key part of the strategy. I know that typically big bills are loaded with contentious spending that starts the bickering, but these are not typical times, at least I hope they're not.

I think you made a comment suggesting we're already in a civil war, just not an armed one yet. If so, I'm not disagreeing, but I believe the armed part is a long way off, if it happens at all, especially if we have a nice long run of common sense government. After all that, the liberals still won't be able to handle weapons, and hopefully, their numbers will have dwindled significantly. lol

You seem to think I advocated only two bills instead of one, such as you are proposing. This is not correct.

Most of what Trump can do he doesn't need Congress for. It is easily already within his authority as President of the United States, such as securing the border or enforcing the law.

Other items on his agenda he only needs the Senate for. He doesn't need the House at all. These are items like confirmation hearings.

Trump is not going to just magickally lose influence after one bill. I'm not sure how you think he would. It is certainly far easier to pin Congress down on specific smaller bills than one giant glob all at once. Indeed, this is where Trump is most effective.

Giant globs of a bill tend to get talked about and nothing gets done.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Good point, if you were actually making one that had anything to do with my opinions. But as usual, a comment from the drones veers off into la la land.

you talked about a 'big beautiful bill' to solve everything........I pointed out to you why that is a bad idea. I'm not sorry you didn't like having your theory shown to be a bad idea, but it needed to be done.

 

[Tobytone]

You seem to think I advocated only two bills instead of one, such as you are proposing. This is not correct.

I not sure how you got that idea, I have only responded to each of your statements with my opinion. I don't remember making any comment concerning how many bills you were thinking.

Most of what Trump can do he doesn't need Congress for. It is easily already within his authority as President of the United States, such as securing the border or enforcing the law.

I gave my response and still believe it

Other items on his agenda he only needs the Senate for. He doesn't need the House at all. These are items like confirmation hearings.

Again, already covered, this seems like you're aiming pretty low for a number of reasons. The biggest one, I think we have a great opportunity to cement many of his EOs with legislation, no guarantee, but if successful the policies would definitely be more difficult to undo.

Trump is not going to just magickally lose influence after one bill. I'm not sure how you think he would. It is certainly far easier to pin Congress down on specific smaller bills than one giant glob all at once. Indeed, this is where Trump is most effective.

Not trying to be coy here, but I find myself wondering how old you are based on some of your comments. Sincerely, it's a genuine curiosity. All I will say to this comment is, nothing is certain in life, and many times the unforeseen and unknowable bites you in the ass.

Giant globs of a bill tend to get talked about and nothing gets done.

I see this as another instance where you might be misunderstanding my personal vision. (I have no idea if this vision will align with what actually gets proposed, it is only framed as what I would advise Trump if he asked. lol don't see this happening) I'm talking about a bill written the way good law should be - as simple and understandable as possible.

I believe many big ideas can be relatively short and simple. Also, the number of the 'big' ideas I'd like to see, is fewer than what you'd find in an average, run-of-the-mill bill, which is often loaded with handouts to certain states, pork projects, and grants, if anyone actually read them. This bill needs to be free of all that nonsense. If there's no pork for anyone, it would change the nature of debates surrounding its passage. A Senator would then have to directly oppose one of the 'big' ideas or campaign promises. I think if Republicans could rally behind this kind of bill, there would be nothing stopping them in the midterms and beyond. If it all failed, we'd still have the over 200 executive orders you mentioned.

 

[Into the Night]

Maybe you could ask him to axe the shit attitude.

I am asking YOU to axe the shit attitude. Don't blame anyone else for your shit attitude!

I asked him a polite question and offered a suggestion and he became a shitbag. Fine. Game on. He can blow me.

Don't blame what you did on anybody else!

 

[Tobytone]

you talked about a 'big beautiful bill' to solve everything........I pointed out to you why that is a bad idea. I'm not sorry you didn't like having your theory shown to be a bad idea, but it needed to be done.

lol I do appreciate that very much. I'm not sure how you pointed out that my opinion was stupid and if I'm totally honest, I'm not going back to try and find it. I'm not sure what your idea was either, that one, I don't believe it could be found. So, I'll cap this off with my not so new favorite response for libtards.

YOUR CONCERNS ARE NOTED. LOL

 

[Into the Night]

With you here

It's obviously impossible to predict with certainty how one would act in a hypothetical future scenario.

It is, but those that have served in the military is a past scenario, not a future one.

However, for instance, although it's never happened, I am utterly confident that if someone were to strike my daughter, whether I was there or not, I would ensure they received retribution in a profoundly violent manner. Can I prove it? No, unless someone were foolish enough to test me. Similarly, in a scenario where the libtards organized and declared war on their fellow citizens, I would respond in kind, multiplying their losses with casualties if I were blessed with the precision to get that done. The only way libtards could confirm this would be by starting the fight.

You don't need to prove it. Acting to defend your daughter is a natural reaction.

I might have echoed your thoughts a several years ago. But I was struck by the attitude and readiness of what I initially perceived as soft, young men raised in an environment fostering selfishness, disrespect, and a lack of honor. Oh, how wrong I was. I'm just highlighting how it might be a reasonable stance or opinion if one only considers the sensationalized, rating-driven stories that paint a very cynical picture of the majority of Americans through a steady diet of the most 'media sexy' examples.

The media you must remember, is owned and operated by Democrats. Don't believe what Pravda is telling you.

True that, I only think you might be underestimating that number. Again, this is purely an opinion I can't back up with any certainty.

I'm not quoting any number.

The media is out there to sell stories. It's really nothing more than institutionalized gossip. Even if what they report is NOT made up, it's very selective. They want sensationalism. That's what sells. Gossip is no different. It does NOT represent a cross section of society. Not by a long shot. They really don't care about anyone or anything except 'getting their 'scoop' (even if they have to make it up!). Much of the time it is politically motivated. Yes...that includes FOX, which is also owned and operated by leftists.

Trump knows this about the media, which is why he's always making fun of them.

 

[Tobytone]

It is, but those that have served in the military is a past scenario, not a future one.

Your example uses a relatively small group that we can assume would die if necessary, as you'd expect, because they essentially already have proven it. My example attempts to better explain why I believe 'Democrats and/or Republicans' (many more of them than military only) would die if necessary to defend their beliefs. I'm suggesting that in the past my assumptions were wrong, non-military individuals did act in large numbers when called upon even if dying was a real possibility. That example seems more relevant to me, that's all I'm saying.

You don't need to prove it. Acting to defend your daughter is a natural reaction.

I would argue that anyone that understands the sacrifices and challenges that were overcome so we can live as we do, it's just as natural a response. My opinion, no way to prove I'm right or otherwise.

The media you must remember, is owned and operated by Democrats. Don't believe what Pravda is telling you.

I hope that was to benefit others, there's not much I'm more aware of.

I'm not quoting any number.

Well, you made a statement that you didn't believe democrats or republicans would be willing to die for what they believe in, that implies a low number, doesn't it?

The media is out there to sell stories. It's really nothing more than institutionalized gossip. Even if what they report is NOT made up, it's very selective. They want sensationalism. That's what sells. Gossip is no different. It does NOT represent a cross section of society. Not by a long shot. They really don't care about anyone or anything except 'getting their 'scoop' (even if they have to make it up!). Much of the time it is politically motivated. Yes...that includes FOX, which is also owned and operated by leftists.

Agreed

Trump knows this about the media, which is why he's always making fun of them.

Agree. I don't think you believe I was somehow suggesting otherwise.

What's clear to me is that you don't agree with my opinion. That's absolutely fine, I love the discussion. That said, I know you're not guilty of only finding points of contention and never offering your own original thoughts, so I would ask that you formulate your vision as if Trump called you up and asked for it. This is a sincere request, I have no doubt you have one.

 

[WinterBorn]

There will not be a civil war.

But, for the sake of argument, say there was one. Why do republicans think democrats have no guns?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

I see your point, but it might actually strengthens mine. I believe Trump has a good chance of including every important item in the OBBB. Why? Congress wouldn't dare to reject his very first bill after his historic win, especially when they've been brought along for the ride. I don't think any Agenda 47 item or other campaign promises in the bill would be unpopular enough to give any individual representative or senator cover to oppose it. Finally, the statement about having 'a LOT of trouble' points to one reason why he shouldn't risk not passing the second bill.


True, and he should, but as you know, getting anything through Congress makes it much harder to reverse, and again, he'll never have as much political capital as he does right now. I think this is a sort of unique situation. In some ways, this is like Trump's first real go at it. Last time, he got a lot done but was on the defensive from day one, facing opposition from almost as many in his own party as from the entire liberal establishment and beyond. This time, it's completely different. He's already been building an enormous chest of political capital which he could, and I think should, use as much as possible to get this done. The way Congress works, with its many recesses and 'vacation time,' not to mention all the typical bills that have little to do with OBBB agenda, gives few opportunities for major legislation. Again, this doesn't need to have a bunch of controversial ideas. Agenda 47 works just fine.


My idea may be vague, but the bill doesn't need to be. It won't need or have the usual 2000 pages of Democrat or Republican pork. In fact, I think that's one of the prerequisites for success; maybe I wasn't clear about that, but it's definitely a key part of the strategy. I know that typically big bills are loaded with contentious spending that starts the bickering, but these are not typical times, at least I hope they're not.

I think you made a comment suggesting we're already in a civil war, just not an armed one yet. If so, I'm not disagreeing, but I believe the armed part is a long way off, if it happens at all, especially if we have a nice long run of common sense government. After all that, the liberals still won't be able to handle weapons, and hopefully, their numbers will have dwindled significantly. lol

you're dumber than a shit-gibbon.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

There will not be a civil war.

But, for the sake of argument, say there was one. Why do republicans think democrats have no guns?

because you;re against the second amendment.

are you sayng most Dems are hypocrites?

sounds right.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

You already said this. You haven't explained why his proposal is a bad idea.

single issue bills are always best.

omnibus bills are corruption.

there's nothing conservative or libertarian about you.

you;re a big government internationalist fascist.

 

[Into the Night]

Your example uses a relatively small group that we can assume would die if necessary, as you'd expect, because they essentially already have proven it. My example attempts to better explain why I believe 'Democrats and/or Republicans' (many more of them than military only) would die if necessary to defend their beliefs. I'm suggesting that in the past my assumptions were wrong, non-military individuals did act in large numbers when called upon even if dying was a real possibility. That example seems more relevant to me, that's all I'm saying.

Fine.

I would argue that anyone that understands the sacrifices and challenges that were overcome so we can live as we do, it's just as natural a response. My opinion, no way to prove I'm right or otherwise.

This doesn't say anything.

I hope that was to benefit others, there's not much I'm more aware of.

Media is only interested in themselves. They do not care for anyone or anything else.

Well, you made a statement that you didn't believe democrats or republicans would be willing to die for what they believe in, that implies a low number, doesn't it?

No.

As Patton once said, "Don't be willing to die for your country. Make the other poor bastard die for his country."

Agreed

Agree. I don't think you believe I was somehow suggesting otherwise.

What's clear to me is that you don't agree with my opinion. That's absolutely fine, I love the discussion. That said, I know you're not guilty of only finding points of contention and never offering your own original thoughts, so I would ask that you formulate your vision as if Trump called you up and asked for it. This is a sincere request, I have no doubt you have one.

I've already given it.

Let Trump enforce the law. No Congress needed for that!

Let Trump secure the border. No Congress needed for that!

Let Trump work with Congress piecemeal. This gives Trump options to change his course if he wishes, and is simpler for Congress to pass, and Trump is more effective at it.

Let Trump choose the cabinet he wants.

That is my plan.

Congress chokes on giant globs. They will get nothing done if that tactic is used.


Let's examine is agenda:
Declaring war on drug cartels -- this can be done solely as an executive action. No Congress needed.
Ending Veteran Homelessness -- That is acting through the Dept of Veterans Affairs, part of the executive branch and directly under the direction of Trump. No Congress needed.
No welfare for illegal aliens - This does involve Congress. Trump will veto anything that provides welfare for illegal aliens, and will approve any bill that cuts welfare for illegal aliens. He also intends to hold the States accountable to the federal government here, a proper role of the federal government.
The American Academy -- This involves only the Dept of Education, part of the executive branch. No Congress needed.
Protecting Auto workers -- This involves removing the requirements for electric vehicles by reversing Biden's edict.
Enhancing Home schooling -- Again, the Dept of Education. No Congress needed.
Great Schools leading to great jobs -- Again, the Dept of Education. No Congress needed.
Lowering energy costs -- This is the Dept of Energy, another cabinet agency. Trump will simply reverse the ban on oil drilling caused by Biden, and make it easier to develop oil fields.

I could go on, but as you see, Congress is not really needed to implement most of Agenda 47.

 

[Into the Night]

There will not be a civil war.

But, for the sake of argument, say there was one. Why do republicans think democrats have no guns?

Democrats are most often afraid of them.