Archy1221

In one scenario, Someone said they wanted a new car so logically they wanted a new car even though someone couldn’t buy one. A different scenario, another person didn’t want a new car but someone else claimed they did actually want a new car, yet it turned out the original person truly didn’t want a new car. Logically that person didn’t want a new car.

It actually is quite close. You were quite certain the GOP wanted across the board 23% non defense cuts. You mentioned it multiple times that since the GOP bill didn’t line item the proposed cuts, one could rightfully assume it’s everything but defense at 23%. All reporting in the last day says the compromise is nowhere close to that and you still can’t provide any documents that say it either. You were wrong, it’s fine.

About those faux 23% across the board cuts so many claimed was in a bill that wasn’t actually in a bill. Maybe now those folks will realize they were wrong

Policy is what I base my vote of off so I do have a point.

What kind of person doesn’t let the water get warm before a 20 minute relaxing shower! We aren’t heathens ya know.

The policies Trump has presented have n 2016 and the ones he has presented the last 6 months are no where near the same.

2016 Trump and post 2020 Trump are nowhere near the same. This is quite easy to see

Ronald’s not wrong on this. The 2020 election broke Trump

Why are you even asking the question about late fees? According to your logic, that is actually settled because the language isn’t in the bill. According to you that means late fees are going to be assessed. And that being the case, why isn’t Clyburn b!^@hing about it too?

If your going with Not clarified, it does not mean retroactive, it means not clarified. Now if you want to follow through on the argument you are making, why is no one making a big deal about saying GOP is making people have late payment fees then? If everything is retroactive, then they missed payments and late payment fees would likely apply. The whole idea of it being legal is being litigated. So no, it’s not bats#!t insane.

No worries, Twitter Victor says the young one are voting so all will be good.

Which part of his post showed this claw back is going to happen, which I agreed with him that if it does it wouldn’t be right. Word choices in bills, is a little bit important. I’m this case, words choices on what the bill means for interest and who it impacts would be important.

Well ya, because it’s irrelevant up until the time clawed back interest on those specific borrows is a thing.

Aaaaannnnnddddds, you totally dismiss his comment about uneven application of the law comment, again. And since you claim to have listened to the interview, you would understand he also clearly stated there are people arrested and convicted for offenses on J6 that he wouldn’t touch. And you would have also noticed his comment about a grandma, which you would then understand what case he is referencing and understand what type of people/cases would be looked at.

So, long story short, you’re saying the bill doesn’t say what you claim?

Ya, I actually listened to the interview….the relevant piece here because he isn’t talking about any and all J6 defendants. But if there are three other people who did the same thing, but just in a context like BLM and they don’t get prosecuted at all, that is uneven application of justice, and so we’re going to find ways where that did not happen.

Where does it say it is?

For what’s it worth I agree with you here, And how do we know that isn’t going to be the case.

Because you were proven wrong again and now throwing a hissy fit. Darn

yes I did. The last loan pause ( only a few months worth of pause) wasn’t even constitutional based on how the original pause was enacted. So at the very worst, you are talking about a few months of interest accrued on payments that never should have stayed stopped in the first place. You have to understand and agree that the way Democrats are framing this is retroactive interest on the entire 3 yr pause Now, The article is also making assumptions that the interest would accrue retroactively yet when I showed you the resolution, we both agreed the language doesn’t expressly say that.

Again, you should have listened to the interview in its entirety not a preselected shortened clip so you could actually understand what he is saying and not saying.

You should have actually listened to the interview instead of reading rawstory

I assume you know the article is talking about student loan forgiveness and not retroactively charging the interest on the payment pause for the first 30 months or so of that pause. If you are upset that the student loan forgiveness thing may go away, I don’t really care. I don’t believe in that Biden give away policy and it will probably get smacked down as unconstitutional in the way Biden did it anyways. People always live free s#!t, especially young people. Sometimes others need to be the adults in the room and say enough with the free s#!t. it’s kinda crazy how two posts ago you rail about loan forgiveness and now act like it’s gods gift to young voters that needs to happen

Where does it say interest is retroactively being charged for those student loan holders?