Posted on 03/30/2017 9:03:39 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I would not term it, Trump wanting to burn the Constitution.
I think the bill was a terrible bill. I support the Freedom Caucus. They were exactly right to do what they did.
Rush called it an absolutely terrible bill. I agree with him.
Ryan should lose the Speaker’s position over it.
Yes. Where were the "incremental steps" when it came to the passage of Obamacare? Why should we accept "incremental steps" toward the promise of repeal? Just another leftist/progressive "Swamp" trick that only works in one direction -- to the detriment of the citizens.
Secondly Trump has been very good to us.
The degree of his "goodness" is a matter of debate.
Huh? Of course not. I’m not lecturing you at all.
Cobra, did your reply mean you agree that Trump wants to “burn the Constitution” and has turned Left?
Thought you could read between the lines that it was Ted Croooze who was all over the Constitution, backed by the “constitutionalists”, while he was pocketing from those who had no great interest in the Constitution, pushing WAll Street interests for globalism and the NA Union business.
Many of the “constitutionalists” are NeverTrump. But, never mind.
Not sure why Trump scolded the Freedom Caucus, unless it was possible he recalled the Reagan 80% Rule, but I know he would not sign a healthcare bill that funneled the VA into Medicaid, or raised premiums on his working class and Union voters who handed him the presidency.
Trump said himself, two or three weeks ago, that he “might not sign the bill”.
Thank you for your additional comments RitaOK.
I agree with them.
No
> Yes. Where were the “incremental steps” when it came to the passage of Obamacare? Why should we accept “incremental steps” toward the promise of repeal? Just another leftist/progressive “Swamp” trick that only works in one direction — to the detriment of the citizens.
Notice how that worked out for Obama? He went from having congress on lock and 60 majority in the senate to losing pretty much everything. He gave up on incrementalism and paid the price for it.
>>Secondly Trump has been very good to us.
>The degree of his “goodness” is a matter of debate.
A Conservative supreme court justice, actual border enforcement, roll back almost all of Obama’s unconstitutional orders, unleashes the Military against ISIS and a budget that massively slashes tons of federal agencies. Why are you not happy?
I’m so relieved.
When I hear “constitutionalists” slander Trump at only the first light of trouble trying to legislate, using phrases practically implying treason, my head explodes. I surmise who they are, if you get my drift, and can not resist firing back, in kind.
Had no idea it might be mis-understood. Being subtle often does not work. Often, we need to draw pictures. lol.
Worked great. We're saddled with his "legacy".
Why are you not happy?
Would have thought that was obvious from my post.
My point in seeking to address the faction that wring their hands over the thought of anyone losing their subsidized health care, goes to an understanding, based on fighting Federal encroachment since the middle of the last century, on how to take charge of the debate.
By starting with an acknowledgement of the strongest point in the opposing argument, you do not concede anything, you simply introduce your answer to that argument in the most effective way possible.
There is not the slightest doubt--the statistical evidence is enormous--that a Federal bureaucracy is unsuited to the allocation of medical care in a socially useful manner--even if it were somehow Constitutional. You give the devil his due, and then systematically destroy him. Allowing a period for those tricked into dependence, to work their way out, is the key to turning public awareness--stripped of the "crisis" panic--back to reality.
My point is that I’m no longer fighting that battle. I’m fighting a different one. Hence my rollerball analogy.
For me, this is not about health care insurance any more than nazism was about invading France.
Bus as with that invasion, too many are putting their hopes on the Maginot line.
“When did “conservatives” in congress ever do anything for conservatism”
Amen. I maintain that there are more similarities between the Congressional Black Caucus and the Freedom Caucus than differences.
What has the freedom caucus done for freedom?
Nothing. Just like the CBC.
What have they done to shrink government? Advance constitutional principles? Nothing.
They are a voting bloc of politicians. They want things more the same than they want to change.
It’s easy to pretend. Say you want conservatism, then vote against incremental progress because “it’s not conservative enough”
Easy to pretend. That’s exactly what we have here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.