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

[sdifox]

"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.

You might want to read this

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States

 

[glenn1]

You might want to read this

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States

Okay so we’re on the same level, at some future point when a Dem president says he will veto a spending bill without $5b dollars of new welfare benefits you’ll oppose him/her if a split Congress can’t agree to pass a bill with that spending included? Sounds like an easy path for the GOP to filibuster every single spending plan including new domestic spending by Dems until a shutdown looms and then you’ll push fir the Dems to cave to avoid shutdown right?

Or you can honestly say you’ll support whichever side the Dems are on since we already went through this with Obama shuttting down government to preserve the spending HE wanted that the GOP opposed. But that one is somehow different right or did you support Obama “caving” then?

 

[Stryke1983]

"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.

Even if you remove the reasonable part you are still arguing that one partner should relinquish all say in order to stop the other from metaphorically burning the house down. Which is bound to happen as there is no downside for the party making the stupid purchases.

Also, in the real world, a budget was agreed by both parties. But Trump vetoed it. If the other party isn't able to be reasoned with as they won't comprise then what options are you left with? The Democrats have repeatedly offered increased funding for border security purposes. In contrast Trump has only offered to delay fucking something else up. That's not really a compromise, that's a ransom demand.

 

[sdifox]

Okay so we’re on the same level, at some future point when a Dem president says he will veto a spending bill without $5b dollars of new welfare benefits you’ll oppose him/her if a split Congress can’t agree to pass a bill with that spending included? Sounds like an easy path for the GOP to filibuster every single spending plan including new domestic spending by Dems until a shutdown looms and then you’ll push fir the Dems to cave to avoid shutdown right?

Or you can honestly say you’ll support whichever side the Dems are on since we already went through this with Obama shuttting down government to preserve the spending HE wanted that the GOP opposed. But that one is somehow different right or did you support Obama “caving” then?

You are saying Trump couldn't do this before the midterms? He could have passed the wall funding with control of house and senate no? Why dod he wait? Who was the one that wanted drama?

He was the one who decided to go after DACA kids, then tried to use them as hostages.

America never negotiates with terrorists, even if he is the POTUS.

Trump created the crisis, he even said he owned it. So why are you implying it is not his fault?

 

[glenn1]

Even you remove the reasonable part you are still arguing that one partner should relinquish all say in order to stop the other from metaphorically burning the house down. Which is bound to happen as there is no downside for the party making the stupid purchases.

Also, in the real world, a budget was agreed by both parties. But Trump vetoed it. If the other party isn't able to be reasoned with as they won't comprise then what options are you left with? The Democrats have repeatedly offered increased funding for border security purposes. In contrast Trump has only offered to delay fucking something else up. That's not really a compromise, that's a random demand.

So now that government is open you’ll support a compromise that gives him some amount of wall money?

 

[BoomerD]

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.

You still miss the point...intentionally, I think. “Blame” should always be applied in a situation that could have easily been avoided...but was done strictly for political points...as you point out.
Stupid is supposed to hurt.

 

[Stryke1983]

So now that government is open you’ll support a compromise that gives him some amount of wall money?

There have been multiple compromises from the Democrats. Initially as part of the bi-partisan budget, then again after he unilaterally vetoed that budget. Trump hasn't compromised, he just said he'd stop fucking up the economy for three weeks if he gets exactly what he wants. Even though the majority of the population and neither political party want it.

At some point you have to put your foot down and tell the toddler "No" when they keep throwing their toys and it's damaging other stuff around them. Otherwise you encourage them to continue throwing tantrums.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

So now that government is open you’ll support a compromise that gives him some amount of wall money?

Try money for security. The wall is off the table. Learn it, love it, live it.

 

[ivwshane]

"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.

Your first clue that a wall was unreasonable would be the two fucking years Republicans controlled the federal government and not a single fucking time did they bring up a bill for the wall.

As to the latter part of your comment; you really need to educate yourself on what's going on, I suggest finding new news sources, perhaps try some of the "fake news". Because had you been paying attention you would be aware that the government shutdown was caused because trump wouldn't sign a bill he previously said he would, a bill that passed congress with bipartisan support. So the facts and reality blow up your last point.

0 for 2

 

[ivwshane]

Okay so we’re on the same level, at some future point when a Dem president says he will veto a spending bill without $5b dollars of new welfare benefits you’ll oppose him/her if a split Congress can’t agree to pass a bill with that spending included? Sounds like an easy path for the GOP to filibuster every single spending plan including new domestic spending by Dems until a shutdown looms and then you’ll push fir the Dems to cave to avoid shutdown right?

Or you can honestly say you’ll support whichever side the Dems are on since we already went through this with Obama shuttting down government to preserve the spending HE wanted that the GOP opposed. But that one is somehow different right or did you support Obama “caving” then?

You do realize that we've already been through such tactics and the Republicans did indeed shut the government down.

How are you this fucking ignorant about politics and yet still have the balls to post on a political forum?

Educate yourself!

https://web.archive.org/web/2013101...-about-how-the-government-shutdown-will-work/

 

[Jhhnn]

"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.

Whoa up, there. Just because the GOP caved to Trump's foolishness doesn't mean there wasn't a deal before he killed it. The measure that ultimately passed was the same measure McConnell sent to the HOR before Christmas.

Trump owns this, not anybody else.

 

[Jhhnn]

Your first clue that a wall was unreasonable would be the two fucking years Republicans controlled the federal government and not a single fucking time did they bring up a bill for the wall.

As to the latter part of your comment; you really need to educate yourself on what's going on, I suggest finding new news sources, perhaps try some of the "fake news". Because had you been paying attention you would be aware that the government shutdown was caused because trump wouldn't sign a bill he previously said he would, a bill that passed congress with bipartisan support. So the facts and reality blow up your last point.

0 for 2

Not quite. When Trump showed his displeasure with the bill McConnell had sent to the HOR, the outgoing GOP house majority caved to Trump & shit in the punchbowl on their way out. Then everything reset with the new Congress. No bill passed both houses until last week.

 

[sportage]

People forget, Republicans held all the government while trump was in his first two years and even republicans in congress were not for this wall.
Remember, they could have did the wall and everything else that goes with it, but they refused to give in to Trump.
All Trump could do was make executive actions to ban transgenders from the military and end DACA, or try too. But no wall.
Trump's wall republicans would have nothing to do with.
Even most republicans in congress know the wall is a waste of their time and your money, will not stop illegal immigration, and even for them a wall just feels immoral.
So NOW Trump and the spineless republicans can simply blame Nancy Pelosi for not doing something Mitch McConnell would not do.
See how the game works?
So when you hear republicans crying about how uncooperative democrats are acting, remember the reality of the matter.
Republicans could have, but they wouldn't.
So don't expect the cowboy in the white hat to help the bad guy in the red hat rob banks and kill innocent children.