TRHFIM

FNsmhumUcAQYMVR
 
Jaw said:
I agree with you that it isn't, that's a bipartisan problem. Republicans haven't wanted any new entitlements, Democrats would rather campaign against the issues than fix them. In a constructive Congress, there would be enough of the new populist Pubs next year willing to vote for this stuff that they and the Democrats could get something done.

That's if both groups want to be constructive, instead of taking the obstruction path that Mitch and Nancy have used so beneficially.
Click to expand...

Conservatives won't vote for anything you mentioned unless a Republican is President.

Whenever Trump needed it, Nancy in the Minority was willing to do it. It was Ryan who couldn't get his people in line. Nancy bailed out Boehner and Ryan several times as minority leader. McCarthy might be much worse than either of them. Boehner at least was willing to compromise with Obama, Obama gave up so much for the grand bargain. But tea party freedom caucus would not let him compromise or give him the votes. Ryan was just a shill. But McCarthy has no backbone. Zero.

Dems are always willing to spend no matter who is President. Republicans only like to spend on things outside of defense spending when there's a Republican president so they can take credit for it.

When they get Congressional power in a Dem's presidency they like to be budget and fiscal hawks again. A tale as old as time.
 
zitothebrave said:
Look an actual small government Republican respecting people's rights

https://www.wmur.com/article/sununu...mandates/40066661?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot#

"Just because we may not like a local decision does not mean we should remove their authority," Sununu said in his veto message. "One of the state's foremost responsibilities is to know the limits of its power."

Sturg should love him, but he just like Orange Kool-Aid so much more.
Click to expand...

It's always so enlightening when you see people have a funamental misunderstanding of someone's position
 
Local devolution doesn't strike me as a conservative or liberal thing. On a lot of matters it makes sense to defer to local sensibilities. However, public health policy with respect to a contagious disease that doesn't respect political geography might not be the best place to make this argument.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top