Jump to content

President Biden says Fox's John Roberts lied when he said Biden was not the first to lower insulin costs.


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

You had me until the part where you inferred that it is a President…and not YOU…that makes you ‘wealthy’. 

🤦🏻‍♂️

Are you going to take personal responsibility for raining turds on the analogy?  

Party Pooper by Draken-leader on DeviantArt

Edited by jross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

We do have term limits…..WE THE PEOPLE.  We don’t exercise them because going against the grain and standing up is tough. Blaming is easy. Just look at this non wrestling topics board.  Blaming is very easy. 

Not really.  Take for example the good senator Bob Dole.  The state of Kansas doesn't have a lot of power and influence only 6 reps in the House but of course 2 Senators.  But when you've got a senator with as much seniority and experience as Dole you'd be crazy to replace him with a new freshman GOP senator.  Look at where the state is now.  And when Dole was senator they weren't getting stupid wealthy off of serving.  Just like NIL its a completely different ballgame now regarding the money.  But if you had term limits, let's say two term for senate, then you are always looking for the new one to bring up and no state is getting these crazy out of balance old guy/gal power positions.  

  • Bob 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ionel said:

Not really.  Take for example the good senator Bob Dole.  The state of Kansas doesn't have a lot of power and influence only 6 reps in the House but of course 2 Senators.  But when you've got a senator with as much seniority and experience as Dole you'd be crazy to replace him with a new freshman GOP senator.  Look at where the state is now.  And when Dole was senator they weren't getting stupid wealthy off of serving.  Just like NIL its a completely different ballgame now regarding the money.  But if you had term limits, let's say two term for senate, then you are always looking for the new one to bring up and no state is getting these crazy out of balance old guy/gal power positions.  


The vote them out “term limits” clowns are priceless.  There is a two term limit on the president. There should be a two term limit on the house and the senate.  
 

 

 

  • Bob 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ionel said:

Not really.  Take for example the good senator Bob Dole.  The state of Kansas doesn't have a lot of power and influence only 6 reps in the House but of course 2 Senators.  But when you've got a senator with as much seniority and experience as Dole you'd be crazy to replace him with a new freshman GOP senator.  Look at where the state is now.  And when Dole was senator they weren't getting stupid wealthy off of serving.  Just like NIL its a completely different ballgame now regarding the money.  But if you had term limits, let's say two term for senate, then you are always looking for the new one to bring up and no state is getting these crazy out of balance old guy/gal power positions.  

I’m not saying I’m against term limits at all, I’m not. I’m saying we have the power and we don’t use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

I’m not saying I’m against term limits at all, I’m not. I’m saying we have the power and we don’t use it.

Who is this we, who had the power to vote Nancy P out in California?  

Perhaps it only takes a small southern California fly to guarantee such?  🙄

Edited by ionel
  • Bob 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Term limits for Congress would be good but it takes an Constitutional Amendment to do that, and guess who is not going to do that?  Congress of course.     From the Constitution:

Article V


 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall

propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the

legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for

proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and

purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of

three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof,

as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

Congress ain't supporting any of this.   And the states already tried to limit congressional terms and were turned away by SCOTUS.  So 2/3 of the states have to get a convention going and 3/4 of them have to agree on the amendment.   Tall order.

mspart

  • Brain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rasta is right that we the people can change our Congress people anytime we want.   But we don't.   Hence all the incumbency.   The parties don't really give us that choice.   It will take independent folks to primary challenge the incumbents or party favorite.   But what sane person wants to do that.   Too much intrusion in to personal lives makes it not worth the effort.   Fundraising also makes it not worth the effort. 

mspart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ionel said:

Who is this we, who had the power to vote Nancy P out in California?  

Perhaps it only takes a small southern California fly to guarantee such?  🙄

That question has been answered in this very discussion, and I don't believe you truly have to ask it, you know exactly who we is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, mspart said:

Rasta is right that we the people can change our Congress people anytime we want.   But we don't.   Hence all the incumbency.   The parties don't really give us that choice.   It will take independent folks to primary challenge the incumbents or party favorite.   But what sane person wants to do that.   Too much intrusion in to personal lives makes it not worth the effort.   Fundraising also makes it not worth the effort. 

mspart

 

1 minute ago, WrestlingRasta said:

That question has been answered in this very discussion, and I don't believe you truly have to ask it, you know exactly who we is.

Or it might be easier if we demand passing term limits.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

That question has been answered in this very discussion, and I don't believe you truly have to ask it, you know exactly who we is.

i have no control over ousting pelosi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mspart said:

Term limits for Congress would be good but it takes an Constitutional Amendment to do that, and guess who is not going to do that?  Congress of course.  

Congress ain't supporting any of this.   And the states already tried to limit congressional terms and were turned away by SCOTUS.  So 2/3 of the states have to get a convention going and 3/4 of them have to agree on the amendment.   Tall order.

mspart

If congress won't support it we will just vote them out of office, its simple.  🙄

Somehow we got Presidential term limits thru the process but maybe we the people were smarter back then.  Is it ok to say maga to this? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

A sign in my favorite pizza establishment says all politicians should be limited to two terms:  one in office and one in the pen. 

The great state of Illinois follows that plan with most of their governors. 

  • Bob 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ionel said:

If congress won't support it we will just vote them out of office, its simple.  🙄

Somehow we got Presidential term limits thru the process but maybe we the people were smarter back then.  Is it ok to say maga to this? 

Well, the incumbent will get his party's vote mostly.   And the challenger will get his.   And usually the incumbent wins.   We need stronger challengers in the primaries that can oust those incumbents.   We have Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray.   Both should be out by now.   But we just voted back in Murray for her 5th or 6th term.   She is no good.   But no one will challenge her in the D party.   And being that WA is mostly D, she gets elected.

mspart

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mspart said:

Well, the incumbent will get his party's vote mostly.   And the challenger will get his.   And usually the incumbent wins.   We need stronger challengers in the primaries that can oust those incumbents.   We have Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray.   Both should be out by now.   But we just voted back in Murray for her 5th or 6th term.   She is no good.   But no one will challenge her in the D party.   And being that WA is mostly D, she gets elected.

mspart

 

You guys vote by mail, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mspart said:

Well, the incumbent will get his party's vote mostly.   And the challenger will get his.   And usually the incumbent wins.   We need stronger challengers in the primaries that can oust those incumbents.   We have Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray.   Both should be out by now.   But we just voted back in Murray for her 5th or 6th term.   She is no good.   But no one will challenge her in the D party.   And being that WA is mostly D, she gets elected.

mspart

 

Can you explain Maxine Waters

  • Bob 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...