How many people here are butt hurt that Trump caved in to Pelosi??

[Jhhnn]

Why did you think you knew the truth of it?
Here is Obama's home wall.

Unless you'd like to argue the definition, but it seems pretty apt to me.

Gawd. That wall is more of a psychological barrier, a marker, rather than any real attempt to prevent entry. I'm nearly 70 & I could get over it in seconds.

 

[Indus]

The TV character president and his sheep need to hire a movie character..



But wait.. he's gay and proud to support LGBT.

 

[glenn1]

A better analogy would be if a local criminal called you demanding 'protection money' or their associates will vandalize your home. We're saying no, because they are demanding money in exchange for solving a problem they are causing. Your solution is to give them the money, then when they call back a month later to just give them the money again. Then I'm assuming you'll continue to support giving them more money indefinitely. All the while the rest of us are refusing to be blackmailed and are trying to get the criminal arrested.

So based on your brilliant plan the President and Republican party can waste however much money they want, on whatever boondoggles they want and continue to ignore what's best for the country. Because if you don't give them the expensive monuments they want they'll keep trying to crash the economy until they get voted out in 2020.

Bad example since the mobster in your instance does not have equal property rights in the house or equal responsibility for covering the cost of repairs.

A better example would be a husband and wife who were fighting. The husband starts off by saying “I want this $5 pair of Truck Nutz. The wife refuses and says no way you’re getting those. The husband says that I’m going to stop paying all the bills until I get my Truck Nutz and the wife agrees. A few hundred dollars in late fees later the husband agrees to not buy the Truck Nutz. Are you seriously going to argue the couple is better off because the wife was able to make her point about not buying Truck Nutz to save $5 while In the end they have $500 less in the bank?

 

[tweaker2]

Oh yeah, I am butt hurt alright. But it's from having it laugh right off of me after witnessing how Pelosi sent him to the corner of her classroom and had him stand there facing a real wall wearing a dunce cap and donkey tail in order to school him in the ways of real politics when he doesn't have a House of Reps obeying his every whim and wiping his ass and diapering him every time he poops out another steaming turd of an idea.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Bad example since the mobster in your instance does not have equal property rights in the house or equal responsibility for covering the cost of repairs.

A better example would be a husband and wife who were fighting. The husband starts off by saying “I want this $5 pair of Truck Nutz. The wife refuses and says no way you’re getting those. The husband says that I’m going to stop paying all the bills until I get my Truck Nutz and the wife agrees. A few hundred dollars in late fees later the husband agrees to not buy the Truck Nutz. Are you seriously going to argue the couple is better off because the wife was able to make her point about not buying Truck Nutz to save $5 while In the end they have $500 less in the bank?

First, America (the wife) didn't agree to not paying the bills. The husband (Trump) did it all one his own. Second, America (the wife) thinks $500 less in the bank is a pretty good reason to find a new husband.

 

[glenn1]

First, America (the wife) didn't agree to not paying the bills. The husband (Trump) did it all one his own. Second, America (the wife) thinks $500 less in the bank is a pretty good reason to find a new husband.

That wasn’t the argument being put forth, a “cost savings” argument was. The correct answer to an argument from cost would have been to buy the truck nuts for $5 (Trumps $5b wall demand) rather than pay the hundreds of dollars in late fees (The tens of billions of cost incurred to the Treasury from the shutdown). Whether buying them negatively impacts the relationship or not (e.g. the husband and wife getting a divorce over Truck Nutz) is not germane whatsoever to a cost argument.

All I’m doing is asking people to stop using the obviously false argument against wall cost when it was just absolutely proven that cost was not the main driver of opposition to a shutdown ostensibly fought over a wall. But rather it was completely 100% a political calculus in a political fight. Which is fine if you’re willing to have that fight but people need to be honest about the drivers for that fight.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

That wasn’t the argument being put forth, a “cost savings” argument was. The correct answer to an argument from cost would have been to buy the truck nuts for $5 (Trumps $5b wall demand) rather than pay the hundreds of dollars in late fees (The tens of billions of cost incurred to the Treasury from the shutdown). Whether buying them negatively impacts the relationship or not (e.g. the husband and wife getting a divorce over Truck Nutz) is not germane whatsoever to a cost argument.

All I’m doing is asking people to stop using the obviously false argument against wall cost when it was just absolutely proven that cost was not the main driver of opposition to a shutdown ostensibly fought over a wall. But rather it was completely 100% a political calculus in a political fight. Which is fine if you’re willing to have that fight but people need to be honest about the drivers for that fight.

This is poor accounting. Your trying to run the government on a cash basis after the fact. Operating the government or, any business larger than a taco stand, by the bottom line guarantees you'll go broke albeit slowly.

 

[Jhhnn]

Bad example since the mobster in your instance does not have equal property rights in the house or equal responsibility for covering the cost of repairs.

A better example would be a husband and wife who were fighting. The husband starts off by saying “I want this $5 pair of Truck Nutz. The wife refuses and says no way you’re getting those. The husband says that I’m going to stop paying all the bills until I get my Truck Nutz and the wife agrees. A few hundred dollars in late fees later the husband agrees to not buy the Truck Nutz. Are you seriously going to argue the couple is better off because the wife was able to make her point about not buying Truck Nutz to save $5 while In the end they have $500 less in the bank?

Ridiculous analogy. Giving Trump what he wants is more like feeding the bears.

 

[Indus]

Bad example since the mobster in your instance does not have equal property rights in the house or equal responsibility for covering the cost of repairs.

A better example would be a husband and wife who were fighting. The husband starts off by saying “I want this $5 pair of Truck Nutz. The wife refuses and says no way you’re getting those. The husband says that I’m going to stop paying all the bills until I get my Truck Nutz and the wife agrees. A few hundred dollars in late fees later the husband agrees to not buy the Truck Nutz. Are you seriously going to argue the couple is better off because the wife was able to make her point about not buying Truck Nutz to save $5 while In the end they have $500 less in the bank?

The only point really made at all is that Trump is an idiot and so is Trumpism.

 

[glenn1]

The only point really made at all is that Trump is an idiot and so is Trumpism.

Doesn’t matter and it doesn’t fix the underlying problem. Unless and until we hold the Congress creatures accountable for lack of budgets and such this will continue until infinity and beyond. Even just passing Continuing Resolutions is really a poor solution that doesn’t address root causes.

The ultimate fix will probably require a constitutional amendment that actually fundamentally hurts our representatives and President. Something like for every day there’s no budget the presidents term of office is reduced by one week from 4years, escalating to a month reduction per day after a week or so of no budget. And one congressman or Senator per day fired from the body and barred from running for office again. Because as of right now the government shutdowns don’t hurt our congressman or presidents whatsoever.

 

[Indus]

It's a republic if you can keep it.. it's pretty obvious one party wants a monarchy not a republic.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Doesn’t matter and it doesn’t fix the underlying problem. Unless and until we hold the Congress creatures accountable for lack of budgets and such this will continue until infinity and beyond. Even just passing Continuing Resolutions is really a poor solution that doesn’t address root causes.

The ultimate fix will probably require a constitutional amendment that actually fundamentally hurts our representatives and President. Something like for every day there’s no budget the presidents term of office is reduced by one week from 4years, escalating to a month reduction per day after a week or so of no budget. And one congressman or Senator per day fired from the body and barred from running for office again. Because as of right now the government shutdowns don’t hurt our congressman or presidents whatsoever.

Of course it did. It hurt their chances for re-election. It also devalued government shutdown as a tool for getting their way.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Why did you think you knew the truth of it?
Here is Obama's home wall.

Unless you'd like to argue the definition, but it seems pretty apt to me.

That is either side of the driveway and gated at all because the Secret Service wanted it.

That's the street side of O's place. See that 10 foot fence? No you don't

 

[Jhhnn]

Doesn’t matter and it doesn’t fix the underlying problem. Unless and until we hold the Congress creatures accountable for lack of budgets and such this will continue until infinity and beyond. Even just passing Continuing Resolutions is really a poor solution that doesn’t address root causes.

The ultimate fix will probably require a constitutional amendment that actually fundamentally hurts our representatives and President. Something like for every day there’s no budget the presidents term of office is reduced by one week from 4years, escalating to a month reduction per day after a week or so of no budget. And one congressman or Senator per day fired from the body and barred from running for office again. Because as of right now the government shutdowns don’t hurt our congressman or presidents whatsoever.

Gawd. Until we hold ourselves accountable for our own votes charlatans like Trump will keep having their way with us. The GOP has no constructive answers to any of the issues we honestly face, just wedge issue politics designed to facilitate top down class warfare.

 

[ivwshane]

Bad example since the mobster in your instance does not have equal property rights in the house or equal responsibility for covering the cost of repairs.

A better example would be a husband and wife who were fighting. The husband starts off by saying “I want this $5 pair of Truck Nutz. The wife refuses and says no way you’re getting those. The husband says that I’m going to stop paying all the bills until I get my Truck Nutz and the wife agrees. A few hundred dollars in late fees later the husband agrees to not buy the Truck Nutz. Are you seriously going to argue the couple is better off because the wife was able to make her point about not buying Truck Nutz to save $5 while In the end they have $500 less in the bank?

I'm glad you recognize that truck nuts are about as useless as the wall and just as dumb of a purchase. What a great analogy!

 

[VRAMdemon]

How bout this analogy:

Trump shits on the carpet.
Trump demands that someone else clean it up
Trump claims it wasn't his
Trump smears it everywhere with his hands
Trump declares he cleaned it all up, better than anyone else could
The Republicans put a throw rug over the spot and try to never speak of it again
Trump says it was Hillary's turd.
The Base screams "Lock her up"

 

[glenn1]

I'm glad you recognize that truck nuts are about as useless as the wall and just as dumb of a purchase. What a great analogy!

The flip side is that while basically worthless it’s likewise stupid to accept $100s in costs to *NOT* buy a $5 set of them. That’s my entire point of “the wall costs too much” not being a valid argument when the shutdown was orders of magnitude more expensive. You can change your argument to “well the shutdown was a cost worth paying” but that’s entirely separate argument. For whatever reason many here seem to be completely unable to separate the “cost savings” false argument from a game theory “not rewarding bad behavior“ argument when they are two entirely separate considerations.

 

[BoomerD]

But it did happen. Pointing out counterfactuals doesn’t change the calculus of a utilitarian cost argument. For example, if you objected to paying five dollars for parking and now got a $50 ticket, It still makes more sense to pay the $50 ticket then let your car get towed and pay $300 for that. It does not matter whatsoever that you could have paid five dollars for parking to begin with or park somewhere else entirely. The only choices which are valid in a utilitarian cost argument are ones which are still available to you, not ones which you could have taken earlier but chose not and at present are no longer available to you.

But you’re still ignoring the root cause of the problem. The shutdown and its related costs would be more akin to intentionally driving your car into the river...then complaining that Triple A wants to charge you $500 to pull it out rather than covering it with your $50 deductible. Had King Donnie not thrown a temper tantrum over the wall that the majority of Americans don’t want...and think is a terrible waste of taxpayer dollars, (especially since he campaigned on “Mexico will pay for it !”) none of those associated costs would be an issue.
Do we need to do SOMETHING about the illegal invasion on our southern border? You damned betcha we do...but what turned it into a “national emergency” worthy of shutting the government over? Democrats taking the house SHOULDN’T be enough of a cause...

 

[Jhhnn]

Do we need to do SOMETHING about the illegal invasion on our southern border?

The "invasion" was over with 10 years ago despite Trumpian raving about caravans of migrants.

 

[zzyzxroad]

That is either side of the driveway and gated at all because the Secret Service wanted it.

That's the street side of O's place. See that 10 foot fence? No you don't

I think his neighbor on that side is Canadian.

 

[glenn1]

But you’re still ignoring the root cause of the problem. The shutdown and its related costs would be more akin to intentionally driving your car into the river...then complaining that Triple A wants to charge you $500 to pull it out rather than covering it with your $50 deductible. Had King Donnie not thrown a temper tantrum over the wall that the majority of Americans don’t want...and think is a terrible waste of taxpayer dollars, (especially since he campaigned on “Mexico will pay for it !”) none of those associated costs would be an issue.
Do we need to do SOMETHING about the illegal invasion on our southern border? You damned betcha we do...but what turned it into a “national emergency” worthy of shutting the government over? Democrats taking the house SHOULDN’T be enough of a cause...

Argument from cost doesn’t care about root cause; either one alternative is cheaper than another or it’s not. This need to assign blame and score political points is the root cause.

 

[ivwshane]

The flip side is that while basically worthless it’s likewise stupid to accept $100s in costs to *NOT* buy a $5 set of them. That’s my entire point of “the wall costs too much” not being a valid argument when the shutdown was orders of magnitude more expensive. You can change your argument to “well the shutdown was a cost worth paying” but that’s entirely separate argument. For whatever reason many here seem to be completely unable to separate the “cost savings” false argument from a game theory “not rewarding bad behavior“ argument when they are two entirely separate considerations.

Other than your straw man argument that is about costs (hint: its not which is why pelosi offered funding for border security other than for a wall), your analogy falls flat as truck nuts have a fixed cost. Constructing a wall not only has a very fluid cost to it (you can read up on the history of the wall in Israel as an example) but it also has a maintenance cost to it as well so it's very much not a fixed cost.

But allow me to educate you as you seem to be indoctrinated in right wing talking points even though you are supposedly above them.

The reason for democrats not to negotiate with trump, no matter what was offered, is because that's not how this country does it's business. We don't negotiate with terrorist and trump needed to be taught this lesson otherwise there is no doubt he would have used this tactic repeatedly.

Now that you have been educated on the subject, I expect an enlightened guy, such as yourself, will stop with bs right wing talking points.

 

[zinfamous]

I want the wall because:

Rich Hollywood liberals have walls around their homes.

Hillary and bill have a wall around their home.

Obama has a wall around his home.

The pope has a wall around the Vatican.

It a wall is good enough for them, it's good enough for our nation.

you are dumber than a hammer store.

 

[Stryke1983]

The flip side is that while basically worthless it’s likewise stupid to accept $100s in costs to *NOT* buy a $5 set of them. That’s my entire point of “the wall costs too much” not being a valid argument when the shutdown was orders of magnitude more expensive. You can change your argument to “well the shutdown was a cost worth paying” but that’s entirely separate argument. For whatever reason many here seem to be completely unable to separate the “cost savings” false argument from a game theory “not rewarding bad behavior“ argument when they are two entirely separate considerations.

Your analogy basically means that the reasonable side has to cede all say in all future financial dealings as any purchase by the partner, no matter how stupid or costly the item is, will always be less painful than a complete financial shutdown of infinite length.

Think about that.

 

[glenn1]

Your analogy basically means that the reasonable side has to cede all say in all future financial dealings as any purchase by the partner, no matter how stupid or costly the item is, will always be less painful than a complete financial shutdown of infinite length.

Think about that.

"Reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder; I'm sure the GOP considers a lot of Democratic priorities to be stupid and/or costly. The other counterfactual in play in these shutdowns is that if both sides were able to reach a budget before the deadline there wouldn't be a shutdown.