So When Do REPUBS IMPEACH BIDEN?

Jordan is a dishonest just like your leader, Trump. Trump was lying through his teeth in announcing he was going to drag down the Republican Party over the next two years.

Yes, nothing changes...

Would you like to see the videos where he's covering up for perverts at Ohio State?

 

Well, first off, you and the other woke leftist (like you) are the only ones suckeling at Trumps teat post after post
You might want to think about that

Second, you provided a GDP graph to explain anything about Jordan?
Hilarious But the desperation is pretty gradafying

Yeah, show me or you're just all talk.
GUARANTEED you won't

Next

 

I would not want to be in the same locker room as him, either of them

 

You said

So you can't produce any of these plans to cut Social Security and Medicare?


Then you said

I asked you to cite them, quote them so you can't?

Here

‘Fox News Sunday’ on October 16, 2022

BREAM: House Republicans making a big push in recent weeks to sell voters on their post-midterm plans. They call it "Commitment to America". But is it catching on?

Joining us now, House Republican Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana.

Congressman, welcome back to "FOX News Sunday."

REP. STEVE SCALISE (R-LA): Good morning, Shannon. Great to be with you.

BREAM: OK. Let's start here. Democrats are pointing to your own documents to tell Americans that you are preparing to cut entitlements.

Here's what the headline is: House GOP decides slashing is the new saving. This year's Republican Study Committee's fiscal year 2023 budget openly calls for slashing and privatizing Social Security, raising the retirement age to 70, and ending Medicare as we know it.

Now, I got a tweet from a viewer this week who says, he's a Republican, he's very worried about you cutting his Medicare. He says it's a deal breaker and betrayal by the GOP.

So, what's your answer?

SCALISE: Well, the answer is that's a typical red herring by Democrats and it's not something we proposed. In fact, we proposed strengthening, and shoring up Medicare and Social Security, which are both, by the way, headed for bankruptcy if we do nothing.

Democrats want to make that worse. Democrats actually recently passed a bill to raid money out of Social Security.

So, instead of making those programs less stable, what we want to do is shore them up.

And, by the way, one of the ways you shore them up is get more people back to work paying into those programs right now. And one of the things Democrats did on day one when they came in taking over the House, Senate and the White House, is to start paying people not to work, to see more of the welfare programs where you used to have work requirements in place.

So you would have a real safety net which we believe in. But why should we be paying people to sit at home when there are companies everywhere looking for workers?

Everywhere you go, you go to a restaurant, you're waiting an hour for a table, and you're seeing a third of them empty because the government started paying people not to work. That drains programs like Social Security and Medicare.

So, let's strengthen those programs, and stop them from going bankrupt. And let's also, by the way, stop the government getting in this business of paying people not to work when everybody is looking for workers right now.

BREAM: But fair to say that pointing to your own documents, there are some changes to these programs that would happen.

SCALISE: There's not anything that we propose in Commitment to America. In fact, the Commitment to America, we talk specifically about --

BREAM: In the fiscal year that the Democrats are referring to.

(CROSSTALK)

SCALISE: No, in the Commitment to America, we talk -- well, they didn't do a budget this year. You know, if you look at what they've done, they pass bills to increase taxes.

I know your previous guest, Mr. Bernstein, talked about a bill they passed to raise over $730 billion in new taxes, and, by the way, more than double the size of the IRS, sending 87,000 agents after hardworking families, and, in fact, even the Joint Committee on Taxation confirmed they're going after people making less than $200,000 a year, which is a violation of the White House's own promise.

BREAM: OK, but --

SCALISE: President Biden said he wouldn't do that.

We're shoring up -- we want to shore up Social Security and Medicare.

(CROSSTALK)

BREAM: Just to be clear, the Republican Study Committee's budget. So, that's something you signed on to, that's what Democrats are pointing to to say there will be changes to these programs, if -- if your budget passed.

SCALISE: Well, first of all, that -- yeah, that budget talks about shoring up and strengthening Social Security. That's not cutting Social Security. That's making sure for people that are on Social Security today, if nothing happens, there would be automatic cuts in law.

We don't want that to happen. And so, we've brought forward legislation to stave off cuts to Medicare. We want to stave off cuts to Social Security.

Democrats haven't supported any of that. They want the programs to go bankrupt. That's not a good thing.

We don't want Medicare and Social Security to go bust like the Democrats right now have us on a track to do.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-sunday-october-16-2022

Ball in your court.................

 

He doesn't provide information about his claims.
Next he will tell you he doesn't answer unless your post in connected to the topic, while he post off topic.

 

Simple: Scalise never contradicts the fact that the Republicans' own documents, confirm potential cuts. So you have disproven your own argument, that no such records, or plan, exists.

They want to "stave off" the very cuts, *which they propose, in their plan!

All that is, is Steve Scalise doing a song & dance, calling mandated cuts to Social Security & Medicare, unless whatever unspecified other cuts, are agreed to, "shoring them up." They are following the well worn Republican playbook, of manufacturing a crisis.

Yeah, Dems want Medicare & Social Security "to go bust." Sure; tell me another one-- like they want to groom all elementary students, to be their sex puppets.

 

Did you miss is tonight? The Orange Oaf is running again. Trump might be the one Republican with a chance at the nomination who can't be Old Joe.

You said nothing changes. I agree and pointed out how Trump did nothing to fix the problem the graph illustrates. You don't understand the problem, do you?

It may be "gradafying," but it misses the point I was making about nothing changing.

Explain what? You asked me if my graph explained anything about Jordan. It doesn't. There's nothing to explain.

 

Jordan likes boys, Trump seems to prefer females.

 

First you said

So I asked you to show me the video, then said GUARANTEED you won't.
And this is what you come up with?

This is just too easy

 

First off, how many replies did you get from me, before I determined you had no plan to tie your tangent to the general topic of discussion?

Secondly, the way that Republicans view hearings and so forth, which you were running rampant on, anyway, along with LangelyMan, actually does connect to the idea of how the Republicans in Congress will or won't alter their Trumpist proclivities, after this midterm election-- which showed that even among many Republicans, there was a limit to their tolerance, which had been crossed. IOW, the views I quoted, which generally echoed your own sentiments-- that is, those which would be indicative, one would expect, of those Republicans who would push hardest for impeachment-- is relevant to this thread. It was therefore nice to see, that most Republicans here, however, seemed to want to leave at least Trump's baggage, in the past (even Yabberefugee, who admitted to appreciating Trump's ability to stick it to the media, had the reason to understand this did not serve Republican purposes, at this point, as well as it would, to have a candidate who seemed more composed, and rational). One can extrapolate (at his own risk), how that might apply to their view of impeachment-- though my experience is that the majority seem to deny that Republicans will do it-- and, more tenuously, to the view of impeachment, held by Republicans in the House.


P.S.-- I still have no idea what your first sentence refers to, or is supposed to mean. I did not "assign" anything: I quoted Republican members. You seem to have a ***** loose.

 

none of us really knows that for sure

 

No, this is what you wrote...



You didn't ask for videos about Jordan. Yet another of your incoherent posts. If you wanted to know about Jordan the Pervert, you should have asked.

There's plenty about Look-the-Other-Way Jim.

Laughing at your incoherent posts? I guess so...

 

Bluesguy said: ↑
Those acts are already criminal and being fully prosecuted by the proper authority. Why aren't they investigating why a riot was allowed to breech the Capital building when the leadership there had been fully warned about a huge crowd and possible instigators of violance may be there?

@Bluesguy can certainly answer for himself, but his question was straight forward and I don't understand your confusion. Simply he was asking why a committee investigating the brouhaha and break-in of the Capitol would not call the person most responsible for security of the Capitol, Pelosi, or not even ask for documentation.

 

The committee has not just happened to uncover some criminal activity in the course of their "investigation." Their sole and singular purpose is to find criminal activity on the part of the prez.

 

Then post the documents because he specifically disputes your baseless assertion I have asked you half a dozen times to substantiate while I have refuted it.

 

REALLY? This is what they do in lefty land? Make a claim, then when called on it they run.

Here is the post I made

And this was you response

Now you're trying to claim this wasn't the conversation?
Wonder why. I guess its because your post was all talk.
Like I said. GUARANTEED you won't. And you always prove me right.

So are you going to provide this video or keep up the deflections to run from your own post

 

Yes he already tried that.

 

My answer was also, I had thought, straightforward. Let me try again: the thing he is alleging, I have NO KNOWLEDGE to confirm, is a LEGITIMATE point. I would strongly doubt, in fact, your own contention, here, that it was Speaker Pelosi's job, to deal with security against a crowd of thousands. If this were the case, why was she calling so many others, on the 6th, trying to get someone in authority, to order in more troops-- which is clearly, the only way, anyone could be prepared for such a threat. IOW, show me a (credible) source, saying that Pelosi had the power to call up National Guard troops, or any law enforcement, other than the Capitol Police, who were obviously no match for the crowd. Show me that she was briefed about this threat, and yet ignored doing things, that were in her power, to do.

In still other words, neither you, nor Bluesguy, have offered any supporting evidence, for your contentions. So I will respond, when you show me that your accusations, are not just a bunch of bull.

Is that clearer? I am treating the allegation, as I would if one of you were asking about why Dominion voting machines, changed votes from Trump to Biden-- at this point, I have no reason to assume this to be anything other than a bogus charge.

 

Did you watch the video?

Jordan at the very least protected the perverts.

 

You never provided any video
Which confirms what I said
GUARANTEED you won't provide it

 

@RodB -- You showed an interest in our discussion, so I'm making sure, you see my answer to this part of it, which is what had led to Bluesguy's, as yet unsubstantiated, claims about Pelosi. Somehow.

I got the proof, from your own post. Scalise does NOT "dispute," that there is a documented Republican plan, to cut Social Security. He only disputes characterizing it that way. He says that, even though this is the alternative, laid out in the Republican plan, they hope to not need to use it. So he only characterized the plan as "strengthening" Social Security because, one way or the other, it would improve the fund: either by forcing more to work, and so pay into Social Security; OR, by cutting benefits. Scalise just preferred not to talk about that last part. But, to the Fox host's credit, he continued bringing it up, after every time Scalise danced around it.

Here is the interview, you posted:

Let me pause there to translate, since you seem to be falling for all the bullshit. Bream points out that the Republican budget "openly calls for slashing and privatizing Social Security, (and) raising the retirement age to 70." And Scalise never claims that any such documents don't exist; he says that Republicans prefer to call it "strengthening & shoring up" Social Security. So, one could call it raising the retirement age to 70, but we like to call it strengthening & shoring up the system-- which, I will admit, not allowing people to retire with full benefits until the age of 70, would both bring in more income to Social Security, while cutting payouts, and so, would strengthen the fund's finances. So will it also, shore up the system, to "slash" payments.

IOW, we are both talking about the same thing, only you are accepting the Republican euphemism for slashing & privatizing, and raising the retirement age, while I and Bream, are focused on what those words actually mean, the specific ways that this "strengthening" will take place. But let's continue the interview's soft shoe:

"There's not anything that we propose in C.T.A." What does that even mean? That is only a sentence fragment, which, literally, would mean that there is nothing at all, in their proposal. Which, would then mean that it was nothing more than a title page. This is patently false. But because the statement makes no sense, it is necessary for any listener to translate his meaningless words, which would then allow Scalise, always to be able to say, "that's not what I'd meant." So, Bream is right, to not be having any of that garbage:

We know what Scalise is trying to do, above, as "deflecting." He starts off thinking of trying to rephrase what they "talk" about, in their plan, but then changes gear, to talk about the Dems, instead. So get
ready for the straw man arguments, to start coming. Notice, Scalise does not say that Republicans have no 2023 budget plan, which is what the interviewer is referring to; instead he says, well the Democrats haven't even passed a budget, yet. Straw man-- what does that have to do, with what is in the Republican plan?

Then Scalise jumps off of budgets, to talk about anything that Democrats have done; that's because he hopes (& knows) there are a lot of easily distracted people, who will forget that the QUESTION, was about the Republican plan. But let's let him explain that Republican plan, in his own words:

All BULLSHIT. The Democrats Infrastructure/Climate Change plan, the Democrats bringing on more IRS agents-- Straw men! and Deflection.

And there it is! Did you miss it? After repeating the phrase "strengthening and shoring up Social Security," and "shoring up and strengthening Social Security," enough times, and talking mostly about the bad Democrats, he just snuck in the answer to the question, regarding Social Security: because Republicans say their prescription is necessary, to keep Social Security on sound fiscal footing (which includes, raising the retirement age to 70), if they can't get the concessions they demand-- which also apparently include an element of privatization which, for some reason, given all this time, Scalise chose not to explain (this, or any, part of their fantastically strengthening plan)-- then, to shore up the fund, "there would be automatic CUTS in law." To be clear, this is "law" under the Republican Plan!

So yes, there IS a Republican Plan, that would cause automatic CUTS in Social Security, if they can't get passed into law, the alternative way, they see to shore up and-- don't forget-- strengthen Social Security.


Now we can talk about the need to shore up the fund, but I want you to acknowledge that Republicans do have a plan that, could end up slashing Social Security payments, if they can't get the retirement age raised to 70, as well as introduce this privatization element, which Scalise chose to remain mum about, but which people who are talking about it, say is a way to lead to complete privatization: that is, an end to government run Social Security. If you can accept that fact, then we can breach the issue, of how this should be addressed.

There's just a tiny bit more, about Medicare:

Isn't that so kind hearted of Republicans? They have brought forth legislation to "stave off"-- at least for the moment-- the cuts to Medicare, which their plan would require.

But they don't want to have to make those cuts, in their plan, so it is all the fault of those bad Democrats, if they don't agree to whatever extortion that the Republican plan offers as an alternative to those cuts, in order to stave them off, for the time being.

 

I had no idea that the RP was worried about real issues. One must first be able to discern fact from fiction to be capable of formulating any basis for what needs to be fixed. So what issues is the RP so worried about?

It's got a more 'productive' vibe to it than the right's mantra of "STOLEN ELECTION".

 

I said nothing about Pelosi in this thread YOU said the Republicans have a plan to cut Social Security and Medicare. I simply asked to to present this plan.....you could not. You then said you heard them talking about it and I asked you to quote then and you could not and instead deflected to demanding me to show they had not. I did and then you attempt to put words in Scalise's mouth and attributing statements to him he did not make.

Again the ballbis YOUR court to present this plan or them stating their plan is to cut SS.

Yes he does.

It's a she and she was qquoting OTHERS claiming there would be cuts which he refuted.

He speaks plain English I need no translation especially one meant to misrepresent what he said.

She points out the Dems are trying tonclaim that and Scalise refutes it. And yes without reform and STENGTHENING AND SHORING UP the AUTOMATIC CUTS WILL OCCUR and the Reps plannis to avoid it while the Dems have plans
Now post evidence of you claims.

I'm not accepting YOUR misrepresentations and "translations" for lack of you inabiltity to support your own statement.

 

You seem to be assiduously avoiding some well known facts. Let me review. The protection and security of the Capitol grounds lies strictly and solely with the Speaker (in conjunction with the senate majority leader.) The president got information 2 or 3 days before Jan 6 that the crowd would probably be much larger than he had anticipated and that it might have some violent actors. Trump then authorized the DC Guard and sent a message to Pelosi suggesting she allow the Guard to help crowd control at the Capitol, something they cannot do with Pelosi's explicit agreement. (The executive branch cannot do anything at the Capitol without the legislative branch's invite, and vice versa.) You are correct that Pelosi cannot authorize nor call up the Guard -- only the president can. Pelosi turned down Trump's suggestion allegedly saying she would not like the optics. When the mayhem on Jan 6 that Trump had worried might happen got way out of control, Pelosi decided in the afternoon of Jan 6 to allow the Guard to help and they were immediately dispatched (it did take some time for the Guard to physically group and get to the Capitol.) The mayor of DC had earlier (the morning of Jan 6 or sometime Jan 5, I dunno) allowed the Guard to assist the Metro police with traffic control, after earlier not granting permission when the administration first suggested it, and the Guard was on the streets of DC assisting the Metro police early Jan 6..

This gets us back to @Bluesguy 's very simple question: why did not a committee investigating a breech of the Capitol not call the person with plenary responsibility for the security of the Capitol, or even ask for Pelosi's notes, emails, texts, or documentation?

 

I am going to stop you there, because you seem to be assiduously ignoring my basic request for proof of the assertions, which you are only repeating, here, but offering nothing to substantiate. Do I need to spell it out even more exactly? I don't know why: simply offer proof for everything you claim. Assume I know none of the things that you think you know. IOW, above is your first unsupported assertion, which I'd expressed doubt about, but which all you do to address, is reassert the thing. If it is such basic info that "the protection & security of the Capitol grounds" is strictly the Speaker's responsibility, it should be a piece of cake, offering some validation of that. So why, in your reply to my, strictly, asking for supporting evidence of all the suppositions, built into Bluesguy's, and now your, question, do you feel that just your statements, should suffice?

I don't know that bolded part to be true. How do you know it? Please supply your source.

That is the third assertion which 1) I doubt; 2) I expected you to validate, with evidence; but which 3) all you do is restate the original proposition.

That underlined part, seems to contradict what I know to be the case. Pelosi's request for assistance was not immediately turned into an order to the Guard, and the hours in between were not simply the time it took for those troops, stationed nearby, to arrive. That is actually, blatantly false. So show that I am wrong about that, and you will significantly alter my opinion of the event. Easy-peasy.


Shall we review, the 4 things, which you state as if they are facts, but which I am asking you to prove?
1. Pelosi has full responsibility (along with Schumer) for Capitol security.
2. Trump offered Nancy, prior to January 6th, National Guard troops to help, on the day of his rally.
3. Pelosi turned down Trump's offer.
4. During attack, Pelosi realized that the troops were, in fact, called for and so, contacted the White House to give her authorization, which was immediately acted upon.

In fact, Trump was not even returning Pelosi's calls. Your narrative seems as fictitious, and farcical to me, as the narrative which has been laid out before the entire nation, with reams of testimonial, and video, evidence, apparently seems to you. So, what's supporting your rendition? I'd asked already, and you just provided zero evidence, in reply. I guess that would make me Nancy Pelosi, and you Donald Trump, if we analogize my asking for proof and her asking for help against the rioters.

If you try again, hopefully you can do a lot better.