Who won the Government shutdown? - Page 2 - 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

2


Arguments

  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    edited January 29
    @Zombieguy1987

    Please, do you have something to add to the debate, other then your irrelevant response?
    Zombieguy1987WordsMatter
  • @TKDB

    That’s called a claim, and all it does is function as an assertion of your views. Nonetheless, I agree that, as important leaders in Congress and as members of the opposition party, both of them did play a role in the shutdown. I would argue that that doesn’t mean they are solely or even chiefly responsible for the shutdown, but I won’t revisit the points I made in previous posts, since you didn’t appear interested in responding.

    I’m not sure why you keep asking me personal questions. My guess is that you’re trying to use my political views and background to invalidate my opinion, though you ignored the response I gave to your previous request, so I can’t say what’s your actual intentions are with non-sequitors like these. Just the same, if you must know, I’ll answer.

    I would consider myself an Independent, though probably more liberal than conservative.

    I am very much anti-border wall (I’ve made that clear several times before), and generally anti-illegal immigrant (again, stated this before), though I recognize that the issue is complex. If you want specifics on the latter, then you’ll have to ask more specific questions.
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    https://thehill-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/thehill.com/homenews/house/427366-border-patrol-wives-invite-pelosi-to-border-to-see-why-they-want-wall?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&amp&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://thehill.com/homenews/house/427366-border-patrol-wives-invite-pelosi-to-border-to-see-why-they-want-wall

    "Border Patrol wives invite Pelosi to border to see why they want wall"

    A group of women whose husbands work as Border Patrol officers are inviting Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to come to McAllen, Texas, to see what's taking place at the U.S.-Mexico border. 

    "We would like to show you around!" Jill Demanski wrote in a Facebook post to Pelosi last Thursday, which marked the 34th day of the government shutdown. "You don't need to bring any security detail. Our husbands/boyfriends/fiances/wives/significant others are actually very good at their jobs, thank goodness! And since you see no threat here, I'm sure you can just make a quick flight down here alone."

    "I felt it's really important to have our leaders come here and see what's happening first. It's important to meet with the people who are here on a daily basis, that are witnessing it - the effects of it, that it has on our country," Demanski said during an appearance on "Fox & Friends" on Monday.

    "We want them to come here and make an informed decision and to see what's really going on."

    "Renea Perez, another wife of a Border Patrol officer, said on the news program that President Trump's long-sought border wall would help immigration officers "do their job more efficiently." 

    "Perez added that families of Border Patrol officers began feeling like they were "forgotten" amid the shutdown."

    "Demanski told Fox News that she'd like Pelosi to do a ride-along with with border agents in order to experience what their day-to-day job is like."

    Zombieguy1987
  • @TKDB

    So, now your argument is that Pelosi/Schumer don't understand the need for the wall, and that some people on the border know better. Let's just forget about the statistics showing that most people on the border do not want a wall, meaning that this represents a minority of viewpoints in that region. Let's also forget that anything these people might show Pelosi will only justify the need for greater border security, not for a wall specifically. Witnessing problems at the border doesn't clarify what is the best response to those problems.

    Let's just focus on the fact that that you are, once again, completely off topic on your own discussion. Again, this is about the shutdown and who "won" it. How does this further any arguments in that regard? If I'm being as charitable as possible, this argument shows that we should have a wall, and that we can easily justify it based on existing evidence. If that's the case... why was a shutdown necessary? If just bringing Democrats to border cities would resolve this problem, why was there any need to shutdown the government over it? Why didn't Trump just organize a legislative field trip and prove the need for this wall? Why not put these women up on TV, showing images of the border, presenting their stories, and making a glorious case for the wall instead of putting 800,000 people in jeopardy? Why not put the entire debate to rest by providing conclusive evidence showing that the wall is the best solution possible, using the American public to push back against a recalcitrant opposition? In other words, I can absolutely accept your point that the wall is totally necessary and it actually makes the shutdown seem all the more petty and absurd for someone supporting the wall to instigate. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    https://newyork-cbslocal-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/01/02/senator-chuck-schumer-border-wall-united-states-mexico-president-donald-trump/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/01/02/senator-chuck-schumer-border-wall-united-states-mexico-president-donald-trump/

    "CBS2 Demands Answers From Sen. Schumer Over His Past Voting History On Border Control"

     "NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Finger pointing. Partisan politics."

    "President Donald Trump and congressional leaders met Wednesday to discuss ways of ending the government shutdown. This as CBS2’s Marcia Kramer demands answers from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who, it turns out, has been a big supporter of controlling the borders for years.

    It may turn out to be the burning question of the government shutdown: Just what is the definition of a wall? Because in 2006 Schumer, now one of the leaders of the anti-wall forces in Washington, voted to build 700 miles of fence on the U.S.-Mexico border.,

    Three years later, he said progress in ending illegal immigration was defined by, “construction of a 630-mile border fence that creates a significant barrier to illegal immigration on our southern land border.”

    And he slammed people who called illegal immigrants undocumented workers.

    “Illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple. Until the American people are convinced that we will stop future flows of illegal immigration we will make no progress on dealing with the millions of illegals who are here now,” Schumer said.

    So, why not a wall now, Mr. Schumer? Kramer demanded answers, engaging in the following Q&A with New York’s senior senator:

    Kramer: “In 2006, you supported the Secure Fence Act. In 2009, you said you would pay for 630 miles of border fence. In 2013 …”

    Schumer: “It has always been …”

    Kramer: “Wait, 2013 the Border Security Economic Opportunity bill. All these things supported a wall.”

    Schumer: “None of them have wall in it. Zero. And that’s why no wall was ever built. There is not a nickel of wall up.”

    Kramer: “What’s the difference between a wall and a fence?”

    Schumer: “A lot. It’s not just fencing. A fence works. You ask the experts. A big, concrete wall is expensive and it doesn’t work. You don’t just need fencing. You need drones, you need helicopters and you need roads. The agents can’t get people crossing the border because they can’t get there.”

    In addition to “fencing” with Kramer, Schumer argued that President Trump doesn’t need $5 billion for a wall because he has yet to spend the $1.7 billion for border security he has already been given. The president has spent $341 million, according to Customs and Border Patrol figures.

    MOREWhat To Expect In Second Week Of Government Shutdown

    CBS2’s Kramer wondered if Schumer’s opposition was just a tad political.

    Kramer: “If Barack Obama had asked for $5 billion for a wall would you have given it to him?”

    Schumer: “First, he wouldn’t have made such a dumb proposal that nobody supports.”

    Kramer asked the same question to Rep. Peter King, a Republican who is against the government shutdown.

    “They’d be down there with the bricks and the cement putting it right up,” King said of the Democrats.

    Kramer asked Schumer about the president’s insistence that he’s flip-flopped on border security.

    “I’ve been consistent from 2006,” Schumer said. “No one even talked about a wall in 2006, 2009, 2013.”

    In 2009, he also said, “We must do as much as we can to gain control of our borders as soon as possible.”

    And in 2019 that means no wall.

    For the record, Congressman King does see a compromise — get started on the wall, reopen government and have the president support new laws to help the dreamers."

    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    edited January 30
    @whiteflame

    Why forget them? 

    Please, share your statistics? 

    "Let's just forget about the statistics showing that most people on the border do not want a wall, meaning that this represents a minority of viewpoints in that region."
    Zombieguy1987
  • @TKDB

    It's truly amazing to me that this is what your argument oscillates between: questions posed that are clearly aimed at dispensing your personal worldview without every having to support it, and walls of text copy-pasted from whatever article you find interesting at the moment. And what's crazy about both of these is how often you remain off topic in your presentation of each one. I just told you that I could accept the entire contents of your previous article as true and still find that it has absolutely no effect on how we perceive responsibility and success/failure for the government shutdown. The same is true of this article. I can absolutely concede that Chuck Schumer and countless other Democrats have taken a hypocritical stance (at least as compared with a stance they took over a decade ago) on the wall and still find that the government shutdown was a lose/lose situation.

    We, as a country, lost in the shutdown. I don't see how this debate could be seen any other way, given how many people were directly and indirectly harmed by it. If your goal is to show that it was somehow justified for the sake of building a wall, you've done nothing of the sort. If your goal is to show that politicians have said and supported things that they now disagree with, I can give you a very long list of both Republicans and Democrats that fit that mold, but it has absolutely no bearing on either the effectiveness of the shutdown or who successfully navigated it. You only seem to care about who is responsible for stopping the building of the wall. Not who is responsible for the shutdown. Not who was responsible for it being prolonged, or who could have alleviated harms to the people affected by it. You just want to talk about the wall. We've got plenty of discussion forums aimed specifically at that purpose, but despite all the great effort you're putting into researching the topic (posting one article at a time without any analysis whatsoever really shows a great depth of research!), you've given up posting there, largely because you've been called out repeatedly for failing to support your arguments there as well.

    If your aim is to stimulate good discussion of this issue, you're failing. You change the subject at every turn.
    If your aim is to present meaningful views supported by extensive research in an attempt to convince others you are correct, you're failing. You present questions rather than views, provide non-sequitor articles that do little beyond distract, and only rarely interact with an opposing argument.
    If your aim is to post discussion forums aimed at getting to the core of a meaty topic, you're failing. You provide a topic, and then skirt away from it at every opportunity.

    Pick a topic. Stick to it. Present support for your side. Address the arguments presented by the other side. It's all essential to basic argumentation, yet you seem to want to do anything but engage in it.
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    edited January 30
    @whiteflame

    I shared evidence from two separate webpages.

    One in regards to Nancy Pelosi,

    "Border Patrol wives invite Pelosi to border to see why they want wall"


    And one in regards to Chuck Schumer,

    "CBS2 Demands Answers From Sen. Schumer Over His Past Voting History On Border Control"


    I will say this again:

    The illegal immigrants won.

    The drug traffickers and the human traffickers won.

    The Sanctuary Cities won.

    The Business that utilize the illegal immigrants to do work for them won as well? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    @whiteflame

    Why don't you reach out, to the US citizens who have been affected by the actions of the illegal immigrants and ask them, who's failing them?

    Is Nancy Pelosi, or Chuck Schumer, or the Sanctuary Cities, or if the Businesses who are using the illegal immigrants to do work for them, are maybe failing the various parts of the country that aren't in agreement with those who are apparently pro illegal immigrant, and anti wall?

    Ask those families, who's failing them whiteflame?
    Zombieguy1987
  • @TKDB

    I... I honestly can't tell if this is a problem with your reading comprehension, or you're just so focused on putting out your view that you can't see the point I'm making.

    Yes, you presented two articles, by literally just copy-pasting the vast majority of the contents of each and providing little to no analysis of either one. I explained, at some length, why both of those articles are a) irrelevant to the topic you yourself presented, b) why I can grant you the arguments you're trying to make with these two articles and make no progress whatsoever in answering the topic, and c) what exactly it is that you're missing by posting these two articles. I'd love to see you actually address one of those points or... frankly... anything I've posted in this forum whatsoever. Hell, it would be great if you could actually address any of the points presented in this forum beyond your own, but maybe that's asking too much.

    Instead, you'll just keep arguing things like this, none of which you seem to quite understand. 

    You argue that illegal immigrants, drug traffickers, human traffickers, sanctuary cities, and businesses using illegal immigrants somehow "won" the shutdown. Let's consider that, for a moment.

    What did they "win" in the shutdown? I suppose you could argue that the TSA, which started calling out sick in droves, was far less effective at screening out illegal immigrants as a result. In that respect, I would agree that they did "win." But that's not your point, is it? Your point is that the lack of a wall is their "win." Two things wrong with that. One, the shutdown is distinct from the wall. You can argue that a wall is net beneficial (though you've never supported that claim) and still view the shutdown as damaging to everyone. Even if we assume that the wall was net beneficial, how, exactly, did illegal immigrants benefit from 800,000 people being effectively out of work? Similar questions for drug/human traffickers. What, exactly, did they gain from the shutdown? Not from the lack of a wall, from the shutdown? What did they gain?

    As for sanctuary cities and businesses, I don't think we can say anything except that they most certainly were harmed by the shutdown. Any federal workers in those cities were without income, which meant they were contributing less to the economies of those cities. Those cities and businesses were likely affected by a lack of federal funds, and by the uncertainties regarding tax refunds. I don't see how either these cities or those businesses were benefited by the shutdown.

    As for the question of who's failing the people... again, that's not relevant to this topic. And, if you'll recall, we've had this discussion. At great length. And you refused to respond to nearly every single one of my points. I'm not going to revisit them here because you don't seem to care to engage. If you want to appeal to emotion and pretend that you've got the high ground on the moral debate simply because of that refusal to recognize my points, go right ahead. You can feel free to keep ignoring everything else and just make your points, as though they somehow validate your argument by virtue of never having to address the other side. Enjoy.
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    @whiteflame

    You love to express yourself to a standard that works for you?

    I'm expressing information based on facts.

    300 Sanctuary Cities, and not one sound bite, from any conducted Poll, Study, or a Survey that has been done, where some of the United States citizens living in the same cities with some of the illegal immigrants, feel comfortable living around them?

    Where are their voices? 

    I've yet to hear them on CNN, MSNBC, or maybe CNBC?

    Is the rest of the country supposed to take it at face value, that the law abiding US citizens are living happily, and comfortably, with some of the cities that they live in, are giving the 11-22 million illegal immigrants sanctuary in some of the same cities that they are living in?

    I wonder how many of the Businesses that use the illegal immigrants to do work for them, or the illegal immigrants themselves, pay any attention to the IRCA law, signed into law by the former POTUS Reagan?

    Are you familiar with the IRCA law?

    One of things about the internet, individuals provide websites with facts and laws, but because this is the internet, and not Real Life, various individuals, scoff at history and facts, and pay no attention to them as well?

    There are ranchers along the border who see roughly 300 illegal immigrants a day, and some of the typically speaking liberals, seem to avoid saying certain types of words, but here are some of the apparent comfortable words when it comes to the conversation over illegal immigration, "Border wall, or border security, or DACA?"


    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/schumer-tells-trump-to-butt-out-of-border-talks

    "Schumer tells Trump to butt out of border talks"

    But Democrats are still resisting Trump's push to spend $5.7 billion on new border wall, and are likely to agree to language that stops short of Trump's demand. Some are floating the idea of spending $1.6 billion on pedestrian fencing along the Rio Grande, for example.

    Trump has no direct say in the talks, but has pushed Republicans for weeks to get him his border wall. If negotiators fail to agree to any new wall, or not enough, Trump has threatened to declare a national emergency to start building parts of the wall on the southern U.S. border.

    Trump has also threatened not to sign any final agreement that Congress negotiates, which could start another shutdown. Schumer warned Trump against another funding lapse.

    "I hope this serves as a lesson to President Trump and all of my Republican colleagues: no more shutdown," he said. "President Trump touched a hot, hot stove, and hopefully he won't do it again."

    Illegal immigration, is and has been a hot stove issue, long before POTUS Trump showed up, maybe some would prefer that illegal immigration be left alone entirely, and not do a thing to address the Border wall/ barrier, and leave it alone, to allow the hundreds of illegal immigrants to come into the United States illegally without any actions being taken?

    But "Border Security" will be addressed, but the Border Wall dialogue, that should be left alone. right?

    I wonder, who is in charge of the country?

    The sanctuary cities?

    The businesses that utilize the illegal immigrants to do work for them?

    Or maybe some of the illegal immigrants themselves, are in charge of the country?

    Or, in reality, the POTUS is?


    Zombieguy1987
  • @TKDB

    Alright, I’m ending this. It’s pretty clear that what you bring to this is an agenda, one focused entirely on the importance of the wall and not at all on the shutdown itself. If that’s what you want to do, go right ahead. I’m stepping out.

    You may not recall, but we’ve been here before. We had a discussion over the wall, where you repeated the same talking point ad nauseum (after I granted it was correct), ignored requests to support your views on the effectiveness of a wall, and then dropped off the argument entirely. You keep wanting to start the same argument elsewhere, as though by virtue of the fact that it’s under a different heading somehow makes the arguments stronger. All it does, and subsequently all you do, is repeat without adding anything meaningful. 

    So, if you want to keep pushing the same lines over and over while ignoring any semblance of a response you get or even the very topic you yourself posted, you can do it without me. I don’t feel a need to respond to any of the above points because they are all things I’ve previously addressed, and you refuse to even acknowledge my responses. If that’s your goal, then you’re succeeding with flying colors, but it makes for a pretty awful debate. I want no more part of it.
    Zombieguy1987Applesauce
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    @whiteflame

    I wonder, who is in charge of the country?

    The sanctuary cities?

    The businesses that utilize the illegal immigrants to do work for them?

    Or maybe some of the illegal immigrants themselves, are in charge of the country?

    Or, in reality, the POTUS is?

    And the above questions remain, in the face of your words:

    "So, if you want to keep pushing the same lines over and over while ignoring any semblance of a response you get or even the very topic you yourself posted, you can do it without me. I don’t feel a need to respond to any of the above points because they are all things I’ve previously addressed, and you refuse to even acknowledge my responses. If that’s your goal, then you’re succeeding with flying colors, but it makes for a pretty awful debate. I want no more part of it."

    Just as some of the ranchers, and some of their families, (I'm guessing, would maybe prefer that the immigrants, come into the country legally,) instead of some of them coming into the United States illegally? 

     
    Zombieguy1987whiteflame
  • TKDB said:
    @Zombieguy1987

    Please, do you have something to add to the debate, other then your irrelevant response?

    No because you’re already driving @whiteflame crazy with your irrelevant arguments and I’m not going to waste my time with you 

    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

    For the first time since 2009, the Carolina Hurricanes will be playing for the Stanley Cup! 

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

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • @TKDB did no one tell you? You are actually in charge of the country.
    Zombieguy1987
  • I don’t really think anyone won. It was a tactic for both sides to make the other look bad. Both sides succeeded so I guess since both won neither did.
    Zombieguy1987
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    @WordsMatter

    @Zombieguy1987

    @whiteflame

    The below are in charge.

    An add on though, don't build an add on barrier, to go with the other 600 miles of a border wall/ barriers that are already in place. 

    No, make it easy for the following parties below? 

    Again, the illegal immigrants won the Government shutdown, because their status quo status in the United States, remains unchanged.

    Again, the 300 sanctuary cities won the Government shut, their status quo status in the United States remains unchanged.

    Again, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer won rhe government shutdown. (Their status quo status's remain unchanged.

    The illegal immigration, the sanctuary cities, and the businesses that utilize the illegal immigrants to do work for them, they all won, and they'll continue to be, as long as those who support them, are enabling their status quo status's to continue,  unless they are challenged?

    I guess, let the rest of the country suffer, while those other status quo entities. have their ways with the country, basically since, the late 1980's? 

    sta·tus quo
    /ˌstādəs ˈkwō/
    noun
    1. the existing state of affairs, especially regarding social or political issues.
      "they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo"




    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    Trump, Democrats battle in early stage of U.S. border security talks
    https://news.yahoo.com/pelosi-no-wall-money-u-border-deal-talks-162509707--business.html

    Some excerpts from the article:

    By Amanda Becker and Richard Cowan

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - 

    "U.S. President Donald Trump and congressional Democrats on Thursday hardened their positions over a wall being built on the border with Mexico, raising new doubts over their ability to reach a deal just as negotiations were getting underway.

    House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters: "There's not going to be any wall money in the legislation" to fund border security for the rest of this year.

    Instead, Pelosi said funding for more ports of entry or additional border security technology was open for negotiation. She added that the 17 House and Senate negotiators should decide the components of the nation's border security.

    But the Democratic negotiators went a step further from Pelosi's prohibition on wall funds, unveiling a detailed opening position containing no money for any type of additional physical barriers on the border to control the flow of undocumented immigrants and illegal drugs.

    Previously, Democrats have supported $1.3 billion for new border fencing this year or improvements to existing fencing.

    Asked by reporters about Pelosi's comment on wall funding, Trump, a Republican, said: "Without a wall, it doesn’t work."

    Congress has a Feb. 15 deadline for coming up with a new plan for further securing the southwestern border.

    The bipartisan conference committee of House and Senate lawmakers held a public session on Wednesday with the goal of producing a deal in about a week so it could be voted on by both chambers by the deadline.


    TORRENT OF TWEETS

    Democratic leaders have called on Trump to stand aside and let the negotiators do their work as a way of fostering success.

    Ignoring that advice, Trump issued a series of tweets on Thursday predicting failure and sounding alarms.

    "More troops being sent to the Southern Border to stop the attempted Invasion of Illegals, through large Caravans," Trump tweeted. In another tweet, he declared Democrats were becoming the party of "open borders and crime."

    At the same time, each side has left some potential openings for the congressional negotiators to exploit.

    Evan Hollander, a House Appropriations Committee spokesman, said the Democratic plan detailed on Thursday was the party's "position entering conference negotiations" and "every proposal raised by conferees will be thoughtfully considered."

    Pelosi got into a few specifics at her news conference.

    "Is there a place for enhanced fencing? Normandy fencing would work. Let them have that discussion," she said, referring to low-slung vehicle barriers.

    For his part, Trump, speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, said, "you can have other things" securing the border, "but the other things only really work if you have a physical barrier."

    On Capitol Hill, Republican negotiator Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama did not seem overly concerned about Pelosi's statements, calling them "ambiguous." But he said if Pelosi, Trump and party leaders "would let us, the appropriators, do our job, we could do this."

    Calling himself hopeful, Shelby said, "I think if we're going to get a deal, we'll get it probably in the next 10 days."

    A Democratic negotiator, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, brushed aside Trump's tweets, saying people are paying less attention to them.

    "A lot of the Republicans told me they wished he (Trump) would not do that," Leahy said.

    Trump has demanded $5.7 billion for this fiscal year to start construction on a border wall that he envisioned during his 2016 campaign as being 2,000 miles (3,200 km) long and made of concrete.

    Since then, he has said it would not run the full length of the border, could be made of other materials such as steel slats - and that the wall could be called "peaches" if that was a way to get around the semantics of a "wall."

    And he has maintained that large sections had already been built.

    But on Thursday, Trump reversed himself.

    "Lets just call them WALLS from now on and stop playing political games!" he tweeted. "A WALL is a WALL!"

    Without a deal by Feb. 15, a partial government shutdown could resume. The president also has said he would consider declaring a national emergency in order to divert existing funds to build a wall, which would almost certainly trigger a constitutional legal challenge.

    Included in the Democrats' plan was $98 million above last year for U.S. Customs and Border Protection to hire 1,000 more customs agents, and $400 million for buying and deploying security technology.

    Democrats also called for new constraints on the ability of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to place in deportation proceedings the sponsors of undocumented immigrant minors who are in the United States without their parents."

    Nancy Pelosi, one of the co winners of the previous Government shutdown, continues to make the news, by how she apparently manages things with her individual political powers?

    Zombieguy1987whiteflame
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    Trump on border negotiations: 'Without a wall, it doesn't work'
    https://news.yahoo.com/trump-border-security-without-wall-200054061.html

    An excerpt from the article:

    "President Trump says he would reject a border security bill that doesn’t include funding for a border wall: “Without a wall, it doesn’t work.”
    Zombieguy1987whiteflame
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/pelosi-no-wall-money-u-border-deal-talks-162509707--business.html

    Some excerpts from the article:

    "Speaker Pelosi: No wall money in U.S. border deal talks"


    "There's not going to be any wall money in the legislation," the top House Democrat told reporters, adding that more ports of entry or additional border technology was on the table for negotiation.

    "Asked by reporters about Pelosi's comment on wall funding, Trump said: "Without a wall, it doesn’t work."

    The committee of Republican and Democratic representatives and senators met for the first time on Wednesday to begin negotiating a compromise on federal spending. Trump has demanded a $5.7 billion down payment for his promised wall.

    The committee will likely have to wrap up its work around Feb. 10 to meet a Feb. 15 deadline set when Trump and lawmakers agreed last week to end a 35-day partial government shutdown, the longest in U.S. history. Otherwise, about 800,000 federal employees could again be furloughed or forced to work without pay.

    Pelosi rejected as a "nonstarter" Trump's offer of a temporary three-year protection for "Dreamer" immigrants in exchange for a permanent wall. The Dreamers are young people brought illegally to the United States as children.

    The speaker also said she does not believe a bill to permanently end shutdowns should be part of current border security negotiations.

    House Democrats on Thursday released to reporters a detailed summary of their opening offer in the negotiations. It did not include money for a wall or any type of new physical border barriers.

    Democrats proposed giving Customs and Border Protection $98 million above last year for hiring 1,000 more customs agents, as well as $400 million for buying and deploying security technology, which would be $353 million above Trump's request, according to a summary provided by the House Appropriations Committee.

    Democrats also would put new constraints on the ability of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to place in deportation proceedings the sponsors of undocumented immigrant minors who are in the United States without their parents.

    Pelosi criticized a series of Thursday morning tweets in which Trump said the negotiators were "wasting their time" and he would build the wall on his own. The president has said he would consider declaring a national emergency in order to divert existing funds to build a wall, which would almost certainly trigger a court challenge. By law, Congress appropriates the money for federal projects.

    "I’ve got you covered. Wall is already being built, I don’t expect much help!" Trump wrote.

    Pelosi said Trump would prefer Congress to be "completely irrelevant" in the negotiations.

    "It is not a negotiation for the president to say ... 'it doesn't matter what Congress says'," she said at a news conference."

    The lone plus in regards to Pelosi, she gets to be the Speaker Of The House, for 4 years only.



    Zombieguy1987whiteflame
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    https://www-realclearpolitics-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/01/31/schumer_wields_leverage_and_a_flip_phone_against_trump_139333.amp.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/01/31/schumer_wields_leverage_and_a_flip_phone_against_trump_139333.html

    Schumer Wields Leverage and a Flip Phone Against Trump

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House plan for peeling off Democrats to support President Donald Trump’s demands for billions in border wall money ran into a particularly stubborn obstacle: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s flip phone.

    Schumer had already been talking with his colleagues for months, anticipating Trump’s fight long before the shutdown battle began. Soon after the midterm elections in early November, the New Yorker started doing what he does best, talking to his senators.

    One by one, he dialed them on his vintage flip phone to gauge support for spending money on the wall with Mexico. He made a beeline for them across the Senate floor. He cornered them in the Senate gym. Most Democrats told him they were against it.

    That unity buoyed Democrats during the just-concluded shutdown saga and is now girding them for the next round, with a second federal closure threatened by the White House.

    While Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., seized the starring role against Trump’s border wall, Schumer played no small part by helping shore up his side of the Capitol and bolstering Pelosi’s position.

    It’s a strategy the Democrats will rely on as the next shutdown deadline, Feb. 15, nears, and as Senate Democrats use their minority status as leverage to align with Pelosi’s House majority on various fronts.

    “If anything, our unity is stronger today than it was,” Schumer said Tuesday.

    It was his most high-profile role since taking on the leader’s position in 2017.

    During Trump’s first two years, Senate Democrats held together to vote against the Republican tax plan, resulting in a partisan measure that has failed to gain widespread popular appeal. Democrats also denied Republicans the votes needed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, after dissent from the GOP ranks left Republicans without enough support.

    Schumer has been praised, but also criticized, for not forcing his senators to fall in line the way past leaders have done. Liberals railed against him for failing to stop Brett Kavanaugh from being confirmed to the Supreme Court, even though only one Democrat voted for Trump’s nominee.

    Schumer is proving to be a different kind of leader, nudging his caucus to hold together on big fights, but also cutting senators loose to vote as they wish at other times.

    Last year, Schumer looked the other way as several Democrats supported a Republican banking bill that reversed some Democratic changes put in place after the Great Recession. This month, as soon as the shutdown ended, Schumer lifted the blockade on a GOP foreign policy bill supporting Israel that divided Democrats; their votes allowed it to easily advance.

    Schumer is showing the strength that Senate Democrats can assert in the chamber where 60 votes are usually needed to advance legislation to support or thwart Trump’s agenda.

    Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., a member of the leadership team, said Schumer has “an uncanny way to be able to listen” to the various views and end up with a position that “eventually everybody can feel OK with.”

    Days after the Nov. 6 election when Democrats suffered defeats in the Senate, Schumer started dialing up Democrats about the border wall. Four colleagues from states where Trump is popular lost their elections. But without much prodding, senators were lining up against giving Trump the money he wanted, according to a senior Democratic aide who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.

    Senators had approved a border security package and saw no reason to spend more. Plus, Democrats had just won the House, strengthening their hand. By the time the White House thought about flipping Democrats, it was too late.

    “It’s old the minds and hearts thing,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. Schumer, he said, “knows the minds and hearts of his colleagues.”

    Even in Virginia, where Sen. Tim Kaine represents thousands of federal workers who would eventually go without pay during the record 35-day shutdown, Democrats held firm.

    “The issue that the president chose to battle on, he just picked an issue where every Democrat is completely unified,” Kaine said. “Our caucus just welded together.”

    In the end, just one Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, voted for the wall money. The White House didn’t even bother trying to call another potential Democratic vote, Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama.

    Emboldened by their newfound leverage, Democrats are now looking at areas where they can unite against some policies and perhaps win some GOP support on issues such as prescription drug prices, administration oversight or protecting special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

    The night before a pivotal White House meeting in December, when the shutdown was a possibility but not yet reality, Schumer and Pelosi discussed strategy. They couldn’t have imagined what would come next.

    With the television cameras rolling the next day at the White House, Trump said in an exchange with Schumer that he would “take the mantle” and own the shutdown. Schumer can be seen trying to hold back a smile.

    A short while later Schumer arrived back at the Capitol for a private lunch with Democratic senators. They, too, were stunned.

    The shutdown would drag for more than a month, but for Senate Democrats the new Congress was just beginning.

    “It reinforced a lot of our steadfastness and resolve,” said Blumenthal, and “trust in our values and in the American people to see through Trump’s bullying and bluster.”

    Could it be that Schumer, similarly uses his political management skills just as Pelosi possibly does? 

    Zombieguy1987whiteflame
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    edited February 5
    The State of the Union address is tonight, and it will be both educational, and telling in how Pelosi, and Schumer, along with some on the left, react to POTUS Trump's address? 

    Maybe?:

    Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D- N.J.

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

    Note, Both of the below, have already tossed their hats into the race to become the next POTUS of the United States in 2020.

    If any background is wanted for either individual, look up the Brett Kavanaugh Hearings, and there are plenty of soundbites to be educated on, from by both Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker, both.

    Kamala Harris, D- Iowa 

    Cory Booker, D- New Jersey
    Zombieguy1987whiteflame
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    edited February 6
    https://www-psychologytoday-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/addiction-in-society/201901/ego-and-power-pelosi-and-trump?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&amp&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/addiction-in-society/201901/ego-and-power-pelosi-and-trump

    "Ego and Power: Pelosi and Trump

    Nancy Pelosi presents a new model for power"

    "One is reminded of the once popular book and movement, The Total Woman, which recommended that, while women may be influential in their marriages, they should always make it seem as if their husbands made all decisions. One imagines some ego-bloated man decrying on his exercise of power while his wife stands next to him smiling to herself.

    Oh, that sounds like Trump, doesn’t it? Only Pelosi doesn’t do the part where the woman says, “You’re always right dear.” 

    5. Don’t let up. In case you’ve noticed, Pelosi’s not playing pat-a-cake with Trump. The same day as Trump capitulated, special investigator Robert Mueller brought a new indictment and arrested a Trump lackey, Roger Stone, for his contacts with WikiLeaks during the Presidential campaign, which traces back to Russian interference in the election. That evening, building on Trump’s vulnerability, Pelosi attack-tweeted: “What does Putin have on Donald Trump politically, personally or financially?” as she swoops in for the kill.

    ______________________________

    * “President Nancy Pelosi, she runs the country now,” said a former White House official. “We went from indefinite shutdown, to down payment, to cave — all within a span of 24 hours.” 

    ** (Conservative columnist): It brings me physical pain and visceral self-loathing to admit it. But Nancy Pelosi, with her immaculate injectables and that red coat, is cool without even trying, in the most unforced way possible. She leans into the uptight grandma persona instead of rejecting it. Unlike Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., or Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., Republicans don’t hate Pelosi because she’s hilariously inept and idiotic. They hate her because she’s frighteningly good at her job."

    It's curious, how an article gets written, Pelosi "Won" the shutdown, now use Trump as a platform/ pedestal device, and herald her with such a description as this?:

     “President Nancy Pelosi, she runs the country now,” said a former White House official. “We went from indefinite shutdown, to down payment, to cave — all within a span of 24 hours.” 

    Wasn't able to find out who the (former White House official) was?

    But the said source, got a quotation expressed by them as a part of this article?

    It shows, how the power of a biased opinion expression, works to serve a variety of biased opinion seeking individuals, who rely on the internet to apparently feed their individual biased mindsets?

    whiteflameZombieguy1987
  • TKDB said:
    @whiteflame

    Pelosi and Schumer are part of the problem.
    Pretty much everyone is part of the problem. We treat Politic like an arena sports nowadays, as if the scoreboard was all that matters... This mindset discourage cooperation and brings along its lot of hooligans & fanatics. 

    That said, Trump's wall is just a symbol, it would have absolutely no effect, except costing 5 billions dollars that Mexico was supposed to pay in the first place. 5 billions for an egocentric symbol is way too much...

    To those who say that he was elected on the promise of that wall, I'll reply that he also promised Mexico would pay and if they actually would, I don't think I'd really mind, I'd still find it idiotic and useless but wouldn't mind it. 
    Zombieguy1987TKDBwhiteflame
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    edited February 6
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Are you familiar with the IRCA law?

    Signed into law by former President Reagan? 

    I'm sorry, but your talking points on Trump are irrelevant.

    The illegal immigration issue, was and has been a problem, long before he showed up.

    Any of the previous Presidents before him, could have done more for a physical border wall or barrier, couldn't they have?

    President George W. Bush?

    President Bill Clinton?

    President Barack Obama?

    Do you maybe view the security fencing around the White House as a symbol?

    Or in actuality, its there as part of a security feature?
    Zombieguy1987whiteflamePlaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    @Zombieguy1987

    Do you have anything to add to the debate?
    Zombieguy1987whiteflame
  • TKDB said:
    @Zombieguy1987

    Do you have anything to add to the debate?

    Yes I sure do

    This question is off topic...

    N.E.X.T.!

    Plaffelvohfen
    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

    For the first time since 2009, the Carolina Hurricanes will be playing for the Stanley Cup! 

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

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    @Zombieguy1987

    You're off topic, labelling someone's response as irrelevant, isn't a proper response.

    How about participating in the debate?

    And asking you again, do you have anything to add to the debate?

    Here is the theme:

    Who won the Government shutdown?


    If you maybe have an issue, you can take it up with Aarong? 




    whiteflameZombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    @Zombieguy1987

    @WordsMatter


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986

    Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986


    The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Pub.L. 99–603, 100 Stat. 3445, enacted November 6, 1986, also known as the Simpson–Mazzoli Act or the Reagan Amnesty,[1] signed into law by Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986, is an Act of Congress which reformed United Statesimmigration law. The Act[2]

    • required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status;
    • made it illegal to hire or recruit illegal immigrantsknowingly;
    • legalized certain seasonal agricultural undocumented immigrants, and;
    • legalized undocumented immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt; candidates were required to prove that they were not guilty of crimes, that they were in the country before January 1, 1982, and that they possessed at least a minimal knowledge about U.S. history, government, and the English language. 
    whiteflameZombieguy1987Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    The reason behind this question:

    Who won the Government shutdown?

    Is because the border wall situation, leading to a government shutdown over the funding for the border wall, shouldn't have never been an issue to begin with.

    How does the current POTUS deserve to get the said "guff" over border wall funding, when the previous Presidents, could have maybe done more for the border wall to start with? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @TKDB

    A wall would not solve illegal immigration problems. The majority of illegal immigrants are people who arrived on legal visas and overstayed their deadlines to leave. They are already here, they are already on this side of "the wall",  I hope you can see how the actual wall would be useless here... 

    A Center for Migration Studies report estimates that 44 percent of those in living in the U.S. illegally in 2015 were visa overstays. That’s up from an estimated 41 percent in 2008. The CMS report, written by Robert Warren, a former director of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service’s statistics division, says 65 percent of net arrivals — those joining the undocumented population — from 2008 to 2015 were visa overstays.

    Apprehensions on the Southwest border peaked in 2000 at 1.64 million and have generally declined since, totaling 303,916 in 2017. Those numbers, which come from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, are for fiscal years and date back to 1960. That’s an 81.5 percent decline in the number of apprehensions between the peak in 2000 and 2017. And the decline is forecast to continue steadily over the next decade...

    There is no actual crisis at the southern border, its a red herring. A stricter application of the IRCA, the first 2 points in particular, would be much more efficient.

    Zombieguy1987
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    From Yahoo News: The 360

    The State of the Union: Did it unite or divide?

    "What next:
     A large part of Trump’s speech emphasized the ongoing battle over his wall on the U.S. border with Mexico, and lawmakers are now negotiating a deal to avoid another shutdown. Their deadline: Feb. 15.
    As the president continues his negotiations, Democrats have so far shown little sign they are likely to heed his call for bipartisanship and to arrive at a compromise with him on the issue.
    The morning after Trump’s speech, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said, “You can’t talk about comity and working together and give a speech that is so divisive — that just doesn’t fly.” 

    Fact check

    *Fact check reporting from AP

    Border wall
    Trump: “These (border) agents will tell you where walls go up, illegal crossings go way, way down. … Simply put, walls work, and walls save lives.”
    The facts: It’s complicated and there’s no clear way to measure how the existence of barriers affect security."

    And then there is the below article:

    https://www-washingtonexaminer-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/if-trump-cant-get-the-wall-give-border-agents-more-wall?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&_amp=true&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#aoh=15495038647279&csi=1&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/if-trump-cant-get-the-wall-give-border-agents-more-wall

    "If Trump can't get 'the wall,' give border agents 'more wall'

    Talking about “the wall” is now like banging your head against one. President Trump did a fantastic job selling the idea to the public, but the debate on controlling our jungle-like immigration system has shifted and now he needs to adjust. Otherwise, the border will be no more secure when he leaves the White House than when he arrived.

    That means he needs to stop yelling about “the wall,” where Democrats are completely uncompromising and screaming "racism" for entirely political reasons. He needs to start talking about “more wall,” which all the border patrol agents I spoke to in Texas (mostly Latinos, by the way) are asking for.

    There is no “the wall” that will ever get built — not least because Trump has never explained what it would look like or where it would go. But more importantly, there is already “wall” in place. We just need more of it, and depending on where it goes, it’s going to look different.

    In the Rio Grande Valley sector at the southern border of Texas, more people are illegally crossing into the U.S. than anywhere else. There are sections of wall there — 25 feet of concrete and steel — that work to slow down or stop aliens, aiding in their apprehension by agents. 

    WEX Border Walljpg
    (Graeme Jennings/Washington Examiner)
    A portion of the border barrier in the Rio Grande Valley sector of the Texas southern border.

    When I went there two weeks ago, they said they want more of that wall to fill in gaps where it hasn’t been built. They also want more money for cameras and additional agents.

    This has nothing to do with Trump. The pieces of wall that are there now were recommended by the border patrol in the 1990s and were built in 2008.

    But Trump on Saturday, after caving on the government shutdown, tweeted again about a “a powerful Wall” necessary to keep illegals at bay.

    Okay, maybe? But if Democrats are simply going to call that “racist” and never say yes to building it, force them instead to say no to what the border patrol wants.

    If they do, then we can once and for all drop the lie that Democrats are “for border security.”

    Border agents aren’t asking for “a powerful Wall.” They’re asking for more of what they already have, which Democrats said yes to in the past. Some in the conservative media aren't helping by making dumb demands about "the wall," insisting we replicate the barrier Israel has up around Gaza. Yes, Israel has a "wall" there, but guess what: It's 40 miles long on mostly flat desert. You can't build that over the 1,000 miles of canyons, mountains, and forest that make up our border with Mexico.

    Trump moved the country in the right direction on immigration. His repeated “We either have a country, or we don’t” argument in favor of border control was essential to his victory and should go down as one of the great political lines of all time.

    But he dragged his feet on fixing the problem when he had Republicans controlling both houses of Congress. Now he has to deal with Democrats who, if unwilling to build “the wall,” should at least be forced on the record to opposing what the Border Patrol wants: “more wall.”"

    The fences made of plastic, wood, or chain links in general across the country, around an individuals, or a families home, I'm guessing are there to keep individuals who aren't welcome on their property, is why those various fences were placed around those properties to begin with?

    So here we have roughly 2000 plus miles of border along 4 states and the idea of a border wall, barrier is being balked at by some many?

    Apparently the southern border, is less important to some, while the millions of properties across the country have a wooden, plastic, or chain link barrier bordering around their properties, and their individual ideologies for having a barrier around their properties, aren't being balked at? 

    I wonder why that is?

    So who's ideologies, maybe make more sense?

    The millions of families and individuals across the country that have a barrier of some type around their properties?

    Or those various individuals who balk at the idea of a physical barrier of some sort along the southern border?

    If those various individuals who are balking at a barrier along the southern border, are maybe being viewed as making more sense ideology wise, when it comes to a physical barrier at the border, then something common sense wise is not adding up?

    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDB said:
    @Zombieguy1987

    You're off topic, labelling someone's response as irrelevant, isn't a proper response.

    How about participating in the debate?

    And asking you again, do you have anything to add to the debate?

    Here is the theme:

    Who won the Government shutdown?


    If you maybe have an issue, you can take it up with Aarong? 

    You're the one asking the off topic questions. You do it so much multiple have call you out and you still are doing it!


    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

    For the first time since 2009, the Carolina Hurricanes will be playing for the Stanley Cup! 

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

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    @Zombieguy1987

    Have a good day.
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Have you been to the border, and maybe interviewed some of the border agents personally, or interviewed some of the actual ranchers who live along the Border, and you're basing your talking points on those very interviews?
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDB said:
    The reason behind this question:

    Who won the Government shutdown?

    Is because the border wall situation, leading to a government shutdown over the funding for the border wall, shouldn't have never been an issue to begin with.

    How does the current POTUS deserve to get the said "guff" over border wall funding, when the previous Presidents, could have maybe done more for the border wall to start with? 
    At long last, an attempt to justify your irrelevant responses! Alright, let’s start by assuming you’re absolutely right: previous presidents should have addressed the lack of a wall, didn’t, and put our country into a precarious situation. Let’s assume further that the wall is the only means available of addressing all problems with illegal immigration.

    Now that we’ve made absolutely clear that you are assumed entirely correct... who won the shutdown?

    ...
    ...
    ...

    Again, I’m assuming you’re absolutely right. The shutdown was made inevitable by a lack of actions taken by previous presidents, and the wall is entirely necessary. All the Democrats are wrong, Trump and the Republicans were right. Hell, I’ll even assume the Democrats are wholly responsible for no wall being passed in the last several administrations, conveniently forgetting that both Bushes, Reagan and Nixon never pursued something so extensive. Democrats now brought about the shutdown.

    ...Who won it?

    None of this answers the question. None of this tells us who was benefitted by all those furloughed workers or the damage to our economy. Even if the Democrats wholesale owned the shutdown, it doesn’t tell us who walked away looking better. Pointing to them and saying “they started it” is childish nonsense that doesn’t even approach an answer to the very question you posed.

    The fact is that you don’t care about this question. You care about ascribing blame, largely to Democrats, for failing to do something you consider obviously good (despite never once providing any reasoning for why it will be efficacious to have a wall). You care about touting the need for a secure border, ignoring any and all alternative means to accomplish that goal. You care not at all about the effects of the shutdown. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @TKDB

    Cold data from official gvt agencies is all I need.
    Zombieguy1987
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    @Zombieguy1987

    Some of the history behind government shutdowns.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdowns_in_the_United_States

    "Government shutdowns in the United States"

    "Government shutdowns, in United States politics, refer to a funding gap period that causes a full or partial shutdown of federal government operationsand agencies. They are caused when there is a failure to pass sufficient appropriation bills or a temporary continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government for a fiscal year, and primarily occur when there is a disagreement over a proposed appropriation bill from Republicans or Democrats within the House of Representatives or the Senate, and the current President of the United States. Ever since a 1980 interpretation of the 1884 Antideficiency Act, a “lapse of appropriation” due to a political impasse on proposed appropriation bills requires that the US federal government curtail agency activities and services, close down non-essential operations, furlough non-essential workers, and only retain essential employees in departments covering the safety of human life and/or protection of property.[1]Voluntary services in these respective essential areas may only be accepted during emergencies.[1] 

    As of 6 February 2019, since the enactment of the US government's current budget and appropriations process in 1976, there have been a total of 22 funding gaps in the federal budget, of which 10 of these have led to federal employees being furloughed; shutdowns are also possible at occurring within and disrupting state, territorial, and local levels of government. Prior to 1980, funding gaps did not always lead to full or partial government shutdowns, until Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued his legal opinion on funding gaps in accordance with the Antideficiency Act, which defined his interpretation of what federal agencies should do during funding gaps until the enactment of an appropriation bill and what exceptions were allowed during this period. Since 1981, the practice has been to shut down the government when a funding gap occurs,[2] though not all funding gaps since Civiletti's opinions have contributed to a shutdown - for example, a funding gap that occurred for nine hours on 9 February 2018 did not result in a shutdown of the government.[3][4]

    Some of the most significant shutdowns in US history have included: three major shutdowns in the 1980s during the Presidential term of Ronald Reagan over opposition to proposal against his political beliefs; the 21-day shutdown of 1995-1996 during the Presidential term of Bill Clinton over opposition to major spending cuts; the 16-day shutdown in 2013during the Presidential term of Barack Obama caused by an argument between Democrats and Republicans over measures concerning the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act;[5] and the 35-day shutdown of 2018-2019 during the Presidential term of Donald Trump, the longest shutdown in US history,[6] caused by a refusal from Democrats to approve funding a new US–Mexico border wall.[7][8]

    The effect of shutdowns include the disruption of government services and programmes, the closure of national parks and institutions (in particular, due to shortages of federal employees), the loss of revenue within specific sectors such as government contracts, a significant reduction in economic growth (depending on the length of the shutdown), and costing the government millions to compensate for lost labour and the eventual restarting of federal operations. During the 2013 shutdown, Standard & Poor's, the financial ratings agency, stated on October 16 that the shutdown had "to date taken $24 billion out of the economy", and "shaved at least 0.6 percent off annualized fourth-quarter 2013 GDP growth".[9]""

    The reference material speaks for itself.

    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    "Cold data from official gvt agencies is all I need."

    Do you have websites and or webpages that you can provide to cooberate your individual points of view? 

    Please, what official government agencies are you referring to?


    Zombieguy1987
  • Zombieguy1987
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • TKDB said:
    @Zombieguy1987

    Some of the history behind government shutdowns.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdowns_in_the_United_States

    "Government shutdowns in the United States"

    "Government shutdowns, in United States politics, refer to a funding gap period that causes a full or partial shutdown of federal government operationsand agencies. They are caused when there is a failure to pass sufficient appropriation bills or a temporary continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government for a fiscal year, and primarily occur when there is a disagreement over a proposed appropriation bill from Republicans or Democrats within the House of Representatives or the Senate, and the current President of the United States. Ever since a 1980 interpretation of the 1884 Antideficiency Act, a “lapse of appropriation” due to a political impasse on proposed appropriation bills requires that the US federal government curtail agency activities and services, close down non-essential operations, furlough non-essential workers, and only retain essential employees in departments covering the safety of human life and/or protection of property.[1]Voluntary services in these respective essential areas may only be accepted during emergencies.[1] 

    As of 6 February 2019, since the enactment of the US government's current budget and appropriations process in 1976, there have been a total of 22 funding gaps in the federal budget, of which 10 of these have led to federal employees being furloughed; shutdowns are also possible at occurring within and disrupting state, territorial, and local levels of government. Prior to 1980, funding gaps did not always lead to full or partial government shutdowns, until Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued his legal opinion on funding gaps in accordance with the Antideficiency Act, which defined his interpretation of what federal agencies should do during funding gaps until the enactment of an appropriation bill and what exceptions were allowed during this period. Since 1981, the practice has been to shut down the government when a funding gap occurs,[2] though not all funding gaps since Civiletti's opinions have contributed to a shutdown - for example, a funding gap that occurred for nine hours on 9 February 2018 did not result in a shutdown of the government.[3][4]

    Some of the most significant shutdowns in US history have included: three major shutdowns in the 1980s during the Presidential term of Ronald Reagan over opposition to proposal against his political beliefs; the 21-day shutdown of 1995-1996 during the Presidential term of Bill Clinton over opposition to major spending cuts; the 16-day shutdown in 2013during the Presidential term of Barack Obama caused by an argument between Democrats and Republicans over measures concerning the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act;[5] and the 35-day shutdown of 2018-2019 during the Presidential term of Donald Trump, the longest shutdown in US history,[6] caused by a refusal from Democrats to approve funding a new US–Mexico border wall.[7][8]

    The effect of shutdowns include the disruption of government services and programmes, the closure of national parks and institutions (in particular, due to shortages of federal employees), the loss of revenue within specific sectors such as government contracts, a significant reduction in economic growth (depending on the length of the shutdown), and costing the government millions to compensate for lost labour and the eventual restarting of federal operations. During the 2013 shutdown, Standard & Poor's, the financial ratings agency, stated on October 16 that the shutdown had "to date taken $24 billion out of the economy", and "shaved at least 0.6 percent off annualized fourth-quarter 2013 GDP growth".[9]""

    The reference material speaks for itself.


    Why is this relevant? 


    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

    For the first time since 2009, the Carolina Hurricanes will be playing for the Stanley Cup! 

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

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    @Zombieguy1987

    Because I believe in debating based on historical facts.

    Trump is getting hammered for a shutdown, when other Presidents have had shutdowns happened during their watches as well.

    It's embarrassing, when some of the political representatives, elected to an office, stall for the individual sake of their constituents, instead of working for the entire voting public as a whole?

    Zombieguy1987whiteflame
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    From the news this morning:

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/07/pelosi-trump-government-shutdown-1154355

    CONGRESS

    ‘Too hot to handle’: Pelosi predicts GOP won’t trigger another shutdown

    The House speaker discusses Trump’s border wall, impeachment and the 2020 presidential campaign in an exclusive interview with POLITICO.

    By HEATHER CAYGLESARAH FERRIS and JOHN BRESNAHAN

     

    02/07/2019 05:00 AM EST

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi is vowing that the federal government will not shut down again, even as President Donald Trump ratchets up pressure for his border wall ahead of a fast-approaching deadline.

    “There will not be another shutdown,” Pelosi confidently asserted during a half-hour interview Wednesday in her Capitol office. “No, it’s not going to happen.”

    After the 35-day shutdown — and the political drubbing that Trump and Republicans took during the record-breaking impasse — Pelosi predicted GOP leaders won’t go down that road again.

    “I have a club that I started, it’s called the ‘Too Hot to Handle Club.’ And this is a too-hot-to-handle issue,” Pelosi quipped.

    Pelosi said she believes a bipartisan House-Senate panel negotiating on border security will come to an agreement before the Feb. 15 funding deadline. And she pledged to support any deal that emerges from those talks, even as she remains firm that there won’t be new money for Trump’s wall.

    Pelosi is clearly relishing her return to the speaker’s chair after triumphing over both Republicans in November and rebels within her caucus in January. And the California Democrat underscored how firm a grip she has on Washington and its agenda as she sounded off in a POLITICO interview on everything from the border wall talks and climate change to impeachment and the 2020 presidential campaign.

    But Pelosi’s tenure will not be without challenges: She faces a fractious caucus and an unpredictable president. And if she wants to keep her majority past 2020 and position her party to take the White House, Pelosi will have to carefully guide a freshman class that’s among the most diverse in history, brimming with progressives as well as dozens of Democrats who hold seats in Trump country.


    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she believes a bipartisan panel negotiating on border security will come to an agreement before the Feb. 15 government funding deadline. | Zach Gibson/Getty Images

    CONGRESS

    ‘Too hot to handle’: Pelosi predicts GOP won’t trigger another shutdown

    The House speaker discusses Trump’s border wall, impeachment and the 2020 presidential campaign in an exclusive interview with POLITICO.

    By HEATHER CAYGLESARAH FERRIS and JOHN BRESNAHAN

     

    02/07/2019 05:00 AM EST

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi is vowing that the federal government will not shut down again, even as President Donald Trump ratchets up pressure for his border wall ahead of a fast-approaching deadline.

    “There will not be another shutdown,” Pelosi confidently asserted during a half-hour interview Wednesday in her Capitol office. “No, it’s not going to happen.”

    Story Continued Below

    After the 35-day shutdown — and the political drubbing that Trump and Republicans took during the record-breaking impasse — Pelosi predicted GOP leaders won’t go down that road again.

    “I have a club that I started, it’s called the ‘Too Hot to Handle Club.’ And this is a too-hot-to-handle issue,” Pelosi quipped.

    Pelosi said she believes a bipartisan House-Senate panel negotiating on border security will come to an agreement before the Feb. 15 funding deadline. And she pledged to support any deal that emerges from those talks, even as she remains firm that there won’t be new money for Trump’s wall.

    Play Video
    true

    Pelosi is clearly relishing her return to the speaker’s chair after triumphing over both Republicans in November and rebels within her caucus in January. And the California Democrat underscored how firm a grip she has on Washington and its agenda as she sounded off in a POLITICO interview on everything from the border wall talks and climate change to impeachment and the 2020 presidential campaign.

    But Pelosi’s tenure will not be without challenges: She faces a fractious caucus and an unpredictable president. And if she wants to keep her majority past 2020 and position her party to take the White House, Pelosi will have to carefully guide a freshman class that’s among the most diverse in history, brimming with progressives as well as dozens of Democrats who hold seats in Trump country.

    ADVERTISING

    While saying she respects the office Trump holds — and prays for him daily — Pelosi dismissed Tuesday’s State of the Union address, even as the California Democrat insisted she can work with the president to move legislation that would benefit the country.

    “Don’t waste your time on this. This is theatrics, this is not government,” Pelosi said of Trump’s speech. “We just take this in stride.”

    Pelosi also defended Congress’ oversight authority and rejected Trump’s suggestion Tuesday night that investigations could hurt the economy and prevent legislative cooperation, rhetoric Pelosi called an “all-out threat” on Wednesday.

    She had harsh words for Trump after he attacked House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a close Pelosi ally, as a “partisan hack who’s just trying to build a name for himself.”

    “When [Trump] makes an assault on Mr. Schiff and congressional responsibility for oversight, he is making an assault on the Constitution of the United States, the separation of powers, co-equal branches of government,” Pelosi said. “We honor the institution in which we serve, the Congress of the United States. I hope he would honor it, too.”

    After prevailing in her toughest leadership battle since becoming speaker in 2006, Pelosi has settled into her role as the de facto leader of the Democratic Party. She won the faceoff with Trump and Senate Republicans over the government shutdown, even canceling the State of the Union at one point. The move outraged Trump and GOP leaders on Capitol Hill, but proved once again that Pelosi never makes a threat she can’t deliver on.

    House Democrats are now moving ahead with their own ambitious agenda as they attempt to put the all-consuming shutdown behind them. Just this week, the House held its first hearings on gun control, climate change, Obamacare and the minimum wage.

    House Democrats have also taken cautious steps toward formally investigating Trump — his administration, his personal finances and his businesses — even as special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe continues to unfold.

    Still, Pelosi signaled that she’s treading carefully on anything related to Trump personally. She described her efforts as an attempt to strike a balance between freshmen progressives who are eager to seize Trump’s tax returns or impeach him, and veteran chairmen who have seen high-profile investigations go awry in the past.

    “You have to do it right,” Pelosi said on the issue of the Ways and Means Committee obtaining Trump’s tax returns. “I hear people say, ‘Why didn’t they do it the first day?’ You have to do it right. You have to protect the prerogatives of the House of Representatives and you cannot be scattershot about that.”

    The cautious approach is classic Pelosi: Have a plan, build support for the idea inside and outside Congress, and then methodically execute the strategy.

    Pelosi defended her high-profile Democratic freshmen, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who have come under increasing GOP attacks.

    “You can’t worry about what the Republicans are going to say about you,” Pelosi said. “This place is not a place for people who are worried about what the Republicans are going to say about you.”

    Pelosi’s efforts have paid off with Ocasio-Cortez, especially. The freshmen superstar told NPR on Wednesday that Pelosi has “done a really good job so far,” even as Pelosi has sidestepped one of the left’s top priorities — a “Green New Deal.”

    Progressives had demanded a special climate panel tasked specifically with drafting legislation to end the nation’s reliance on fossil fuels in just over a decade and transform the economy.

    The California Democrat did agree to launch a select committee on climate change, similar to the one she created back in 2007, when she first became speaker. Pelosi said Wednesday, however, the panel would not be tasked with writing a specific bill, and brushed off the idea of the Green New Deal as a “suggestion.”

    “It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive,” Pelosi said. “The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it right?”

    Pelosi has long championed stronger environmental rules, and described climate change as her “flagship” political issue.


    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she believes a bipartisan panel negotiating on border security will come to an agreement before the Feb. 15 government funding deadline. | Zach Gibson/Getty Images

    CONGRESS

    ‘Too hot to handle’: Pelosi predicts GOP won’t trigger another shutdown

    The House speaker discusses Trump’s border wall, impeachment and the 2020 presidential campaign in an exclusive interview with POLITICO.

    By HEATHER CAYGLESARAH FERRIS and JOHN BRESNAHAN

     

    02/07/2019 05:00 AM EST

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi is vowing that the federal government will not shut down again, even as President Donald Trump ratchets up pressure for his border wall ahead of a fast-approaching deadline.

    “There will not be another shutdown,” Pelosi confidently asserted during a half-hour interview Wednesday in her Capitol office. “No, it’s not going to happen.”

    Story Continued Below

    After the 35-day shutdown — and the political drubbing that Trump and Republicans took during the record-breaking impasse — Pelosi predicted GOP leaders won’t go down that road again.

    “I have a club that I started, it’s called the ‘Too Hot to Handle Club.’ And this is a too-hot-to-handle issue,” Pelosi quipped.

    Pelosi said she believes a bipartisan House-Senate panel negotiating on border security will come to an agreement before the Feb. 15 funding deadline. And she pledged to support any deal that emerges from those talks, even as she remains firm that there won’t be new money for Trump’s wall.

    Play Video
    true

    Pelosi is clearly relishing her return to the speaker’s chair after triumphing over both Republicans in November and rebels within her caucus in January. And the California Democrat underscored how firm a grip she has on Washington and its agenda as she sounded off in a POLITICO interview on everything from the border wall talks and climate change to impeachment and the 2020 presidential campaign.

    But Pelosi’s tenure will not be without challenges: She faces a fractious caucus and an unpredictable president. And if she wants to keep her majority past 2020 and position her party to take the White House, Pelosi will have to carefully guide a freshman class that’s among the most diverse in history, brimming with progressives as well as dozens of Democrats who hold seats in Trump country.

    ADVERTISING

    While saying she respects the office Trump holds — and prays for him daily — Pelosi dismissed Tuesday’s State of the Union address, even as the California Democrat insisted she can work with the president to move legislation that would benefit the country.

    “Don’t waste your time on this. This is theatrics, this is not government,” Pelosi said of Trump’s speech. “We just take this in stride.”

    Pelosi also defended Congress’ oversight authority and rejected Trump’s suggestion Tuesday night that investigations could hurt the economy and prevent legislative cooperation, rhetoric Pelosi called an “all-out threat” on Wednesday.

    Story Continued Below

    ADVERTISEMENT
    SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

    She had harsh words for Trump after he attacked House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a close Pelosi ally, as a “partisan hack who’s just trying to build a name for himself.”

    “When [Trump] makes an assault on Mr. Schiff and congressional responsibility for oversight, he is making an assault on the Constitution of the United States, the separation of powers, co-equal branches of government,” Pelosi said. “We honor the institution in which we serve, the Congress of the United States. I hope he would honor it, too.”

    After prevailing in her toughest leadership battle since becoming speaker in 2006, Pelosi has settled into her role as the de facto leader of the Democratic Party. She won the faceoff with Trump and Senate Republicans over the government shutdown, even canceling the State of the Union at one point. The move outraged Trump and GOP leaders on Capitol Hill, but proved once again that Pelosi never makes a threat she can’t deliver on.

    House Democrats are now moving ahead with their own ambitious agenda as they attempt to put the all-consuming shutdown behind them. Just this week, the House held its first hearings on gun control, climate change, Obamacare and the minimum wage.

    House Democrats have also taken cautious steps toward formally investigating Trump — his administration, his personal finances and his businesses — even as special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe continues to unfold.

    Still, Pelosi signaled that she’s treading carefully on anything related to Trump personally. She described her efforts as an attempt to strike a balance between freshmen progressives who are eager to seize Trump’s tax returns or impeach him, and veteran chairmen who have seen high-profile investigations go awry in the past.

    “You have to do it right,” Pelosi said on the issue of the Ways and Means Committee obtaining Trump’s tax returns. “I hear people say, ‘Why didn’t they do it the first day?’ You have to do it right. You have to protect the prerogatives of the House of Representatives and you cannot be scattershot about that.”

    Story Continued Below

    The cautious approach is classic Pelosi: Have a plan, build support for the idea inside and outside Congress, and then methodically execute the strategy.

    Pelosi defended her high-profile Democratic freshmen, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who have come under increasing GOP attacks.

    “You can’t worry about what the Republicans are going to say about you,” Pelosi said. “This place is not a place for people who are worried about what the Republicans are going to say about you.”

    Pelosi’s efforts have paid off with Ocasio-Cortez, especially. The freshmen superstar told NPR on Wednesday that Pelosi has “done a really good job so far,” even as Pelosi has sidestepped one of the left’s top priorities — a “Green New Deal.”

    Progressives had demanded a special climate panel tasked specifically with drafting legislation to end the nation’s reliance on fossil fuels in just over a decade and transform the economy.

    Play Video

    The California Democrat did agree to launch a select committee on climate change, similar to the one she created back in 2007, when she first became speaker. Pelosi said Wednesday, however, the panel would not be tasked with writing a specific bill, and brushed off the idea of the Green New Deal as a “suggestion.”

    “It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive,” Pelosi said. “The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it right?”

    Pelosi has long championed stronger environmental rules, and described climate change as her “flagship” political issue.

    Story Continued Below

    In the past decade, she has already seen Democrats try and fail to pass a sweeping cap-and-trade climate law. The next attempt, she said, will need broader support. “This time it has to be Congresswide,” Pelosi said.

    Pelosi has also worked to silence some of the outside critics on the left who are demanding Trump’s immediate impeachment, such as California billionaire and Democratic donor Tom Steyer.

    “The fact is, you are by definition as an advocate dissatisfied, relentless and persistent,” Pelsosi said, recalling her own experience as a Democratic activist. “Whatever the electeds are doing is a compromise, it’s not the purity of what we want.”

    As the Democratic race for the 2020 presidential nomination kicks off, Pelosi said she’s not ready to back any of the many candidates eyeing the White House. She “rarely endorses” in presidential primaries, she noted.

    “People are going to have to show their ‘why.’ ...What is your vision? Why are you doing this?” she said of the various Democratic presidential contenders. “The person who wins is the person who has that and connects. So I want to see who connects.”

    Washington has a narrow window before attention turns completely to the presidential contest and the odds are slim of bipartisan breakthroughs in the polarized Trump era.

    But Pelosi said she has identified a few policy areas where Democrats can work with the president — lowering prescription drug prices, protecting people with pre-existing conditions and perhaps rebuilding the country’s highways and transit systems. Trump mentioned these issues during the State of the Union.

    “I pray for him all the time,” Pelosi said. “And I say to him, ‘Mr. President I would never ask you to do anything that is not in your interest.’” 

    Some of her apparent post government shutdown talking points.

    Zombieguy1987whiteflamePlaffelvohfen
  • TKDB said:
    @Zombieguy1987

    Because I believe in debating based on historical facts.

    Trump is getting hammered for a shutdown, when other Presidents have had shutdowns happened during their watches as well.

    It's embarrassing, when some of the political representatives, elected to an office, stall for the individual sake of their constituents, instead of working for the entire voting public as a whole?

    Just because you use facts doesn't mean that they are relevant to the debate being had. You've done a great job proving me right, since you seem entirely fixated on blame and where it belongs rather than who won the shutdown.

    I can't recall a president who hasn't been blamed for a shutdown that happened during their time in office. If we're functioning based on historical precedent, how about Truman's use of the phrase "The Buck Stops Here"? Previous presidents have taken the blame for a great deal of what happens during their time in office, especially when it's broadly harmful to employees that rely on passage of a given bill or set of bills, which the president has to sign. Even if Trump isn't directly responsible for the shutdown, it still happened under his watch, and he is still the president. He should shoulder some of the blame, particularly since this was the longest shutdown in the history of this country.

    However, I would argue that he should shoulder most of the blame. When he was presented with the possibility of re-opening the government, no strings attached, he refused. He put his demands for a wall ahead of the needs of those 800,000 employees and everyone who relies on them. Even if we assume the wall is important, that still means that the demand for the wall was put ahead of their needs, and Trump was the one who had the power to change that. He didn't for more than 1 month.

    As for "embarrassing," I don't know where you're getting your data, but the majority of this country is opposed to a wall. A position against the wall is more representative of "the entire voting public as a whole", though I think it's strange to argue that individual legislators should ignore their constituents for the sake for some broader appeal. There's a reason we have so many legislators - they represent subsets of the population, for good and for bad.
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    edited February 7
    @whiteflame

    The wall is a problem, that has been a festering problem, for too blatantly long.

    It's hemorrhaging with drug trafficking.

    It's hemorrhaging with human trafficking.

    It's hemorrhaging with illegal immigrants coming into the country, everyday.

    And the sanctuary cities, are another problem.

    And those politicians who opposed the border wall, they could have voluntarily given up their paychecks and used that money, to aide the 800,000 government employees who went without their checks during the shutdown.

    On the news, a liberal politician, was asked about giving up his paycheck while the government shutdown was ongoing, and he balked at the idea?

    He didn't like the idea of his paycheck getting messed with?

    This guy was a Democrat, who works for those who elected him, but he didn't like the idea of not getting paid for his political management skills, while those 800,000 employees went without a paycheck?

    I wonder what would happen, if some of the law maker's got together, and created a bill stating, that when a government shutdown occurs, that every politician across the United States, won't get a paycheck, but the other government employees still get paid?

    My guess, some of the liberal side of the political aisle wouldn't agree to such a bill, being that some value their paycheck, above, how they view others in whether they get a paycheck, during a government shutdown? 
    Zombieguy1987whiteflame
  • edited February 7
    @TKDB

    Well, you keep asserting the value of a wall, so guess you haven’t changed there. We’ve been over this, you’ve ignored my requests to justify the wall specifically, I’m not talking about it until you do.

    However, I will address this new point: giving up their paychecks. I think this is a great idea: force politicians to come to work for no pay during a shutdown. Strange, then, that you target Democrats. Some actually have refused paychecks during this shutdown, as well as Republicans.

    https://pix11.com/2019/01/08/more-than-60-members-of-congress-reject-pay-during-government-shutdown/

    Making that mandatory sounds great, but you make it sound as though Democrats are the only ones that aren’t respecting furloughed workers enough to effectively furlough themselves, but the vast majority of both parties took paychecks during this shutdown. It’s a bipartisan problem. 

    Not that any of this actually addresses a single point I made, but hey, at least you’re getting closer to the topic!
    Zombieguy1987Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    edited February 8
    @whiteflame

    A new poll came out today:

    https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/899542/1

    "Fox Poll: 75 Percent of Voters See Shutdown as an Emergency,

    Read Newsmax: Fox Poll: 75 Percent of Voters See Shutdown as an Emergency 
    Urgent: Do you approve of Pres. Trump’s job performance? Vote Here Now! 

    Forty-three percent of registered voters support President Donald Trump's border wall, according to a Fox News Poll released Wednesday, a four-point increase since the same question was asked in September.

    But 75 percent say they see the shutdown as an emergency and an even bigger problem than border issues.

    The poll was released on the 33rd day of the partial government shutdown. Trump is demanding $5.7 billion in border wall funding, but Democrats will not budge and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., on Wednesday said she would not allow Trump to give his State of the Union speech in the lower chamber until the government has reopened.

    Trump said Pelosi made the move because she was "afraid of the truth."

    The poll also found 51 percent blame Trump for the shutdown and 51 percent still oppose the wall. Thirty-four percent of voters surveyed said they blame congressional Democrats for the shutdown while three percent blame Republicans and nine percent blame all of the above.


    "One interesting dynamic is the pro-wall people are much more likely to want to go the distance on the shutdown than the anti-wall people," Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who conducts the Fox News Poll with Democrat Chris Anderson, told the news outlet. "It seems the Democrats would pay a lesser price for compromising, but many Democratic lawmakers think compromising would encourage Trump to play brinksmanship again on other issues."

    Let some continue to play their games with their views on the border wall?

    The border wall funding dialogue, gets balked at, because it's an apparent, anti Trump power play?

    And listen to some of the media, express through this talking point, or that one, about funding the security for the wall, or reinforce the border with some high tech toys, and some drones, and some apparent (cold hard cash/ funding) is getting tossed at those ideas as quick as the ink on some newsprint can dry, hours or minutes later that same newspaper, being sold at some news stand somewhere on a city street sidewalk?
  • TKDBTKDB 85 Pts
    @whiteflame

    Why couldn't those political representatives:
    (Mentioned by name from the webpage that you shared) could have maybe made a telephone call to the US Treasury office, and directed, that their paychecks, were rerouted from them specifically, to those 800,000 government employees?
  • TKDB said:
    @whiteflame

    Why couldn't those political representatives:
    (Mentioned by name from the webpage that you shared) could have maybe made a telephone call to the US Treasury office, and directed, that their paychecks, were rerouted from them specifically, to those 800,000 government employees?
    Two plausible reasons. One, considering so much of the government was on furlough at the time, it seems like it would have been a bad idea to call up a government agency that was suffering from understaffing issues and have them to provide it to some vague group that would send that money to the 800,000 employees who weren't receiving a paycheck. This isn't as simple as just giving a new name for the checks to go to - they would have to sign over those checks to an individual or an agency, and picking someone or some group at random seems more problematic than anything else. If they wanted to do this, why not take the check and provide it directly to charities serving people in the DC area? Seems much more effective. Two, it's a drop in the bucket. The wages of 60 Representatives and Senators would cover a vanishingly small portion of those 800,000 peoples' wages. There would probably be some basic costs associated with the shift (and the subsequent shift back) that would negate some of the benefit, and it wouldn't help that those receiving the funds would probably feel the need to return them after the furlough ends. 

    As for the article you've posted... this appears to undercut your whole point. It says that the vast majority of Fox News viewers saw the shutdown as a greater harm than border security issues, meaning that among the most conservative viewership in the country, border security takes a backseat to the economic harms of a shutdown. If that's true, then the vast, vast majority of people in this country, even among those who love the idea of the wall, did not view it as sufficient reason to induce a shutdown. And yet, that's exactly what Trump did with the wall. You've also shown clear evidence that a majority of people in the country oppose the wall. The Democrats were the only ones passing clean bills aimed at re-opening the government with no strings attached. That doesn't sound like playing games over the border wall. That sounds like trying to do right by our federal employees. That sounds like something Trump should have cared about most as well.
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