Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Bipartisan infrastructure deal now looks UNLIKELY- Trump has come out against l, calls all Republicans willing to negotiate “RINOS”


Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

...during a pandemic.  

Let's not extrapolate this to reality going forward.  

Stop it. There are jobs...nobody wants them. .An awesome catalyst for Inflation my friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Amused to Death said:

Following the January 6 riot, this got me 3 months for spamming:

Trump's America, never forget.

 

Did you get any kind of explanation?  I can't imagine anyone even reporting this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seven times Democrats played the ‘FEAR!’ card they accuse the GOP of using

The left is in high dudgeon this week over all the "fear-mongering" Republican presidential candidates allegedly did during their debate on Tuesday night. Of course, when you are inclined to believe terrorism is an environmental problem , perhaps any conversation about hard realities will come across to you as fear-mongering.

Still, it baffled me that liberals everywhere -- as if they got some kind of memo -- started hammering away at this "Republicans are the party of fear" notion. Have they never listened to the way Democrats talk?

So here are seven times in the past few years -- just the ones I remembered off the top of my head -- that Democrats tried to scare you into voting for them. They're listed in reverse chronological order, and you can count on at least some of the older ones making a comeback before we get to Election Day 2016.

1. "Here are five times Ted Cruz tried to ban contraception" -- Hillary Clinton's campaign website, December 2015

In the canon of Democrat fear-mongering, few issues surpass what they claim Republicans will do to women. Clinton's campaign ramped up the rhetoric to claim Cruz would "ban contraception." In fact, what they are complaining about primarily demonstrates their need to redefine the word "ban" so that it includes removing subsidies, not requiring private companies to provide subsidies, and perhaps prohibiting some kinds of birth control -- but far from all, as the campaign implied. After PolitiFact gave the claim a (generous) Mostly False rating, the campaign changed its charge to read he "tried to restrict access to contraception" -- still not quite truthy, but less scary-sounding than the original accusation. This is part of a Democratic sub-genre of fear that also enters into other campaigns, such as last year's Senate race in Colorado, when Democrat-aligned groups ran a Pants on Fire ad about a contraception ban by Republican Cory Gardner, the eventual winner.

2. All of the Republican presidential candidates say "let's kick out immigrants, let's take away health care from women, let's increase taxes on the middle class to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, let's end Medicare as we know it." -- DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, October 2015

I probably could have listed only this one, as it's the super-fecta of Democratic demagoguery: race/ethnicity, gender, income inequality, entitlements. Note that Wasserman-Schultz was asked about one of her party's candidates, Bernie Sanders, and whether his label as a socialist would hurt Democrats -- and her only response was to spread fear about what the GOP wants to do. Not a single Republican is talking about "kick(ing) out immigrants" in general, as opposed to deporting illegal immigrants; even then, the candidates are sharply divided on the issue. Not a single Republican is talking about "tak(ing) away health care from women." Not a single Republican is talking about "increas(ing) taxes on the middle class" for any reason, much less to "pay for tax cuts for the wealthy." A most generous review of her comments might give her credit for tacking on the "as we know it" to the part about Medicare, ostensibly a reference to plans to give seniors the option of using a voucher to purchase private insurance instead, but the clear message she wanted to convey was the "end Medicare" part.

3. By targeting federal funding for Planned Parenthood, Republicans want to take away "the only health care that a significant number of women get. About 30 percent of women, that's their health care." -- Harry Reid, July 2015

This is probably what Wasserman-Schultz meant when she said Republicans want to "take away health care from women," but she might have avoided such fear-mongering after PolitiFact gave even this somewhat-narrower formulation by Reid a Pants on Fire rating .

4. Ted Cruz "was just bribed by the Kochs to introduce a bill that would gift or sell them and their allies America's national forests, parks, and other public lands and open them for mining, drilling, fracking and logging." -- Facebook post by Occupy Democrats, August 2014

I'm kind of surprised I could think of only one instance of Democratic fear-mongering involving the Koch brothers, the left's favorite pair of boogeymen. But if there's only one on the list, at least it's a doozy: Those darn Kochs are going to end up putting oil derricks in Old Faithful! In reality, Cruz introduced a bill that would have limited landholdings by the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior to no more than half of the territory in any given state and required the government to sell any land above that threshold as "excess" property. The Occupy Democrats ad got a Pants on Fire rating, not that it induced the group to change anything about the photo, which is still available on its Facebook page .

5. Texas Republicans "believe in abolishing Social Security, abolishing V.A. (Veterans Affairs) health care." -- Bernie Sanders, September 2013

This statement is a couple of years old, and about a specific state party, but nonetheless noteworthy since it came from Clinton's chief rival for the Democratic nomination, a man whose campaign almost entirely rests on the anxieties of middle-income Americans. In true socialist fashion, Sanders thinks privatizing even part of a program equals "abolishing" it. No doubt, he and other Democrats want you to believe Republicans do want to completely eliminate things like Social Security and VA health care, the better to frighten you, dear voter. It's just that the claim is flat-out False .

6. "They're going to put y'all back in chains."-- Joe Biden, August 2012

Biden's defenders will point out that the "chains" comment was part of a metaphor related to Mitt Romney's plan to "unchain Wall Street." Problem is, as far as I can tell that phrasing, too, was Biden's, not Romney's. He knew what he was doing, and it was obvious both to his largely African-American audience and the rest of us. As Democrats try to keep the Obama coalition together, and with race relations as tense as they've been in years, you can bet there will be more of this kind of talk from Democrats in 2016, not less.

7. Republicans' proposals to privatize Medicare is like throwing grandma off a cliff-- the Agenda Project, May 2011

It doesn't get any more personal and fear-mongery than this: A Paul Ryan look-alike, pushing a grandmotherly woman in a wheelchair while she smiles -- until her face takes on a look of terror as she fears he's going to do something bad to her, which he does! By dumping her off the edge of a cliff! Message: Be afraid, your granny is gonna die!

***

In case you missed this subtlety, let me point out one thing. In talking about the threat posed by ISIS and other terrorists, Republicans are addressing an actual problem that requires some kind of response. Agree with their various proposals or not, the threat is real. The Democratic examples, meanwhile, try to spread fear about distorted, often completely false depictions of what Republicans -- the real terrorists, amirite? -- want to do.

In that respect, all this "Republicans preying off your fear!!!1!1!" talk is really just another example of Democrats' fear-mongering as usual.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1318226212699951111?s=20

Where the hell have you been for the last 4 years when Trump was President?  It’s comical you think that Democrats haven’t engaged in fear mongering.  

Donald Trump: calling Mexicans ‘rapists’ was ‘peanuts’ next to the ‘truth’

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trailing in election polls, Trump says rival Biden opposes God and guns

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-god/trailing-in-election-polls-trump-says-rival-biden-opposes-god-and-guns-idUSKCN25237A

 

“He’s following the radical-left agenda: take away your guns, destroy your Second Amendment, no religion, no anything, hurt the Bible, hurt God,” Trump said about Biden in his Cleveland speech. “He’s against God.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Donald Trump described Democratic Presidential nominee Joe Biden as a “puppet” of “the cop-hating extremists” and claimed that “the rioters are voting for Biden” during a small rally broadcast from an airplane hangar in Latrobe, Pa. on Thursday night, he was speaking directly to voters like JoAnn Clickner.

 

Donald Trump's Campaign of Fear Resonates—But Not Necessarily With the Voters Who Will Decide the Election

https://time.com/5886343/trump-fear-swing-voters/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Trump's central reelection campaign theme was perhaps most simply expressed in a remark in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention: "No one will be safe in Biden's America."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Sounds like we need more immigrants. 

The viewpoint from Michigan  - 

Michigan unemployment caps at $362.00 per week for 20 weeks The Federal Government provides an additional $300 per week in unemployment. That totals $662.00 per week, or $2,648.00 per month, unless of course you are using Common Core math. A worker working 40 hours @ $15.00 per hour earns $2,400 per month, with a lowest 12% tax rate and 6.2% social security means they take home $1963.20 per month. So staying on unemployment GIVES them an additional $684.80 per month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Amused to Death said:

Nope, just "spamming" with the post quoted.

Actually the post you were suspended for was

Quote

 

But...these people are ####ign lunatics. My god

Trump's America, never forget.

 

But don't let facts get in the way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FBG Moderator said:

Actually the post you were suspended for was

But don't let facts get in the way. 

Please be more cool.

 

There was no reason for the gratuitous snark.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

The viewpoint from Michigan  - 

Michigan unemployment caps at $362.00 per week for 20 weeks The Federal Government provides an additional $300 per week in unemployment. That totals $662.00 per week, or $2,648.00 per month, unless of course you are using Common Core math. A worker working 40 hours @ $15.00 per hour earns $2,400 per month, with a lowest 12% tax rate and 6.2% social security means they take home $1963.20 per month. So staying on unemployment GIVES them an additional $684.80 per month.

This is why there are hiring signs everywhere in eastern OH and western PA.   If you want a job, you can have one tomorrow in just about any industry of your choice even if you don’t have skills or experience.  Eventually, wages are going to have to go up to get people off of their couches.   The inflation is going to be a real joy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DocHolliday said:

This is why there are hiring signs everywhere in eastern OH and western PA.   If you want a job, you can have one tomorrow in just about any industry of your choice even if you don’t have skills or experience.  Eventually, wages are going to have to go up to get people off of their couches.   The inflation is going to be a real joy.  

What about the people working now?  Their salary has to rise also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sinn Fein said:

Please be more cool.

 

There was no reason for the gratuitous snark.  

Sorry to hear you think that. The "I got suspended for nothing" schtick is tiring. Please let's do less of that. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Amused to Death said:

Oh, sorry. I guess they were good people.

If you say so.

The comment in question was you posting 

Quote

But...these people are ####ign lunatics. My god

And then acting as if you were suspended for nothing. Please do less of that. Thanks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again just by way cooler. 
 

Be the bigger man. No need to make this personal with someone when you hide behind the moderator’s mask. Set a much better example. 
 

Thanks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sinn Fein said:

Again just by way cooler. 
 

Be the bigger man. No need to make this personal with someone when you hide behind the moderator’s mask. Set a much better example. 
 

Thanks. 

Exactly. Thanks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, DocHolliday said:

This is why there are hiring signs everywhere in eastern OH and western PA.   If you want a job, you can have one tomorrow in just about any industry of your choice even if you don’t have skills or experience.  Eventually, wages are going to have to go up to get people off of their couches.   The inflation is going to be a real joy.  

I just don't see this happening.  If it didn't happen when we were printing at the rates we were in 2020 or when the borrowing on the backs of the tax cuts in 2018 in the "hottest market ever" didn't trigger it, what we're doing now isn't going to trigger it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, GROOT said:

Stop it. There are jobs...nobody wants them. .An awesome catalyst for Inflation my friend.

not at this $, no.  But people are equating this to UBI or what UE will look like in a few months, and that's what's wrong.  there are reasons the payments are high currently.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

Can you give me a summary?  I don't do CNN, but their investment shtick is usually always wrong....IF the article even has anything to do with long term inflation.  And before we go down the rabbit hole, I KNOW prices will go up as we get out of this thing.  Those price deviations will almost all be driven by confidence and/or supply/demand....like our gas prices right now for example.  The last thing we do is look at prices going up and yell "INFLATION!!!!!"....that will likely be wrong in almost all cases, but I'm sure there will be some exceptions as well as temporary.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Commish said:

Can you give me a summary?  I don't do CNN, but their investment shtick is usually always wrong....IF the article even has anything to do with long term inflation.  And before we go down the rabbit hole, I KNOW prices will go up as we get out of this thing.  Those price deviations will almost all be driven by confidence and/or supply/demand....like our gas prices right now for example.  The last thing we do is look at prices going up and yell "INFLATION!!!!!"....that will likely be wrong in almost all cases, but I'm sure there will be some exceptions as well as temporary.  

I started a separate thread for it.  I sincerely hope you are right, but I’m getting more and more concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, FBG Moderator said:

If you say so.

The comment in question was you posting 

And then acting as if you were suspended for nothing. Please do less of that. Thanks. 

Thanks, I honestly forgot the first line of my offending post. I wasn't sure what the correct adjective was for the people who stormed the Capitol and accosted those who spoke out against it.

I'll do better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, zoonation said:

You’re going to be waiting forever.  

Which is funny, because I actually did reply with evidence BEFORE you posted this.

So it's clear you don't read threads.  Just come in with cheap shots. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Biden is still going about trying to find bipartisan support for his infrastructure plan. 

Admirable or stupid? As pointed out in this thread, the Republicans have decided he is a radical socialist and will not cooperate on anything. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, timschochet said:

President Biden is still going about trying to find bipartisan support for his infrastructure plan. 

Admirable or stupid? As pointed out in this thread, the Republicans have decided he is a radical socialist and will not cooperate on anything. 
 

 

Admirable and needed. The GOP submitted their own version of an infrastructure bill IIRC. I would hope both sides could come to the table and work out a compromise bill. If that means the Dems address some of the more social aspects of their plan separately, then so be it. But I would also hope the Republicans recognize the need to include green energy in the bill.

Compromise. Its how we used to get things done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

I would hope both sides could come to the table and work out a compromise bill. If that means the Dems address some of the more social aspects of their plan separately, then so be it. 

Why would Republicans agree to a bipartisan Bill with the stuff they like if Dems are just going to turn around afterwards and pass the other stuff through reconciliation?  What’s the GOP motivation to do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Why would Republicans agree to a bipartisan Bill with the stuff they like if Dems are just going to turn around afterwards and pass the other stuff through reconciliation?  What’s the GOP motivation to do that?

I’d love to say “because an infrastructure bill at this time would be great for the country, even with the stuff Republicans don’t want.” 
But I’d just be laughed at if I did. The GOP has decided that, as they did with Obama, the best way to retake power is simply to appease their base and oppose everything that Biden wants. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Why would Republicans agree to a bipartisan Bill with the stuff they like if Dems are just going to turn around afterwards and pass the other stuff through reconciliation?  What’s the GOP motivation to do that?

I think its better politically for the Dems to make a sincere effort for bipartisanship. If, as he says, McConnell is 100% committed to stopping Biden, then that's on him and the GOP. And at that point the Dems would need to be focused on appeasing Manchin and getting everything they want through reconciliation. 

My naïve self would love to see a return to normal governing. Everyone wants an infrastructure bill. Put the onus on the GOP for not cooperating.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, ekbeats said:

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1318226212699951111?s=20

Where the hell have you been for the last 4 years when Trump was President?  It’s comical you think that Democrats haven’t engaged in fear mongering.  

Do you ever watch Fox - it's constant fear mongering.  AOC!  Socialism!  Banning free speech!  Coming for your guns!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2021 at 1:55 PM, The Dude said:

Do you ever watch Fox - it's constant fear mongering.  AOC!  Socialism!  Banning free speech!  Coming for your guns!

And here I thought Obama took everyone's guns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see some sort of compromise on the infrastructure bill.  From what I have seen, the republicans are proposing $$ for bridges and roads mostly.  And leaving the rest out.  I am fairly OK with that.  If we need bridges and roads, why are the democrats not accepting this counter proposal and getting this done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

I'd like to see some sort of compromise on the infrastructure bill.  From what I have seen, the republicans are proposing $$ for bridges and roads mostly.  And leaving the rest out.  I am fairly OK with that.  If we need bridges and roads, why are the democrats not accepting this counter proposal and getting this done?

They can still get the bridges and roads if they push it through reconciliation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

I'd like to see some sort of compromise on the infrastructure bill.  From what I have seen, the republicans are proposing $$ for bridges and roads mostly.  And leaving the rest out.  I am fairly OK with that.  If we need bridges and roads, why are the democrats not accepting this counter proposal and getting this done?

What is the incentive for the Dems to leave out big portions that they feel are necessary?  What are the Republicans offering in return?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

I'd like to see some sort of compromise on the infrastructure bill.  From what I have seen, the republicans are proposing $$ for bridges and roads mostly.  And leaving the rest out.  I am fairly OK with that.  If we need bridges and roads, why are the democrats not accepting this counter proposal and getting this done?

Because we need more than just bridges and roads?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

I'd like to see some sort of compromise on the infrastructure bill.  From what I have seen, the republicans are proposing $$ for bridges and roads mostly.  And leaving the rest out.  I am fairly OK with that.  If we need bridges and roads, why are the democrats not accepting this counter proposal and getting this done?

Primarily because our bridges and roads are just the tip of the iceberg and aren't close to the entire picture.  You said you wanted some sort of compromise, so, I ask, what is the GOP giving into or meeting Dems half way on with bridges and roads?  For this to be a compromise the Dems should accept, that would mean the GOP doesn't think these are necessary in the first place.  I'm not sure that's accurate.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, supermike80 said:

I'd like to see some sort of compromise on the infrastructure bill.  From what I have seen, the republicans are proposing $$ for bridges and roads mostly.  And leaving the rest out.  I am fairly OK with that.  If we need bridges and roads, why are the democrats not accepting this counter proposal and getting this done?

I'm fine with bridges, roads, dams/levees, water mains, electrical grid, broadband, and cybersecurity.

All are in desperate need of attention.

Edited by Amused to Death
Grammar matters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Fine.  Put it in something else.  Don't call it infrastructure.  Let that stand on it's own

Do you think airports are infrastructure? Rail lines? Utilities, incl. water/elect/broadband? Dams? Do you really think infrastructure is nothing more than roads & bridges?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

Do you think airports are infrastructure? Rail lines? Utilities, incl. water/elect/broadband? Dams? Do you really think infrastructure is nothing more than roads & bridges?

Those are part of infrastructure yes.  Why are you so angry?  Take it easy.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • timschochet changed the title to Bipartisan infrastructure deal now looks UNLIKELY- Trump has come out against l, calls all Republicans willing to negotiate “RINOS”

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...