1 hour ago, candide said:

Hmmm....

- Why did he mention the 40%? There are two options (1) the usual MAGA trick to push lies to the gullible while covering their ass (similar to "I've been told" or "people say") or (2) he didn't know what he was talking about, which is a problem for a major policy adviser.

- the bill clearly didn't propose 40%. Only a moron or ill-intentioned person would have jumped on it.

 

Wrong. The bill did mention 40% as being the rise required to cover historical raises not granted. It then went on to say 4% was the proposed amount. 

 

You can't be bothered doing the basic research, can you? 

1 hour ago, candide said:

Yet MAGA fans have been continuously posting the Dems were the party of the rich and big business.

MAGAs cannot be that incoherent ...

Oh wait! 😆

 

Democrat fundraiser quit the party after watching it blow $2.5 billion of donated money. She's now being called a wh're and c"nt as well as a Chinese spy for asking questions about financial prolifligacy. 

 

Tell us again about incoherence? 

2 minutes ago, theblether said:

 

Wrong. The bill did mention 40% as being the rise required to cover historical raises not granted. It then went on to say 4% was the proposed amount. 

 

You can't be bothered doing the basic research, can you? 

You are grasping at straws.

It did not propose a 40% rise. That was unequivocal.

Either Musk did not even check the bill before torpedoing it, or he knowingly mentioned a 40% rise in order to fool the gullible.

 

 

3 minutes ago, theblether said:

 

Democrat fundraiser quit the party after watching it blow $2.5 billion of donated money. She's now being called a wh're and c"nt as well as a Chinese spy for asking questions about financial prolifligacy. 

 

Tell us again about incoherence? 

So what?

Just now, candide said:

You are grasping at straws.

It did not propose a 40% rise. That was unequivocal.

Either Musk did not even check the bill before torpedoing it, or he knowingly mentioned a 40% rise in order to fool the gullible.

 

 

You are grasping at straws. You said the bill did not refer to a 40% pay rise. It did. 

 

You are factually wrong. And it wasn't the 40% issue that wrecked the bill. Multiple other issues were uncovered. 

10 minutes ago, candide said:

So what?

 

You need to be deliberately obtuse to state that the Dems are not the party of big business and mega donors when even their fundraisers are putting the boot in. 

 

Kamala Harris is finished. You guys replaying the election are morons ( to use your rhetoric ). Stating Musk torpedoed a bill is also moronic. 

 

You guys are dropping into cuckoo's nest territory with this inane river of drivel. Give it up, go for a walk, get a life. 

Going back to the topic. The real rage was the appearance of AI at a critical time. Business as usual was blown out of the water as the American public saw where the money was heading. 

 

Congress has now become more accountable and the Dems throwing a toddler tantrum better wake up. 

A Dec. 18 X post, opens new tab by Musk saying, “How can this be called a ‘continuing resolution’ if it includes a 40% pay increase for Congress?” amplified the false narrative.

But the 1,547-page bill, opens new tab, which included a wide range of provisions unrelated to government spending, would not have given lawmakers a 40% pay raise.

The bill would have ended a longtime pay freeze, allowing lawmakers to be eligible for a 3.8% salary increase in January, equal to $6,600.

 

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/bipartisan-stopgap-spending-bill-did-not-include-40-pay-raise-congress-2024-12-20/

 

3 minutes ago, theblether said:

 

You need to be deliberately obtuse to state that the Dems are not the party of big business and mega donors when even their fundraisers are putting the boot in. 

 

Kamala Harris is finished. You guys replaying the election are morons ( to use your rhetoric ). Stating Musk torpedoed a bill is also moronic. 

 

You guys a dropping into cuckoo's nest territory with this inane river of drivel. Give it up, go for a walk, get a life. 

As I mentioned in my post, this is not coherent with what the other guy wrote.

2 minutes ago, theblether said:

Going back to the topic. The real rage was the appearance of AI at a critical time. Business as usual was blown out of the water as the American public saw where the money was heading. 

 

Congress has now become more accountable and the Dems throwing a toddler tantrum better wake up. 

You are making stuff up. No one is throwing a tantrum about it. 

 

It's actualky a good thing as it will soon be used to check the next GOP Congress. 

 

Actually, it's already useful. I asked ChatGPT and it replied that there was no 40% salary increase proposal in the first bill.

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

A Dec. 18 X post, opens new tab by Musk saying, “How can this be called a ‘continuing resolution’ if it includes a 40% pay increase for Congress?” amplified the false narrative.

But the 1,547-page bill, opens new tab, which included a wide range of provisions unrelated to government spending, would not have given lawmakers a 40% pay raise.

The bill would have ended a longtime pay freeze, allowing lawmakers to be eligible for a 3.8% salary increase in January, equal to $6,600.

 

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/bipartisan-stopgap-spending-bill-did-not-include-40-pay-raise-congress-2024-12-20/

 

 

Read the whole link. It clearly states the CRS figure of 40%. Also, I posted that link yesterday. 

 

The point is moot anyway - Musk said "if." 

 

Coherence seems to be the new word of this thread. What an absolute meltdown over nothing. 

2 minutes ago, candide said:

You are making stuff up. No one is throwing a tantrum about it. 

 

It's actualky a good thing as it will soon be used to check the next GOP Congress. 

 

Actually, it's already useful. I asked ChatGPT and it replied that there was no 40% salary increase proposal in the first bill.

 

 

 

 

No one throwing a tantrum, eh? 

 

 

6 minutes ago, theblether said:

 

Read the whole link. It clearly states the CRS figure of 40%. Also, I posted that link yesterday. 

 

The point is moot anyway - Musk said "if." 

 

Coherence seems to be the new word of this thread. What an absolute meltdown over nothing. 

So why did Musk mention it and not the 3.8% actual proposal? 

Just now, theblether said:

 

No one throwing a tantrum, eh? 

 

 

She's complaining about Musk, not about the fact that AI can scrutinise bills.