Schumer's shutdown updates

As the Schumer shutdown continues, Senator Moreno (R-OH) exposed something about the new 1-year subsidy extension being offered by Democrats

It’s a continuation of Covid-era policy that has no income caps for eligibility.

Schumer is willing to hurt the 99% to enrich the 1%.

Shameful.
 
Diogenes said:
What is most remarkable here is that Senate Democrats have shut down the government, not over a huge policy change such as passing the ACA or abolishing the Department of Education, but over a short-term spending bill that makes no changes to existing policy.

They've voted consistently against reopening the government unless billions in deficit spending is added.
Click to expand...

They are holding millions of American's hostage for $1.5 trillion in ransom.

democrats are terrorists - there is no other way to describe them. They are America's Hamas.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
They are holding millions of American's hostage for $1.5 trillion in ransom.

democrats are terrorists - there is no other way to describe them. They are America's Hamas.
Click to expand...


I yearn for a time when it's legal to slaughter them in the streets. I do wish they'd rise up in open rebellion again, like they did in 1861.
 
Diogenes said:
As the Schumer shutdown continues, Senator Moreno (R-OH) exposed something about the new 1-year subsidy extension being offered by Democrats

It’s a continuation of Covid-era policy that has no income caps for eligibility.

Schumer is willing to hurt the 99% to enrich the 1%.

Shameful.
Click to expand...
What hs this got to do with the size of the Supreme Court?
 
Into the Night said:
You never explained why you want to change the number of the Supreme Court justices.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did, and you took issue with my use of a common colloquialism associated with Supreme Court expansion in the opening paragraph, so go back and read the whole thing this time. If you choose not to, I'll be disappointed, because I wanted your opinion.
 
Diogenes said:
Yes, I did, and you took issue with my use of a common colloquialism associated with Supreme Court expansion in the opening paragraph,
Click to expand...
Never did. I simply acknowledged it. You still have explained why you want to change the size of the Supreme Court.
Diogenes said:
so go back and read the whole thing this time. If you choose not to, I'll be disappointed, because I wanted your opinion.
Click to expand...
I already gave you my opinion. I don't think there is any compelling reason to change it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top