I must have missed the part of his tweet where he was talking about his objections to other parts of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Oh wait he didn't.
Your way of debating would be like going into a thread about whether wall money should be included in the budget talks and complaining about how the proposed budget doesn't fund climate change and arguing how "of course it fits in a thread about Trump's wall, they're both in the same budget!" While technically true they're also different subjects.
This is all pointless anyway since you've already agreed that SALT should go away. The rest is just insincere arguments about process.
Ridiculous straw man. Shameful.
SALT was eliminated explicitly to provide funding that could be used to ‘pay for’ the remainder of the bill (ie: tax cuts for rich people). It was not an unrelated provision of an omnibus bill, it was literally required to fund the remainder.
So again, I encourage you to report me for bringing up unrelated subjects like the tax bill in a thread about...provisions of the tax bill.
Lol. This is so dumb, I know you know it too.
Yes you can actually talk about the individual mandate as a standalone piece of policy. Many threads here did exactly that. Just like ACA the Trump tax bill was made up of individual components (like SALT or the individual mandate) which can all be discussed independently on their own merits.
I cannot remember a single, solitary thread in which the individual mandate was discussed without mentioning its reason for existence. If you can find one by all means link it for me.
More importantly though, it is literally impossible to intelligently discuss the individual mandate without discussing why it exists. A mandate to buy insurance without community rating or guaranteed issue would be pointless and illogical. One with those is very good. Discussing it without such context would be moronic, which was of course my point.