So When Do REPUBS IMPEACH BIDEN?

You quite simply have no idea what you're talking about. I gave you the acts that limit or define the Presidents power, but there's question about how effective the limitations may be when the Constitution may not permit

This is all bilge. Trump didn't even pick up the phone to show his interest in events for three hours and arguably failed to prepare adequately in the first place when he knew others were refusing help they could come to need.

Why in the heck would you want to shackle yourself to Trump, a loser who keeps on losing?

If you had run more normal candidates in some of the Senate races you lost, you'd be in control of the House and the Senate. As it is, you won by so little in the House that a few nutballs will be able to hold you hostage. Gaetz, Green and others are destructive.

 

You guys get so darned torqued when the finger points at your boy, Trump. If nothing else, he could have been on the telephone expressing more than a bystander's interest in the Capitol riot that threatened the lives of elected representatives.

 

They didn't have to get her permission.

 

They won't be able to resist trying to cut benefits putting voters on alert for 2024.

Opinion polls show consistently Americans would rather raise taxes than cut Social Security and the various healthcare programs.

We already do that by supplementing healthcare premiums for low-income people.

The lies keep adding up.

 

Yes they did...at 1:40 p.m..... they needed her approval and Mitch McConnell's approval ..... they asked her permission on the house floor that day....

 

I see what appears to be a lot of your lecturing, but absolutely no sign of any links.

Have you not learned how to cite internet sources at all?

 

I haven't yet looked into your allegation, but I was just wondering if you realized that Trump's "abandoning our allies," the Kurds, who were maintaining a prison camp of Al Qaida terrorist combattants, in Syria, resulted in all of those prisoners regaining freedom, when the Kurds needed to bug out, to escape the Turkish forces, which Trump had given the green light to attack, that one reliable ally of ours?

 

Oh, I just love it, when people start using things like the direction of the Earth's spinning, as evidence for a political argument. In that case, for my counter argument, I say that I assume you don't have a clue as to what you're alleging, the way I assume if I drop something, with nothing to support it, gravity will cause it to fall.

 

There is an obvious answer as to why Trump did not get on the phone, as Pence did, to see what could be done about responding to the mob with force. It can be found in Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony. Trump wanted to go with the mob as it headed towards the Capital before it was attacked. He saw the mob as his people as evidenced by him telling his security detail he would be in no danger if he joined it.

 

With regard to SS and Medicare what I meant by a means test is more about potentially reducing benefits for those who can afford to have them cut. Obviously the SS "donut hole" needs to be addressed. The larger point being the need for all Americans to have the cards put on the table in terms of the budget deficit, the current sustainability of SS and Medicare, all the issues surrounding spending so the public can make some informed decisions about what to do in the future.

What Is Meant by the Donut Hole in Social Security?
https://pocketsense.com/meant-donut-hole-social-security-8444157.html

 

I'm not talking about anybody fussing at Trump. I'm talking about constitutional and federal law which applies to every president and every speaker of the house..

 

They had to and did.

 

They have been posted for two years. Go read the timeliness.

 

Both Senators Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, and Rick Scott of Florida, have offered specific plans.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...8QFnoECBMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw235ftxqWSOAqzf3g7DtVpN

<Snip>
Sunsetting federal programs would imperil Social Security, Medicare and veterans’
benefits, which would create uncertainty for families and cause economic chaos
The Scott proposal to sunset all legislation every five years would create uncertainty for
Americans who rely on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and veterans’ benefits. Forcing
Congress to vote every five years to re-enact every law would put vital programs like Social
Security, Medicare and Medicaid in peril, as many Republicans in Congress have voted or
expressed their support for cutting or privatizing one or more of these programs. Under current
law, programs like Social Security, Medicare and veterans’ benefits provide benefits to all
eligible individuals. But under the Scott proposal, continued funding for these programs would
not be guaranteed, and millions of recipients would face financial insecurity.
Forcing Congress to reauthorize Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and veterans’
benefits every five years would create economic chaos for millions of individuals and local
economies. In 2020, there were 62 million Medicare beneficiaries, 65 million Social Security
beneficiaries and 20 million U.S. veterans eligible for VA benefits. Requiring congressional
reauthorization every five years would jeopardize the health and well-being of millions of
Americans who rely on these programs. Federal programs like Social Security also provide a
consistent source of income for seniors, which is essential to local economies, particularly in
states like Florida that have a high number of seniors. Similarly, federal programs like Medicare,
Medicaid and Tricare and agencies like the Department of Veterans Affairs support jobs
throughout the United States, especially in areas with high numbers of seniors and veterans.
<End>


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...republicans-social-security-medicare.amp.html




Senator Rick Scott, Republican of Florida, has proposed subjecting nearly all federal spending programs to a renewal vote every year, which would make Medicare and Social Security more vulnerable to budget cuts.Credit...Nicole Craine for The New York Times


<Snip>
Mr. Johnson has proposed subjecting Social Security and Medicare to annual congressional spending bills instead of operating essentially on autopilot as they do now. That would leave the programs susceptible to Washington’s frequent and fraught debates over funding the government, making it more difficult for retirees to count on a steady stream of benefits.

Still, Mr. Johnson does not hold a leadership position, and it is unclear whether his ideas — or any of the more aggressive proposals presented by those in his party — would find purchase with Republican leaders. This week, he said that Mr. Obama had “lied” about his proposal and that he had never called for Social Security cuts.

Mr. Biden and other Democrats have also criticized a plan from Senator Rick Scott of Florida, the chairman of the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm, who has proposed subjecting nearly all federal spending programs to a renewal vote every five years. Like Mr. Johnson’s plan, that would make Medicare and Social Security more vulnerable to budget cuts.
<End>


While the article does go on to say that Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, has said that sunsetting Social Security every five years will not be part of their legislative agenda, it also notes that Republicans' openly floating such ideas, are as marked departure from the promise, under Trump, to keep these programs safe from cuts.

Not to be overlooked, however, Bluesguy, is the talk that Rick Scott is considering challenging McConnell for the leadership role. Even assuming that Mitch can be trusted to keep his word, his position as Republican leader, is not guaranteed.

 

Lame try. You can't substitute, "My proof was posted in some thread, two years ago," for an actual cited source, in this thread's debate.

You hunt down your supposed citation.

 

Nah. Dems just want to create automatic controversy for the new GOP-led house.

 

I'm not making a political argument in the least. Like the direction of the earth's spin I am only asserting factual realty of what took place around Jan 6. If the president ate eggs for breakfast I would say the president ate eggs for breakfast. If you would choose to say the president did not have eggs for breakfast, have at it, be my guest, though I might say you are wrong.

 

Imagine: President Kamala Harris

YOU want to risk it?​

Moi

​

 

I'm sure you understand when they have no argument they respond with either "your mother eats grass" or "show me the link."

 

I have every correct idea of what I speak you are speaking nonsense. The local authorities must make such a request. The President has NO law enforcement authority in DC or at the Capital. And the request goes to the SecArmy.

Pick up the phone and call who? He picked up his phone and twice in the first hour, after telling the proetesters to do so peacefully urging every to remain peaceful and obey the police. He had no control over the riot and they all ignored the Tweets.

I shackle myself to the Constitution and the law and the facts not the Dem/MSM you by your post here swallow hook line and sinker.

I won allmy races.

My Rep won and my Senate candiate won. Schumer and the Dems are the destructive ones. Why do you keep voting for them?

 

Why would congress voting every five year to reauthorize social security, medicare and veteran aid jeopardize anyone's life? Congress does similar things like passing continuing budget resolutions like shaving in the morning. I do think every year is a bit much (and not sure I personally go along with even the every five years) though it would maybe keep congress from doing a ton of mischievous stuff that they are want to do.

Just out of curiosity, were you as upset a decade ago when Obama through law killed Medicare Advantage for tens of millions of people and established an independent board with plenary power without any recourse to dictate Medicare cutbacks?

 

What specifically are you denying?

 

Except, without proof of the contents of the President's meal, no one but you would consider your statement, factual. Do I need to explain the difference to you, between fact and opinion? Facts are provable. Your sun rising in the East argument, is your excuse for not having any proof to offer, for your political contentions. That is the opposite of a factual argument. Or did you think you would get an argument from me, as to the direction in which one should look, to see the sunrise?

Things like horses not climbing trees, and such, are universally recognized truths. That Nancy Pelosi should be in charge of the security for the nation's Capitol is, once again, nothing at all like "common knowledge." I assume, if I challenged your claim of on which horizon, the sun rises, you would have little trouble, offering documentary evidence in support of this? I am only expecting the same, for all of your other 4 (previously enumerated), unproven assertions.

That you respond with talk of where the sun rises, instead of this actual proof of your own debate points, is quite telling. In fact, it would lead to the impression, to nearly all, that you must be blowing smoke, to cover for having nothing to back up, your bullshit claims--
but that would would just be the "commonly held understanding."

 

Medicare Advantage, I know for a fact, is currently thriving; so, as I'd previously said, I am unconvinced, merely on your word, of your understanding of Obamacare law. You may just be parroting some B.S. you'd heard from a less than sincere, talking head or opinion writer, on the Right. This is an additional instance, of your failing to supply any evidence of your claims.

 

I, of course am not advocating impeachment. Numerous Republicans, however, have been speaking of it as an almost inevitable. So, I'll take your post, as one vote for the more rational, Republican view on this. Everything I've heard, however-- granted, through the MSM-- leads me to believe that there absolutely will be numerous investigations, and that McCarthy (presumedly) will not be able to resist an impeachment vote, in the House (even if he thought it unwise)-- perhaps more than one.