Who won the Government shutdown? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Who won the Government shutdown?
in Politics

By TTKDBTTKDB 265 Pts
President Trump?

Nancy Pelosi?

Chuck Schumer?

The pro Border wall supporters?

The sanctuary city supporters?

Or the Businesses that utilize the illegal immigrants to do work for them, supporters?
Zombieguy1987
«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • "read my lips, no new taxes"
  • ale5ale5 245 Pts
    edited January 26
    Not Trump...
    Zombieguy1987
    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • ale5ale5 245 Pts
    edited January 26
    People lost.
    piloteerZombieguy1987
    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • ale5ale5 245 Pts
    The government is back now
    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • Maybe both parties won?
  • I find the question insulting. No one won this, the shutdown only caused a great deal of damage with no benefit whatsoever. Even if you support the wall, the fact that 800,000 people had to suffer directly from the lack of pay and countless more were harmed indirectly should be nothing but devastating. Winning political points is entirely hollow as well.
    Zombieguy1987Applesaucepiloteer
  • @whiteflame I agree. I feel both parties are acting like petulant children?
    ApplesaucepiloteerZombieguy1987
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1120 Pts
    edited January 26
    No one won, it'll be shut down again in 3 weeks.  This is just a brief pause to let gov't workers get their pay.
    ApplesauceZombieguy1987
  • @CYDdharta This is getting old real quick. I say build the damn wall and get chit done! That way, liberals and conservatives both stop whining like petulant children. Ugh.
    CYDdhartaZombieguy1987Applesauce
  • @whiteflame I agree. I feel both parties are acting like petulant children?
    I feel one side shoulders far more of the blame than the other. For much the same reason as the shutdown over DACA implicated Democrats, I see the fight over a wall as implicating Republicans. Just the same, I think the whole shutdown was a petty act resulting from a spat that involved none of these people. 
    Zombieguy1987piloteer

  • I feel one side shoulders far more of the blame than the other. For much the same reason as the shutdown over DACA implicated Democrats, I see the fight over a wall as implicating Republicans. Just the same, I think the whole shutdown was a petty act resulting from a spat that involved none of these people. 

    You're right, one side DOES deserve more of the blame than the other.  Trump was elected to build the wall.  The Dems know that.  Their whole opposition to the wall is to try to give Trump a "read my lips, no new taxes" moment.  It has NOTHING to do with spending or any of the other excuses they've put forward, the Dems LOVE useless spending and everyone in Dem leadership is already on record as supporting the wall, just not when Trump is in office.
    ApplesaucepiloteerZombieguy1987
  • @whiteflame Fair enough. I can agree to that.
  • If Trump had won the shutdown, there wouldn't be one coming in 3 weeks...

    Quite frank, these shutdowns are embarrassing the country
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • @Zombieguy1987 This is really dumb. Both parties are acting like petulant children.
  • @CYDdharta

    We discussed the issue of whether Democrats supported the wall previously, you were largely unresponsive to my point, so I won’t revisit it again. As for responsibility, only one side of this was trying to open the government, no strings attached. Only one side was attaching the wall as a string. Regardless of whether it was a campaign promise, Trump failed to pass the wall with a solidly Republican congress. Putting all the blame for his inability to do so on Democrats seems rather shortsighted.
    Zombieguy1987CYDdhartapiloteer
  • @CYDdharta

    We discussed the issue of whether Democrats supported the wall previously, you were largely unresponsive to my point, so I won’t revisit it again. As for responsibility, only one side of this was trying to open the government, no strings attached. Only one side was attaching the wall as a string. Regardless of whether it was a campaign promise, Trump failed to pass the wall with a solidly Republican congress. Putting all the blame for his inability to do so on Democrats seems rather shortsighted.

    Correct, only one side WAS trying to pay government workers no strings attached, but as usual, you have it all wrong.


    We can blame never-Trump RINOs for trying to undermine the Trump administration as well as the Dems, but it's irrelevant.  This was a political ploy by the Dems, nothing more, nothing less.  That being the case, they deserve the lion's share of the blame for this shutdown and the next in a few weeks.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 671 Pts
    edited January 26
    CYDdharta said:

    Correct, only one side WAS trying to pay government workers no strings attached, but as usual, you have it all wrong.


    We can blame never-Trump RINOs for trying to undermine the Trump administration as well as the Dems, but it's irrelevant.  This was a political ploy by the Dems, nothing more, nothing less.  That being the case, they deserve the lion's share of the blame for this shutdown and the next in a few weeks.
    Huh, very interesting. You present two instances where Republicans tried to re-open the government during the shutdown. Let's talk about those two instances. I had to look up the bill a few times, because I noticed it had been posted several times. In fact, it was actually passed on the 24th. Strange, then, that it didn't pass twice before...

    ...Actually, not all that strange. Check out the article you posted. It never once talks about what was in the two bills the Republicans put forward. If you look at the history of the bills, though, it tells the story. Let's start with HR 31, which passed the House yesterday:

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/116-2019/h51

    I'll focus your attention on the following lines:

    "The Senate had unanimously passed a bill to fund the government through 2019, without the border wall, the then Republican-controlled House amended the bill adding $5 billion in funding for a southern border wall. The Senate neglected to vote on that bill leaving it to die in the previous Congress...When the 116th Congress began in 2019, Democrats took control of the House. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made it clear that the House does not plan to approve funding for the border wall in any future appropriations bills. As of January 24, House Democrats have passed ten different bills that would completely or partially reopen the federal government. Only H.R. 268 has been considered by the Senate, where Republican and Democratic amendments to the bill both failed."

    Two things to note from that post. One, if we're going based on sheer number of bills that were rejected by one party, Republicans definitely have Democrats beat 10 to 2. Two, you might notice that one of those bills, specifically the one that eventually passed the House (with a grand total of 5 Republican votes behind it http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll051.xml), were rejected on the basis that they included large allocations to the wall, specifically. 

    As for the other one, it took some searching, but I found that it's HR 28, which has been through some alterations all its own. I couldn't find specific details of the changes, but there's a clean version passed on January 23rd, sponsored by a Democrat. Seems unlikely that they would have turned down the exact same thing just 6 days earlier, so changes must have been made (i.e. appropriations removed).

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hjres28

    So, much as you and The Daily Signal appear to have some kind of messaging going on with these examples, they seem to be lacking in the support you're trying to provide. If they deserve the blame, I'd honestly like to see some reasoning as to why (or, you know, have you actually respond to the post I made a while back, which you entirely ignored).
    Zombieguy1987CYDdhartaWordsMatterpiloteer
  • I won. I saved a few hundred dollars during my 3-week Christmas road trip, as I visited a few dozen National Parks that were all free due to the lack of personnel!

    In fact, I only had to pay twice for entering any park: $3 fee in the Great Salt Lake State Park, and $5 fee in the Red Canyon Park, both in Utah. The Utah state government put everyone else to shame, working hard despite all the issues in the Congress.

    I doubt anyone else, other than tourists, won. At the same time, people did not lose that much either. The government in general is so inefficient, that a bit over a month of it essentially not existing is not even noticeable in our everyday lives!
    Zombieguy1987piloteer
  • TKDBTKDB 255 Pts
    The illegal immigrants won, the sanctuary cities won, and the plethora of businesses that utilize the illegal immigrants to do work for them won.

    And Pelosi and Schumer, I'm guessing are viewed favorably, because they apparently flexed their own political powers to keep Trump from getting what he's seeking, the funding for the border wall.

    The catch with Pelosi and Schumer, maybe they are of the belief that they are speaking for the voter public, as a whole?

    With all due respect to them, they aren't. I've yet to see any of the ranchers that live along the Border and have been dealing with the activity of the immigrants, illegally coming into the United States since the 1980's, standing beside either Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer, as they address the public, via the news media cameras as they present their liberal talking points to the voting public? 

    When those very Ranchers are present along with Pelosi or Schumer and Trump all at the same time, then maybe they could all be speaking for me, but until that time comes, they aren't. 

    And, I'll vote according to how their efforts are benefitting the public as a whole, instead of apparently benefitting their liberal views individually, towards their constituents. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 255 Pts
    https://news.yahoo.com/democrats-declare-victory-shutdown-battle-trump-213939080.html

    Some excerpts from the article:

    "Democrats declare victory in shutdown battle with Trump

    AFP
    AFPJanuary 25, 2019, 4:39 PM EST

    Washington (AFP) - Democratic leaders in Congress declared victory Friday in a successful negotiation to reopen the US government after a record five-week closure -- and took the opportunity to chide President Donald Trump for taking so long to reach a deal.

    "Hopefully now the president has learned his lesson," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters shortly after Trump announced a deal that would temporarily reopen shuttered federal agencies, but does not include funds for the president's long-requested border wall.

    The partial government shutdown, the longest in American history, "will finally end today," Schumer said, after the Senate and House quickly pass the legislation and send it to the president's desk for his signature. 

    In the end, it was Trump who backed down in the 35-day battle of wills with his Democratic opponents in Congress, notably including Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives.

    Pelosi joined Schumer in commending the deal but stopped short of reveling in seeing Trump drop his previous insistence on border wall funding.

    "It's sad, though, that it's taken this long to come to an obvious conclusion," she said.

    "Disagreement in policy should never be a reason to shut down government."

    Democrats stood firm -- and, importantly, largely united -- in their opposition to funding for the wall on the US-Mexico border, which Trump insists is needed to tackle illegal immigration.

    Border reinforcement will be a pivotal issue as both sides negotiate a deal in the coming weeks that will address border security and fund government through the remainder of the fiscal year.

    Pelosi said she remained "optimistic" that a long-term deal will be reached.

    Trump's retreat clearly reinforces Pelosi's reputation as a master political tactician, but she did not gloat.

    "I don't see this as any power play," she said, declining to speculate on whether the president held out over wall funding to show who was in charge.

    "Our unity is our power, and that is what maybe the president underestimated."

    No mention of the Ranchers, or the thousands of the US citizens who have been affected by the crimes of the illegal immigrants, over the years? 

    But there is this:

    "Hopefully now the president has learned his lesson," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters shortly after Trump announced a deal that would temporarily reopen shuttered federal agencies, but does not include funds for the president's long-requested border wall."


  • @CYDdharta you missed the part about the dueling senate proposals Thursday as well as McConnell's conversation with Trump. Republican bill recurved 50 votes, Democratic bill received 52. McConnell told Trump that Senate Republicans couldn't blindly back him for much longer and Senate Republicans were mad at Pence for leaving them high and dry with no strategy on how to deal with the shutdown. You'll scream RINO 
    Zombieguy1987

  • Huh, very interesting. You present two instances where Republicans tried to re-open the government during the shutdown. Let's talk about those two instances. I had to look up the bill a few times, because I noticed it had been posted several times. In fact, it was actually passed on the 24th. Strange, then, that it didn't pass twice before...

    ...Actually, not all that strange. Check out the article you posted. It never once talks about what was in the two bills the Republicans put forward. If you look at the history of the bills, though, it tells the story. Let's start with HR 31, which passed the House yesterday:

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/116-2019/h51

    I'll focus your attention on the following lines:

    "The Senate had unanimously passed a bill to fund the government through 2019, without the border wall, the then Republican-controlled House amended the bill adding $5 billion in funding for a southern border wall. The Senate neglected to vote on that bill leaving it to die in the previous Congress...When the 116th Congress began in 2019, Democrats took control of the House. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made it clear that the House does not plan to approve funding for the border wall in any future appropriations bills. As of January 24, House Democrats have passed ten different bills that would completely or partially reopen the federal government. Only H.R. 268 has been considered by the Senate, where Republican and Democratic amendments to the bill both failed."

    Two things to note from that post. One, if we're going based on sheer number of bills that were rejected by one party, Republicans definitely have Democrats beat 10 to 2. Two, you might notice that one of those bills, specifically the one that eventually passed the House (with a grand total of 5 Republican votes behind it http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll051.xml), were rejected on the basis that they included large allocations to the wall, specifically. 

    As for the other one, it took some searching, but I found that it's HR 28, which has been through some alterations all its own. I couldn't find specific details of the changes, but there's a clean version passed on January 23rd, sponsored by a Democrat. Seems unlikely that they would have turned down the exact same thing just 6 days earlier, so changes must have been made (i.e. appropriations removed).

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hjres28

    So, much as you and The Daily Signal appear to have some kind of messaging going on with these examples, they seem to be lacking in the support you're trying to provide. If they deserve the blame, I'd honestly like to see some reasoning as to why (or, you know, have you actually respond to the post I made a while back, which you entirely ignored).

    What's your point, to illustrate that Pelosi's intransigence was the reason for the shutdown?  Mission accomplished.  2 bills, 10 bills, 1000 bills; when the president says he needs funding for the border wall and the left steadfastly refuses to include such funding, NONE of them are serious measures.  The Dems made no attempt to negotiate.  There was no Dem bill that offered $3 billion for the wall, or $500,000 for the wall, just a flat refusal from the speaker.  The Dems were playing politics, the lives of government workers be damned.  The only thing they cared about was trying to make the president renege on a campaign promise.
  • @CYDdharta you missed the part about the dueling senate proposals Thursday as well as McConnell's conversation with Trump. Republican bill recurved 50 votes, Democratic bill received 52. McConnell told Trump that Senate Republicans couldn't blindly back him for much longer and Senate Republicans were mad at Pence for leaving them high and dry with no strategy on how to deal with the shutdown. You'll scream RINO 

    So the GOP was a lot more serious than the Dems about trying to end the shutdown.  More evidence that undermines your position on who was mainly responsible for this mess.
  • CYDdharta said:
    What's your point, to illustrate that Pelosi's intransigence was the reason for the shutdown?  Mission accomplished.  2 bills, 10 bills, 1000 bills; when the president says he needs funding for the border wall and the left steadfastly refuses to include such funding, NONE of them are serious measures.  The Dems made no attempt to negotiate.  There was no Dem bill that offered $3 billion for the wall, or $500,000 for the wall, just a flat refusal from the speaker.  The Dems were playing politics, the lives of government workers be damned.  The only thing they cared about was trying to make the president renege on a campaign promise.
    And there you go again, effectively dropping your initial point and jumping on mine. So you concede that neither of the bills Republicans put forward were clean. You also concede that only Democrats were passing clean bills, meaning that they weren't attaching legislative agendas to them. Simply by doing that, Democrats were passing the only legislation that would have allowed for an end to the shutdown without anyone winning. 800,000 people could have gone back to work weeks ago, and negotiations could have continued without holding them hostage.

    But let's talk about the response you're giving me. You say that the Democrats should have negotiated. A few problems with that.

    First, looking back at a previous shutdown brought on by Democratic desires to see DACA continue, would you similarly argue that Republican intransigence brought that about? It's the same kind of situation: Democrats wanted to see an expansion of a given program for a certain period of time, and all Republicans had to do was negotiate a shorter period. Instead, they lied about bringing it up on a future legislative agenda to end the shutdown, but that's besides the point. If your view is that the other party should always negotiate when one seeks to shutdown the government for a given legislative agenda, then do you think that should have also happened here?

    Second, I think this is absurd. Democrats are not required to pursue campaign promises made by the president. By that same token, would you argue that the attempts by President Obama to close Guantanamo Bay were also Republicans "playing politics"? I wouldn't. A president is elected by the people at large (or, in this case, by the electoral college) to represent views of the country. Those views don't necessarily support specific legislative agendas - they support the president in general, though not necessarily on every specific promise he made, which means a lot of those people who voted for him might not support his wall. Legislators are elected to represent their constituencies specifically, and those constituencies may be largely composed of people who did not support Trump in the general election. Even if we assume that every single person who voted for Trump also voted for the wall (and that no one's opinion has changed in the two years since he was elected, which seems a bit naive), legislators aren't there to follow national polling trends. Their branch of government is not meant to simply be there to parrot what the general public wants. The reason the legislature exists is to ensure representation is given to localities across the country. Do they play politics? Absolutely, and so does the president. Everyone plays politics. That doesn't alter the fact that the legislature has no obligation to ensure that the president follows through on his promises.

    Third, I would argue that they did negotiate and that it was Trump who didn't budge. It was Trump who came on the news constantly saying that he would only accept $5.7 billion for the wall, and McConnell who backed him up by saying that he would only allow legislation to come to the floor if it met Trump's demands. It was Trump who said that he would only accept money for a wall, refusing over $1 billion for border security measures in the process. Democrats made it absolutely clear that they were willing to improve border security measures and even improve walls and fences already available on the border. Trump refused. The idea that Democrats had to absolutely fold on providing money to the wall, and that somehow that would be a negotiation, is absolutely ridiculous. A negotiation is not just in sheer amounts of money provided for a given project, it's in discussion of what should be done and what can be done to best address problems at our southern border. Trump didn't want to have that conversation, he simply wanted his wall. Taking a sticking point and saying that there are no other ways to do this is the exact opposite of negotiation.
    piloteerCYDdhartaZombieguy1987
  • No-one. Shut downs are not a War or game there is no winner the actual political side of governing never stopped and did not shut down. Where the truth?
  • TKDBTKDB 255 Pts
    https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/nyregion/dream-act-bill-passed.amp.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/nyregion/dream-act-bill-passed.html

    "Dream Act Is Approved in N.Y. to Aid Undocumented Students, in Rebuke to Trump

    The newly emboldened Democratic-led New York State Legislature waded into the battle over immigrants’ rights on Wednesday, approving a bill that for the first time offers undocumented students access to state financial aid and scholarships for higher education.

    Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has confirmed he will sign the measure into law.

    The Dream Act is the latest in a wave of state-level protections for immigrants as blue state legislatures increasingly seek to act as a counterbalance to President Trump’s federal immigration policies. These issues are also expected to play a prominent role in the Democratic Party’s 2020 presidential primary, with candidates who are courting liberal activists supporting the state measures.

    After New York Democrats won control of the State Senate in November for the first time in a decade, protections for immigrants became a legislative priority. They included permitting undocumented residents to obtain state driver’s licenses and reducing maximum jail sentences for certain misdemeanors that could otherwise lead to deportation.

    “It took us almost a decade to get the Dream Act, and it’s going to take another five, 10, 20 years to undo the damage that Washington is causing our families,” said Assemblywoman Catalina Cruz of Queens, who was born in Colombia and came to New York as an undocumented child. 


    Even as the bill gained passage, the New York Immigration Coalition and other advocates were pushing for lawmakers to “dream bigger” and address issues like expanded funding for immigrant legal services and health care for immigrants.

    All these measures, lawmakers say, could act as a bulwark against Republican efforts in Washington and the ongoing standoff over the nation’s southern border.

    “The election of Trump and the fact that he made immigration a central theme of his presidency has made immigration a more prominent issue at the state level,” said Muzaffar Chishti, the director of the Migration Policy Institute at the New York University School of Law. “In some ways, blue states are now competing with each other to provide a higher level of protection to immigrants.”

    The New York bill will affect an estimated 146,000 young people who were educated in New York public schools but have been ineligible to receive financial aid under federal and state law, according to analysis by the New York State Youth Leadership Council and N.Y.U. Law School’s Immigrant Rights Clinic.

    “These young undocumented immigrants will work, they will pay taxes, they will buy products, and the greater earning capacity they have the more taxes they will pay,” said Democratic State Sen. Luis Sepúlveda. “This is one piece of legislation where we must get beyond the anti-immigration fervor created by President Trump and see the benefits educating these young people has for our state.”

    But many Republicans say that the measure diverts funds away from legal residents and comes at the expense of taxpayers.

    “How am I supposed to tell families in my Senate district that adequate state aid to help afford college isn’t available for them, but it is available for others who are in this country illegally?” said Republican State Sen. James Seward.

    The move on financial aid for undocumented immigrants comes during a week in which the Legislature and Governor Cuomo continued to make headway on a list of liberal measures that had long been blocked while Republicans controlled the State Senate for most of the last decade."

    I wonder, where are the interviews with some of the citizens in the state of NY, who maybe disagreed with this new "Dream Act" becoming a law? 

    Where are the supporting (Studies, Polls, or Surveys) that were conducted, that shows their supporting numbers?



    Zombieguy1987
  • @TKDB to what degree does geographical distance affect moral obligation?
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 255 Pts
    @WordsMatter

    "to what degree does geographical distance affect moral obligation?"

    What does your question have to do with this forum?


    Zombieguy1987
  • @CYDdharta

    CYDdharta said:
    No one won, it'll be shut down again in 3 weeks.  This is just a brief pause to let gov't workers get their pay.
    The President claims that he will declare a national emergency if there's no agreement on the border wall within 3 weeks, so if he keeps his promise, the government won't shut down again.
    CYDdhartaZombieguy1987
  • @TKDB it applies. I just won't say until you answer because I know how you like to twist things or avoid answering
    Zombieguy1987

  • And there you go again, effectively dropping your initial point and jumping on mine. So you concede that neither of the bills Republicans put forward were clean. You also concede that only Democrats were passing clean bills, meaning that they weren't attaching legislative agendas to them. Simply by doing that, Democrats were passing the only legislation that would have allowed for an end to the shutdown without anyone winning. 800,000 people could have gone back to work weeks ago, and negotiations could have continued without holding them hostage.

    But let's talk about the response you're giving me. You say that the Democrats should have negotiated. A few problems with that.

    First, looking back at a previous shutdown brought on by Democratic desires to see DACA continue, would you similarly argue that Republican intransigence brought that about? It's the same kind of situation: Democrats wanted to see an expansion of a given program for a certain period of time, and all Republicans had to do was negotiate a shorter period. Instead, they lied about bringing it up on a future legislative agenda to end the shutdown, but that's besides the point. If your view is that the other party should always negotiate when one seeks to shutdown the government for a given legislative agenda, then do you think that should have also happened here?

    Second, I think this is absurd. Democrats are not required to pursue campaign promises made by the president. By that same token, would you argue that the attempts by President Obama to close Guantanamo Bay were also Republicans "playing politics"? I wouldn't. A president is elected by the people at large (or, in this case, by the electoral college) to represent views of the country. Those views don't necessarily support specific legislative agendas - they support the president in general, though not necessarily on every specific promise he made, which means a lot of those people who voted for him might not support his wall. Legislators are elected to represent their constituencies specifically, and those constituencies may be largely composed of people who did not support Trump in the general election. Even if we assume that every single person who voted for Trump also voted for the wall (and that no one's opinion has changed in the two years since he was elected, which seems a bit naive), legislators aren't there to follow national polling trends. Their branch of government is not meant to simply be there to parrot what the general public wants. The reason the legislature exists is to ensure representation is given to localities across the country. Do they play politics? Absolutely, and so does the president. Everyone plays politics. That doesn't alter the fact that the legislature has no obligation to ensure that the president follows through on his promises.

    Third, I would argue that they did negotiate and that it was Trump who didn't budge. It was Trump who came on the news constantly saying that he would only accept $5.7 billion for the wall, and McConnell who backed him up by saying that he would only allow legislation to come to the floor if it met Trump's demands. It was Trump who said that he would only accept money for a wall, refusing over $1 billion for border security measures in the process. Democrats made it absolutely clear that they were willing to improve border security measures and even improve walls and fences already available on the border. Trump refused. The idea that Democrats had to absolutely fold on providing money to the wall, and that somehow that would be a negotiation, is absolutely ridiculous. A negotiation is not just in sheer amounts of money provided for a given project, it's in discussion of what should be done and what can be done to best address problems at our southern border. Trump didn't want to have that conversation, he simply wanted his wall. Taking a sticking point and saying that there are no other ways to do this is the exact opposite of negotiation.

    Are you on drugs?!  That's about the only way you could misinterpret, in fact, completely misread what I wrote.  Then again, that's nothing new and in keeping with your disingenuous posting style; ignore my answers, then whine that I don't answer you.  That's sleazy and deceitful, fortunately it's also transparent, so not very effective.

    The Republicans are the ONLY ones who offered clean bills.  Their bills did one thing only, paid federal workers the money they were owed.  There could not be a cleaner bill.  The Dems designed their bills to fail from the outset.  They WANTED federal workers to go without pay.  As that is UNDENIABLE, blame for the shutdown rests primarily with the Dems.

    Likewise, the Dems are not serious about DACA.  How can we tell?  BECAUSE TRUMP ALREADY OFFERED THEM DACA.

    Democrats would be crazy to reject Trump's DACA deal

    Your claim about the Republicans being to blame for the last shutdown, like so many of your claims, is preposterous.  Trump has been willing to negotiate on pretty much everything.  The Dems have steadfastly refuse to negotiate.

    Second, while the Dems weren't elected to help the president, they weren't elected to mindless oppose him either.   They were sent to DC to negotiate.  Trump is willing to negotiate, the Dems are not.  I'm not sure what you're going on about with Gitmo.  0bama was never serious about closing it.  He looked into it and ran into a big case of NIMBY.  That's why he never pursued closing Gitmo, not because of anything the GOP had to say about it.

    Third, the Dems were NEVER serious about negotiating with Trump.  They NEVER offered the administration a single dime for the border wall.  If $5 billion was too much, they should have offered what they thought was a fair amount.  They didn't.  This was all political theater to the Dems.  They were making a statement, government workers be damned.  The idea that Trump had to absolutely fold on the wall, and that somehow that would be a negotiation, is absolutely ridiculous.  Trump was willing to to talk about all other border security measures, the Dems would have none of it.  Taking a sticking point and saying that there are no other ways to do this is the exact opposite of negotiation.

  • piloteer said:
    @CYDdharta

    The President claims that he will declare a national emergency if there's no agreement on the border wall within 3 weeks, so if he keeps his promise, the government won't shut down again.

    He said that was AN option.  He said that there MIGHT BE another shutdown.  No doubt the Dems are already judge shopping just in case Trump follows through on it.
  • @CYDdharta

    Seriously? We're doing this now? You're pretending I'm not responding to you because you've conveniently forgotten previous posts?

    I provided direct evidence showing that both of the bills you cited as coming from Republicans were passed later... by Democrats. Notably, both of them were clean bills by the time they reached that point, again, as shown by the links I provided. Also notably, both of them were modified by Republicans before that, and in one case, they added $5 billion of wall funding to the bill. The other bill likely included Republican amendments that were also not clean. You refused to address those direct citations, yet now you claim that they were clean bills. That is demonstrably false.

    As for DACA, yes, let's talk about it. What Trump offered to them was 3 years during which DACA could continue. It would also have extended similar temporary protections for those under TPS. Great, good start, brilliant. Really shows that he was willing to negotiate with... wait, what does the rest of the bill say? 

    "But the measure also included several changes to asylum law, long advocated by Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump’s senior adviser and an architect of his immigration agenda, that would make it more difficult for people to seek refuge in the United States from persecution and violence at home. Among them were provisions to bar Central American children from claiming asylum inside the United States, requiring them instead to do so in their own countries, and allow any of them to be quickly sent back to their own countries."

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-leaders-reach-deal-that-offers-possible-path-to-reopen-government/ar-BBSBpSy?li=BBnb7Kx

    Huh. So, while the bill was trying to protect people here, it was also dramatically altering the way that asylum functions. The bill also included dramatic restrictions on the total number of asylum seekers that would be allowed into the country, even among those that go through this extensive process and may be approved. And, while we're paying attention to this, let's not forget that this portion was without a time limit. The other two lapse in 3 years.

    As for your claim that "Trump has been willing to negotiate on pretty much everything", I don't know where you're getting that. Show me anywhere where he was willing to drop the wall and pick up something else that was precious to him. The Democrats did not have a single funding proposal they wanted met, here. Trump did, and he wanted it funded up to at least $5.7 billion. He made that clear several times. Where was his willingness to negotiate? At best, you could claim that he was willing to give concessions to the Democrats for the wall, but even that seems largely tainted by his desire to attach massive changes to asylum policy to those concessions.

    Regarding your claim that Democrats are "mindless[ly] oppos[ing]" Trump, I simply don't see it. They've been very clear on why they're against his policies, and presented evidence in support of their side. That doesn't sound mindless. If you want to say that they weren't willing to provide him money on the wall, I'd agree, but intransigence on that existed on both sides and, more importantly, that intransigence matters most for the one seeking the funding. That one is responsible for what becomes the main issue in the debate, and that one was Trump. If the wall was literally and figuratively standing in the way of funding the government, then the side that's offering to take it off the table is the more reasonable one because they're the ones that want 800,000 people to go back to work and earn a living. They're the ones that do not want a legislative agenda to stand in the way of that funding. Maybe you view the idea of providing funding to the wall as being more important, but I don't see why it should be.

    The reason I brought up Guantanamo Bay was that Obama similarly presented legislation with the aim of closing it. There were associated costs. Republicans told him no. That's because Republicans aren't required to uphold his legislative aims. Even if Obama changed his mind, as you claim (I didn't see any evidence of that), it's still his stated aim and something he pursued multiple times over the course of his presidency. If you're going to claim that the Legislature is somehow required to uphold presidential promises, then you probably should have been upset with Republicans then.
    CYDdhartaZombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 255 Pts
    edited January 27
    @WordsMatter

    "to what degree does geographical distance affect moral obligation?"

    What does your question have to do with this forum?

    The theme of this forum is self explanatory.

    "It applies. I just won't say until you answer because I know how you like to twist things or avoid answering."

    So, please explain yourself?
  • TKDBTKDB 255 Pts
    edited January 27
    The guy from Meet The Press:

    No, not all of the country was affected by the government shutdown.



    Zombieguy1987
  • @CYDdharta

    Seriously? We're doing this now? You're pretending I'm not responding to you because you've conveniently forgotten previous posts?


    You really do have reading comprehension issues.  Read and try to understand what I wrote,  ask your teacher to explain it if you have to;

    Then again, that's nothing new and in keeping with your disingenuous posting style; ignore my answers, then whine that I don't answer you.  That's sleazy and deceitful, fortunately it's also transparent, so not very effective.

    I provided direct evidence showing that both of the bills you cited as coming from Republicans were passed later... by Democrats. Notably, both of them were clean bills by the time they reached that point, again, as shown by the links I provided. Also notably, both of them were modified by Republicans before that, and in one case, they added $5 billion of wall funding to the bill. The other bill likely included Republican amendments that were also not clean. You refused to address those direct citations, yet now you claim that they were clean bills. That is demonstrably false.

    Your definition of "clean" is giving the Dems whatever they want.  Since anyone who isn't a blind partisan doesn't agree with that definition, neither of the bills you posted would be considered "clean" to the vast majority of the population.  The only clean bills were offered by the Republicans, and were opposed by the Dems, i.e.

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/116-2019/h43


    As for DACA, yes, let's talk about it. What Trump offered to them was 3 years during which DACA could continue. It would also have extended similar temporary protections for those under TPS. Great, good start, brilliant. Really shows that he was willing to negotiate with... wait, what does the rest of the bill say?

    "But the measure also included several changes to asylum law, long advocated by Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump’s senior adviser and an architect of his immigration agenda, that would make it more difficult for people to seek refuge in the United States from persecution and violence at home. Among them were provisions to bar Central American children from claiming asylum inside the United States, requiring them instead to do so in their own countries, and allow any of them to be quickly sent back to their own countries."

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-leaders-reach-deal-that-offers-possible-path-to-reopen-government/ar-BBSBpSy?li=BBnb7Kx

    Huh. So, while the bill was trying to protect people here, it was also dramatically altering the way that asylum functions. The bill also included dramatic restrictions on the total number of asylum seekers that would be allowed into the country, even among those that go through this extensive process and may be approved. And, while we're paying attention to this, let's not forget that this portion was without a time limit. The other two lapse in 3 years.

    Thanks for proving my point, that Trump was willing to negotiate.  You do understand what the term"negotiate" means, don't you?


    As for your claim that "Trump has been willing to negotiate on pretty much everything", I don't know where you're getting that. Show me anywhere where he was willing to drop the wall and pick up something else that was precious to him. The Democrats did not have a single funding proposal they wanted met, here. Trump did, and he wanted it funded up to at least $5.7 billion. He made that clear several times. Where was his willingness to negotiate? At best, you could claim that he was willing to give concessions to the Democrats for the wall, but even that seems largely tainted by his desire to attach massive changes to asylum policy to those concessions.

    Apparently you really DON'T understand what the term "negotiate" means.  I guess I have to spell it out to you;

    negotiate
    verb
    [with object]

        1  Obtain or bring about by discussion.
        ‘he negotiated a new contract with the sellers’

        1.1 [no object] Try to reach an agreement or compromise by discussion.
    ‘they refused to negotiate with the rebels’
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/negotiate

    In other words (in fact, your words) Trump's willingness to give concessions to the Democrats for the wall is the very definition of negotiation.

    Regarding your claim that Democrats are "mindless[ly] oppos[ing]" Trump, I simply don't see it. They've been very clear on why they're against his policies, and presented evidence in support of their side. That doesn't sound mindless. If you want to say that they weren't willing to provide him money on the wall, I'd agree, but intransigence on that existed on both sides and, more importantly, that intransigence matters most for the one seeking the funding. That one is responsible for what becomes the main issue in the debate, and that one was Trump. If the wall was literally and figuratively standing in the way of funding the government, then the side that's offering to take it off the table is the more reasonable one because they're the ones that want 800,000 people to go back to work and earn a living. They're the ones that do not want a legislative agenda to stand in the way of that funding. Maybe you view the idea of providing funding to the wall as being more important, but I don't see why it should be.

    Of course you don't see the Dems as mindlessly opposing Trump, as that is your position as well.  But the victory lap they're taking in response to the government temporarily being reopened says differently.  So what did the Dems have to say about Trump reopening the Government?  Are they serious about negotiating with the administration?  Schumer "Hopefully now the president has learned his lesson". Kamala Harris  "They shouldn't have had to pay for the President's vanity project".  None of this is indicative of a party that's serious about getting things done, just mindless opposition.

    The reason I brought up Guantanamo Bay was that Obama similarly presented legislation with the aim of closing it. There were associated costs. Republicans told him no. That's because Republicans aren't required to uphold his legislative aims. Even if Obama changed his mind, as you claim (I didn't see any evidence of that), it's still his stated aim and something he pursued multiple times over the course of his presidency. If you're going to claim that the Legislature is somehow required to uphold presidential promises, then you probably should have been upset with Republicans then.

    0bama couldn't even get his own party to vote to close Gitmo.  That vote went down in the Senate 90-6.

    https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00196

    As I said before, 0bama ran into a huge case of NIMBY and wasn't willing to spend the political capitol to get the job done.  In other words, he wasn't really serious about it.


  • @CYDdharta

    If you want, I can go back and find specific posts that you've basically ignored, save for one or two sentences. But, hey, let's focus on the issues for now.

    My definition of "clean" is passing a bill with no amendments that simply seeks to expand funding of the government beyond the period where it lapsed. That's not "giving the Dems whatever they want" - it's actually giving no one anything and just doing the basic job of ensuring that government funding continues. And, if you want to talk about reading comprehension issues, try reading the actual link you just posted:

    "This was an attempt by House Republicans to kill H.J.Res. 28, a House Democrat bill to reopen the federal government until February 28, 2019. This vote was to replace the date in the bill “February 28, 2019” with “January 15, 2019”. (House Clerk, 11:17:34 A.M.) Since the vote was taken on January 17, 2019, agencies would not have been reopened but the delayed paychecks to furloughed and essential federal employees could have been sent out.

    An “aye” vote was a vote to kill the original bill and instead allow paychecks to furloughed and essential federal employees to be sent out without reopening any agencies. A “no” vote was a vote to proceed to a vote on the original bill to reopen federal agencies until February 28, 2019, and pay their employees, without funding for a southern border wall."

    Just to be  clear, what that says is that the Republican bill was aimed at killing a proposal to reopen the government. This is a clean bill (H.J.Res. 28) aimed at opening the government for over a month. Republicans wanted to change the date, which would have kept these agencies closed and only potentially provided paychecks to furloughed and essential employees in the interim. To translate: the government would still have been shut down, but some people may have gotten checks. Yes, that's a great example of a clean bill aimed at... doing what? Keeping the government shut down while causing slightly less harm to federal employees? Making a show of caring about these employees in the past tense while keeping them unemployed in the present? This really doesn't help your case.


    I'll give you this: Trump was willing to make concessions to Democrats. Two problems with that. One, if we count these as concessions, then the Democratic efforts to provide funding for border security and other measures that Republicans wanted also functions as concessions. For some reason, you seem to view the term "concession" broadly for Trump (i.e. he can concede ground on a broad spate of issues, even if they don't meet Democratic demands) while viewing the same term differently for Democrats (i.e. they can only make concessions and actually negotiate by providing for Trump's wall, and all other purported "concessions" are not concessions at all). That seems like a blatant double standard to me. Two, a concession, at least a real one, is usually clean. If I concede that I want to give you something in exchange for you taking a given action, it would be problematic and disingenuous for me to attach to that agreement further actions on which you disagree. I notice you didn't care much about the clear poison pills regarding asylum seekers, which is clearly something Democrats oppose, that were added to this list of "concessions" that Trump was willing to provide. Strange as well that Trump failed to mention these additions when he announced these "concessions," proclaiming that he was providing them specifically to get the wall and for nothing else. That may be negotiation of a sort, but when you're adding further measures with no clear timeline attached, you sure as hell aren't negotiating in good faith.


    It's your assertion that Democrats are mindlessly supporting Trump. I would hope you'd actually want to support that instead of continuously making the claim. Instead, you say that Democrats are taking a "victory lap" in response to the reopening of the government. That doesn't indicate that they entered into their opposition mindlessly. The fact that those quotes show a continued unwillingness to support the wall doesn't mean they enter into their opposition mindlessly, either. My agreement with Democratic views isn't what I'm using to counter your claim - it's the basic fact that Democrats cite actual facts and figures and provide a logic to their arguments against the wall. On its face, that isn't mindless. You might not like those arguments. You might find them lacking, or see them as short-sighted. But none of that makes them mindless.


    I agree that Obama failed to get people to vote for the closure of Guantanamo Bay, but it doesn't matter if he was actually serious about it. It also doesn't matter if Trump is actually serious about this, or just pandering to his base. What matters is that you've argued that the Democrats are duty-bound to support the wall, since Trump won the election and it was a major campaign promise. The same was true when Obama won the presidency with Gitmo. If you'd like to drop that argument, then I'll also drop this point.


    CYDdhartaZombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 255 Pts
    @whiteflame

    "Even if you support the wall, the fact that 800,000 people had to suffer directly from the lack of pay and countless more were harmed indirectly should be nothing but devastating. Winning political points is entirely hollow as well."

    And since the late 1980's, how illegal immigrants have come into the country?

    How many innocent people, have been killed by the illegal immigrants?

    How many people have died, because of the illegal drugs that have been smuggled into the United States, via southern border?

    The above hasn't been harmful to the United States citizens, since the late 1980's?
    Zombieguy1987CYDdharta
  • if you are asking who got what they wanted a being the winner, it's not over yet so it can't be determined.  If no wall or security is built/added then I guess the democrats got what they wanted, otherwise Trump got what he wanted.  If the shutdown is part of a spring board for Trump to say it's an emergency and with his power puts what he wants into motion well.......
    It ain't over till it's over.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • TKDB said:
    @whiteflame

    "Even if you support the wall, the fact that 800,000 people had to suffer directly from the lack of pay and countless more were harmed indirectly should be nothing but devastating. Winning political points is entirely hollow as well."

    And since the late 1980's, how illegal immigrants have come into the country?

    How many innocent people, have been killed by the illegal immigrants?

    How many people have died, because of the illegal drugs that have been smuggled into the United States, via southern border?

    The above hasn't been harmful to the United States citizens, since the late 1980's?
    First off, way to stay on topic! Once again, you seem to find tangents wherever and whenever possible to get to your bottom line (arguing that illegal immigration is bad, which, once again, I have never argued against) rather than stay on the topic... *scrolls up*... you yourself posted! It's really impressive, I have to say.

    Second, I'd like to revisit the fact that, when I challenged you on a previous thread to provide any single bit of evidence that a wall is an effective solution, you failed to do so. I may have my problems with @CYDdharta, but at least he cared enough to address the issue. You keep dancing around it, yet all the while relying on the factual accuracy of that claim.

    Third, let's assume for a moment that there is clear evidence supporting a wall being an effective measure. In that case, your argument is that because illegal immigration is a major problem, it is justifiable to shutdown the government and put hundreds of thousands of people out of work to get any measure that would resolve it? Why? Was the goal here to put the country through a great deal of pain in order to get a solution to a chronic problem? Why was the pain necessary? Was a wall likelier to become a reality simply because federal workers were suffering? This makes another underlying assumption in your post: that shutting down the government was an effective way to achieve this specific policy. Empirically, it failed, and I honestly don't see where the logic going in could have led us to believe it would succeed. 
    piloteer
  • TKDBTKDB 255 Pts
    @whiteflame

    These forums are for debating. and not about using them to self cater to this or that individuals opinion feeding dinner plate.

    I debate with history, and from facts.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @TKDB

    You're right, these forums are for debating. Usually, with some kind of clear focus... something stated, oh I don't know, in the title of the discussion. Take this one for example. The title is "Who won the Government shutdown?" Logically, I conclude that this is about the government shutdown, i.e. whether it was warranted at all and what the results tell us. Shockingly, because I saw that title, I posted in this discussion with the aim of furthering that debate. That's generally how discussions like this are supposed to work, and from what I can see, everyone else seems to get that.

    You talk about "self cater[ing] to... individuals opinion", yet you don't seem to recognize that you're using this forum the same way you've used every post you've ever made in response to me: to make the exact same point about how illegal immigration is bad and how we need to put a stop to it. Yes, you debate with "history, and from facts." Here's the problem: it's the same history, the same facts, every time, regardless of the topic or the focus of discussion. What's more, you don't seem to be able to take "yes, I agree" for an answer. I have stated, multiple times, that I agree with your argument that illegal immigration is a problem. I've said that here and in our far too long discussion where you repeated this point ad nauseum before dropping out of the discussion entirely. Just because you have a point to make and it's based in reality doesn't mean it's relevant or even useful to bring up, especially when you're getting nothing but agreement on this exact point. If you want to talk about self-catering, take a good hard look in the mirror. You've been doing that all along, presenting the same exact view over and over again by restating the same facts over and over again. Maybe one day you'll realize that no one is really arguing with you on the subject of illegal immigration being a net harm and move off of that topic and onto one of the myriad other topics that stem from it. I don't know when that will happen, but I implore you to do it.
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 255 Pts
    @whiteflame

    Off topic question, what are you?

    A millennial?

    A professor?

    An attorney?

    Or maybe an activist, or an advocate, for this or that cause? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @TKDB

    I get the feeling you're trying to use this to challenge the validity of my views, but I'll bite anyway. If you want my background, here it is:

    I'm a graduate student working on my PhD in Microbiology. Technically, I am a millennial, though at 32, I'm in the upper age range for millennials. I wouldn't say I'm an activist or advocate for much of any cause, though I am a part of my graduate student union and am fighting for certain rights in that regard. I have only rarely gone out and marched for a cause, and the few instances that come to mind have nothing to do with this president or border security of any kind. I am, however, someone who enjoys debate quite a bit. I was part of my college debate team for a number of years, I coached it when I returned to the campus for my PhD, and I teach debate to middle and elementary schoolers now. The process of debating for as long as I have has given me some greater buy-in to understanding topics like this, mainly because I simply want to know enough to debate both sides of a given issue. It's not so much that I have a lot at stake in protecting a given side's argument - far from it, I would rather be proven wrong and have to reshape or fundamentally alter my opinion in order to accommodate new information. It's the reason I go onto sites like this and engage in debates of this sort. It's not that I don't hold strong opinions (I absolutely do), but rather that I find it much more fascinating to learn something new about a topic when I thought I had it right. I've been schooled before, and I appreciate it more than any "win" I've gotten on a debate. 

    I don't present any of this to you to justify my opinion, merely to tell you where I'm coming from and why I do this. Maybe I fit some expectation of yours and maybe I don't, but either way, I hope I've given you some idea of what I bring to the table every time I post. That's part of the reason I've found our discussions so frustrating since we haven't really moved from the issue you presented in your very first response to me. It doesn't feel like we've progressed from where we started, and whether that's due to a miscommunication or some desire to be heard, it doesn't make for particularly good debate.
    piloteer
  • TKDBTKDB 255 Pts
    edited January 28
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/01/28/government-shutdown-economic-cost-total-11-billion-cbo-says/2700700002/

    "Government shutdown costs the economy $11 billion, significantly dings Q1 GDP growth, CBO estimates"


    "Top Dems say they hope Trump has learned lesson
    Democratic congressional leaders say they hope President Donald Trump has learned a lesson that government shutdowns don't work. (Jan. 25)"


    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 255 Pts
    Questions that could be asked to either Pelosi or Schumer, when you make statements to the voting public, who are you referring to?

    Your individual liberal bases, or the entire public as a whole?
    Zombieguy1987CYDdharta
  • TKDB said:
    Questions that could be asked to either Pelosi or Schumer, when you make statements to the voting public, who are you referring to?

    Your individual liberal bases, or the entire public as a whole?
    Again, not sure how this has anything to do with the topic. The messaging after the government shutdown, for better or worse, is politicized. Both sides want to pretend they won the argument. What we should come away with is the message that a government shutdown is nothing but harmful to the country, though honestly I don't think we should have needed that message.
    Applesauce
  • TKDBTKDB 255 Pts
    @whiteflame

    "Who won the Government shutdown?"


    President Trump?

    Nancy Pelosi?

    Chuck Schumer?

    The pro Border wall supporters?

    The sanctuary city supporters?

    Or the Businesses that utilize the illegal immigrants to do work for them, supporters? 

    "Again, not sure how this has anything to do with the topic. The messaging after the government shutdown, for better or worse, is politicized."

    Pelosi and Schumer are part of the forum conversation, thus the below questions are relevant.

    Questions that could be asked to either Pelosi or Schumer, when you make statements to the voting public, who are you referring to?

    Your individual liberal bases, or the entire public as a whole? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @TKDB

    The fact that their names are included in the top of the forum doesn't mean that these questions are relevant to the topic itself. You're chiding Pelosi and Schumer on how they've handled the aftermath of the government shutdown. That doesn't tell me who "won the Government shutdown", it tells me that you think they're overly politicizing the aftermath or using it to pad their base. So, I'll say this again: it's off topic, and you continue to push tangents on a topic you yourself posted.
    Zombieguy1987CYDdharta
  • TKDBTKDB 255 Pts
    edited January 29
    @whiteflame

    Pelosi and Schumer are part of the problem.
    Zombieguy1987ApplesauceCYDdharta
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch