Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 313
  1. #261
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,529
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Mican I have not heard that message from any Democrat. Rather I have heard no money at all ever.
    I very much doubt that you have heard any Democrat say no money at all ever but if you have, please present the statement. Direct quote with link, please.

    And the Democrats have already attempted to bargain for wall money by trading wall money for DACA protections.

    "A DACA-for-Wall deal has been on (or near) the table during immigration talks for well over a year. It probably came closest to fruition in February of 2018, when a bipartisan group of senators devised a proposal — but the White House shot it down"

    http://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2...-shutdown.html

    So it's clear that Trump can bargain with the Democrats for the wall.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Further, there is nothing wrong with negotiating now.
    I have already explained why the Democrats should not negotiate until the government is open again.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Also, also the claim that this tactic is some how out of bounds politically, seems to apply only to Republicans as I recall Obama doing the exact same thing.
    You recall incorrectly then. Obama did not do that and if you are going to argue that he did, you will need to support that assertion. Yes, there was a government shut down during the Obama years but they were not due to Obama refusing to accept a budget unless it included something he particularly wanted.

    So I have explained why the Democrats should not negotiate. They should not let Trump take the government hostage or else he can do the same thing anytime he wants something in particular. That is a very good principle IMO.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So while I think I understand that being sone principle that could apply. I don't think there is any reason to think that is an actual principle the Dems have or that they are appealing to.
    I have given a reason to think that there is an actual principle. The Democrats have directly stated the principle that I am referring to and there is no good reason to think that they don't sincerely hold that principle. I can't imagine that either political party would want to allow the opposing President to get what he wants by holding the government hostage.

  2. Likes CowboyX liked this post
  3. #262
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    This isn't a reasonable request.
    Sure it is, it is a priority that only represents a very small fraction of the gov budget, and... and the gov has done this before.


    ---
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I very much doubt that you have heard any Democrat say no money at all ever but if you have, please present the statement. Direct quote with link, please.
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    "No, no. Nothing for the wall," Pelosi answered. "We're talking about border security."
    Pelosi
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._the_wall.html
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Trump Rejects Democratic Funding Plan That Seeks to Reopen Government Without Wall Money
    Pelosi also said she would do it for a dollar of wall funding... which was clearly a joking slap in the face to the idea of ANY wall funding.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Direct quote with link, please.
    You asked for support, so I want to ask that you recognize that I did support it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    So it's clear that Trump can bargain with the Democrats for the wall.
    The quote is from feb 2018.
    so it isn't reflective of anything going on currently.
    Right now, my links and supports are current, and they are consistently NO to any wall funding.
    Even in your link the bill put up by pelosi had no money for the wall.
    So it isn't like a compromise, it is just a "no.. never" kind of thing.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I have already explained why the Democrats should not negotiate until the government is open again.
    I heard you, but I don't see that it reflects anything the dems are saying. So it kinda isn't relevant to what is being said here.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    You recall incorrectly then. Obama did not do that and if you are going to argue that he did, you will need to support that assertion. Yes, there was a government shut down during the Obama years but they were not due to Obama refusing to accept a budget unless it included something he particularly wanted.
    Regarding the claim that Obama shut the gov down in a similar manner...
    https://www.politifact.com/facebook-...hutdowns-same/
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    The situation in 2013 was more complicated than today. Obama, like Trump, aimed to protect a favored policy. But he also wanted to raise the debt limit, an issue of at least equal importance. We rate this claim Half True.
    so, my memory is not really wrong. Obama sought to protect his favored issues...
    And, they wanted a higher debt celing, which itself is like asking for funding for a wall.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So I have explained why the Democrats should not negotiate. They should not let Trump take the government hostage or else he can do the same thing anytime he wants something in particular. That is a very good principle IMO.
    I have heard you say this. The reason that it isn't convincing for me personally, is because this is how the gov works.
    The pres has to sign a budget for it to count. Which gives him say and power over the direction. The ONLY power he has to influence it is to refuse to sign it and "hold them hostage".
    what you are calling taking hostages, is really how the gov just works. That is the source of all past gov shutdowns involving a presidents refusal to sign.

    So it isn't really anything new, and not something that I am particularly against. Again, because it is how the gov is designed.
    if the pres didn't have the power to do exactly this, then our gov would be very different.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I have given a reason to think that there is an actual principle. The Democrats have directly stated the principle that I am referring to and there is no good reason to think that they don't sincerely hold that principle. I can't imagine that either political party would want to allow the opposing President to get what he wants by holding the government hostage.
    I havent' seen you post any quotes that support that they are appealing to this principle, or any proof that it pre-dates this specific empass.
    I mean, I know they are saying "holding hostage" but that doesn't make it a principle, it makes it a slogan to fit the current politics.
    I think you would have to show some history of this "principle" in order to claim it is a principle.

    so. long winded..
    Support your claim that this is a democratic party principle.


    ---edit.. more support for first claim
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    https://politicalwire.com/2019/01/03...ll-is-immoral/
    ewly elected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized President Trump’s proposed border wall as “a waste of money” and “an immorality” during a news conference hours after reclaiming the gavel in the new Congress, CNN reports.

    Said Pelosi: “We’re not doing a wall. Does anybody have any doubt? We are not doing a wall.”
    Wall is immoral, and dems aren't "doing it".
    I think that my impression that they are not going to give any money for the wall is well founded, and supported beyond any reasonable expectation.
    To serve man.

  4. #263
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,529
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The quote is from feb 2018.
    so it isn't reflective of anything going on currently.
    Right now, my links and supports are current, and they are consistently NO to any wall funding.
    Even in your link the bill put up by pelosi had no money for the wall.
    So it isn't like a compromise, it is just a "no.. never" kind of thing.
    Nope.

    They are still open to negotiating for wall money.

    This article is from earlier this month.


    "Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., and Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., have both said they would be willing to provide some border wall funding as part of a deal that would preserve DACA. Graham has similarly suggested a compromise could be reached that would include border wall funding in exchange for DACA protections."

    https://news.yahoo.com/shutdown-impa...022414280.html

    So it's quite clear that Democrats currently are willing to negotiate for the wall.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    so, my memory is not really wrong. Obama sought to protect his favored issues...
    And, they wanted a higher debt celing, which itself is like asking for funding for a wall.
    As far as I can tell, the government did not shut down due to Obama vetoing the budget (the impasse happened before the budget could reach his desk).



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I have heard you say this. The reason that it isn't convincing for me personally, is because this is how the gov works.
    The pres has to sign a budget for it to count. Which gives him say and power over the direction. The ONLY power he has to influence it is to refuse to sign it and "hold them hostage".
    what you are calling taking hostages, is really how the gov just works. That is the source of all past gov shutdowns involving a presidents refusal to sign.
    No, I don't think any of the past shutdowns would qualify as "hostage taking" as in a President just refused to budge on what he wanted and stood by as the shutdown got worse and worse in the hopes that the "pain" would get so bad that the other side would cave and give him what he wanted. I would guess that most prior shutdown ended with both sides hurriedly negotiating and trying to find a compromise to the government would re-open ASAP. So while the system allows a President to "take hostages", I'm unaware of any prior President doing so and therefore reject your argument that what's going on is just how government typically works.

    But either way, even if a prior President had "taken hostages" in the past, the opposition party would just as justified in not giving in to the hostage-taker as the Democrats are justified now.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So it isn't really anything new, and not something that I am particularly against. Again, because it is how the gov is designed.
    if the pres didn't have the power to do exactly this, then our gov would be very different.
    Well, there's a difference between "can" and "should" and just because government is designed to allow him to do it does not mean that it's right for him to do it.

    Unless you haven't been paying attention to the shutdown at all (and I doubt that's the case), you have to be aware of the problems and suffering and even danger that it's causing. Our airport security and food safety protections are being hampered, for starters. Unless you are completely blasé about all of this, then you should be against any shutdown unless there is a very good reason for it. And there doesn't appear to be a particularly good reason for this one.

    If we are to hold that Trump sincerely believes that it's for the good of the country that the budget contain the 5 billion for the wall, then it would stand to reason that he would insist that it be in the original budget. But he didn't.

    "Although Trump initially did not include this request within the upcoming bill a House-passed continuing resolution to fund the United States Government, members of his party criticised him over this decision, forcing him to reverse his decision and include it."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govern..._United_States

    So all of the damage being caused by the shutdown is so Trump doesn't look bad to fellow conservatives?

    Maybe you're alright with that but one has ample justification to think that the damage being inflicted is not worth the price to pay so Trump doesn't look so bad to his base.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I havent' seen you post any quotes that support that they are appealing to this principle, or any proof that it pre-dates this specific empass.
    I mean, I know they are saying "holding hostage" but that doesn't make it a principle, it makes it a slogan to fit the current politics.
    I think you would have to show some history of this "principle" in order to claim it is a principle.
    I know I've heard them say that they won't give in to this situation or else he can just do the same thing in the future. That is the principle and reasoning that I am referring to.

    If you are going to try to argue that that is not semantically a "principle", then you are just playing word games.

    The point is they are correct in the reasoning and their actions regarding it. What specific word gets applied to it is not the point.


    .
    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Support your claim that this is a democratic party principle.
    I didn't say it was a Democratic Party Principle. I just said that it's a principle.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Wall is immoral, and dems aren't "doing it".
    I think that my impression that they are not going to give any money for the wall is well founded, and supported beyond any reasonable expectation.
    The notion that they don't want to give him any money for the wall is well-founded. The notion that they will never, ever, no-matter-what give him any wall money is pretty much shot down by the DACA-for-Wall deal. As supported, some Democrats are open to making the deal in the future. So the money for the wall is not off the table. I think that particular point is settled here.

  5. Likes CowboyX liked this post
  6. #264
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So it's quite clear that Democrats currently are willing to negotiate for the wall.
    The people you are quoting are not in charge of that negotiation... as far as I can tell.
    The leaders Pelosi and Chuck are.
    So I am not sure how much your source supports that "democrats" as a party are willing to move on funding the wall.
    So far, non of the legislation they put forward has moved on that point.

    I don't think you have countered my claim so as to make it false and I think I have supported it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    As far as I can tell, the government did not shut down due to Obama vetoing the budget (the impasse happened before the budget could reach his desk).
    So what!? Trump hasn't vetoed anything.
    That is a ridiculous added criteria.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'm unaware of any prior President doing so and therefore reject your argument that what's going on is just how government typically works.
    Then you are being nieve to the meaning of words when presidents say "I won't sighn X bill". that statement doesn't allways lead to a shutdown, because it threatens the pain that we are seing now.
    To think that such a threat only first started to be a thing, is a gross misunderstanding of what it means for a president to say "I won't sighn X bill".

    Now, what is different, is that dems and the pres are being staunch on this point. Which makes us weight the consequence.
    So a small demand from the president, being met with a shut-down respons from the opposition, would be poor reasoning on their part.
    However, a huge demand from the president, would be poor reasoning on his part.

    That this shut down is over such a small budget matter, and has zero principles inolved... means that it is the dems being unreasonable for the sake of opposition.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Well, there's a difference between "can" and "should" and just because government is designed to allow him to do it does not mean that it's right for him to do it.
    Well, the argument for "should" is subjective. I think he should, because it appears that it won't get done unless he throws the weight of his office around. Which means refusal to sign a bill that doesn't have it.
    Because he CAN means he isn't doing anything inherently wrong, and that the burden is on the opposition to show that that he "shouldn't".
    I don't see that argument being made anywhere.

    If I thought he COULD have gotten this done apart from a shut down, then I would agree that he "shouldn't" do it like this. But it hasn't happened. So it appears that it is going to take this kind of use of power (or rather here the denial of use), to get this very small matter resolved, and that is all on the dems for being so oppositional.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Unless you haven't been paying attention to the shutdown at all (and I doubt that's the case), you have to be aware of the problems and suffering and even danger that it's causing. Our airport security and food safety protections are being hampered, for starters. Unless you are completely blasé about all of this, then you should be against any shutdown unless there is a very good reason for it. And there doesn't appear to be a particularly good reason for this one.
    I don't particularly care for the so called "danger".
    I mean airpot security, is just security theater anyway. So I don't agree or belive that it creates some danger.
    Now it may create an enjoyable flying experience.. i mean for those who don't like to be felt up by strangers (joke).
    as to the "pain". I guess I am kinda for that.. in that I would like to see many gov workers lose their gov jobs permanently.. as I am for smaller gov.
    Not because I don't like those people.. but it is a reality of my position on smaller gov.
    So, I can hardly cry about a smaller gov when I do get it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If we are to hold that Trump sincerely believes that it's for the good of the country that the budget contain the 5 billion for the wall, then it would stand to reason that he would insist that it be in the original budget. But he didn't.
    Well, as it was a campaign promise, I think the evidence is aplenty that this is an issue for him. What you are left to complain about is the timing.
    Which I don't have a problem with, and don't see it as an issue that would call into question that this is an issue. I mean I litterall voted for him for this specific reason.
    So if your telling me that it isn't really an issue, then you have a ways to go to convince me of that. I'm all ears for the timing, but as long asthis is politically the best time to push this issue.. then I see no problem with him coming to that realization... as I think it is correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So all of the damage being caused by the shutdown is so Trump doesn't look bad to fellow conservatives?
    Yea, because apprently without this level of preasure.. no deal is going to get done with the dems. It didn't get done when the republicans only needed a few of them (10), and it isn't going to get done now that they need MORE of them.
    So.. Yea, this appears to be apolitical inevitability if there is to be movement on this.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Maybe you're alright with that but one has ample justification to think that the damage being inflicted is not worth the price to pay so Trump doesn't look so bad to his base.
    I don't think it is worth it, that is why I think the dems should give the money.. because it shouldn't be an issue for the elected president to dictate .008% of the budget.
    Especially when said budget requires his approval. I mean.. is he not supposed to have a say? .. and what form or force would it have other than this exact thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I know I've heard them say that they won't give in to this situation or else he can just do the same thing in the future. That is the principle and reasoning that I am referring to.
    I am asking you to support that.. like you asked me to support when I said I know they said they weren't going to fund the wall.. no funding etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If you are going to try to argue that that is not semantically a "principle", then you are just playing word games.
    A principle is something that doesn't change. Dems have clearly changed on this issue. So it isn't a principle.
    As I haven't even heard a single one appealing to it, you haven't supported that it is an actual principle being applied.
    I think that you think it is a good idea for this to be the reason.. but in actuality it is not, so it isn't an issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    The point is they are correct in the reasoning and their actions regarding it. What specific word gets applied to it is not the point.
    cHALLENGE
    Support that it is their reasoning. Specifically the reasoning of dem leadership that are engaged in the negotiations with the president.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I didn't say it was a Democratic Party Principle. I just said that it's a principle.
    That makes no sense. Your talking about a principle of the democrats. That means it is a principle of the party, that presumably would apply in other situations.. like any time a president says "i won't sign a bill".
    You are not offering support, but hope.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    The notion that they will never, ever, no-matter-what give him any wall money is pretty much shot down by the DACA-for-Wall deal. As supported, some Democrats are open to making the deal in the future. So the money for the wall is not off the table. I think that particular point is settled here.
    Not really. Your support used dem's that are not in negotiation with the president, and thus don't represent any force in the negotiations.
    Those actually negotiation on behalf of the dem party, have said (and I supported) that they are not going to fund the wall. That it isn't going to happen.
    I have never heard them say that it will IF.. insert criteria or demand.. is met. Instead they have called immoral, and called the president a crybaby, throwing a tantrum.

    So, no it isn't supported that they will in the future plan to fund the wall. They have made it clear that the president doesn't get a say, and should sign the bill they want.. all of which have had zero wall funding.

    ----Summary of the issue for me---
    Look the president represents the Americans that put him into office for his campaign promises. That one such promise requires so little, means that the president and congress should easily get this done. The only reason it isn't done, is because dems don't want Trump to "win" on this issue. So it comes to this, Trump's only power over the budget is to say "I won't sign it". So he is using his power, as he should. Now the dems are also elected... but I don't believe they were elected to keep trump from doing anything. It is because of their past history of being "for" this issue that makes it even less of a thing. So their willingness to allow the impasse to keep the gov from running shows that they are being unreasonable. If this was their version of the abortion issue, I would understand, but because of their hypocrisy .. I don't. Now trump could have used other timing. But I think this is just sort of the time to get it done. The dems are willing to kick this down the road as long as it takes and it is going to take the Pres forcing the issue to get it addressed. So I don't have a problem with the timing. As to "negotiations", the clock started when dems took control and met with the pres. After 20 some odd days, we can see the nature of the negotiations. Dems don't want to, they want the president to give up. .. .. so here we are.
    Because I don't think the dems are being reasonable, I am fine with the shut down till they stop being so opposition. If they truly want the gov shut down to end, they will give up something. Unfortunatly, that means trump is going to get something.. and we can't have that. We can't have people actually getting what they voted for.
    To serve man.

  7. #265
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,117
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    You certainly did..."The federal gov't has expanded"...you're welcome to back peddle.
    In context:
    "The federal gov't has expanded well past it's constitutional mandate and threatens the US's continued existence by saddling taxpayers with unreasonable debt!"

    Though I do personally believe that the Fed has grown larger (in number of employees, agencies, boards, advisory committees, etc) than it should, I did not say the constitution addresses that aspect at all.
    I meant the Fed has grown in scope, or seeks control of, areas of life not spoken of in the constitution. The number of depts., agencies, governing bodies, taxing districts, etc at the federal level is mind boggling.

    That we borrow over $.40 for every dollar spent in the federal budget should scare anyone that believes America should/could continue on our current path.



    ---------- Post added at 09:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Oh it makes me happy (and frankly surprised) to see you with such a position
    Perhaps someday we can agree that BOTH parties are spending the US down a very dangerous path (financially).
    [COLOR="Silver"]
    I will note you decided against commenting about this part of the last post.

    I knew liberals believe that Bill & Hillary aren't even capable of doing anything wrong, but it seems you exempt the democrats from any part of our current physical dilemma at the federal level??

    ---------- Post added at 09:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Horseshit.
    "horse ****" indeed, but only at the liberal level of "thought processes".....
    Last edited by Belthazor; January 13th, 2019 at 08:40 PM.

  8. #266
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,529
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The people you are quoting are not in charge of that negotiation... as far as I can tell.
    The leaders Pelosi and Chuck are.
    So I am not sure how much your source supports that "democrats" as a party are willing to move on funding the wall.
    I think it supports it very well. There is no "King of the Democrats" who unilaterally makes negotiation decisions for all Democrats. They all vote on a budget and therefore they all get a say in whether the wall is funded in the future or not. So the Democrats may very well at some point agree for wall funding. If you are going to argue that such a scenario is impossible, please support.

    And besides that, you have not show that Nancy Pelosi has take the position of "No wall funder EVER". The current refusal for funding is in regards to adding it to the current budget in order to end the shut down and is not a statement about other negotiations that might take place in the future. It's entirely conceivable that Pelosi will support the Wall-for-DACA compromise if it gains traction. Can you support that she would not?



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So what!? Trump hasn't vetoed anything.
    That is a ridiculous added criteria.
    I meant refusing to approve the budget. To repeat, the shut down during the Obama years was not due to Obama refusing to accept the budget.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Then you are being nieve to the meaning of words when presidents say "I won't sighn X bill". that statement doesn't allways lead to a shutdown, because it threatens the pain that we are seing now.
    To think that such a threat only first started to be a thing, is a gross misunderstanding of what it means for a president to say "I won't sighn X bill".
    That in no way rebuts my argument so I will repeat the main point so it doesn't get forgotten.

    I'm unaware of any prior President doing (what Trump is doing) and therefore reject your argument that what's going on is just how government typically works.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Now, what is different, is that dems and the pres are being staunch on this point. Which makes us weight the consequence.
    So a small demand from the president, being met with a shut-down respons from the opposition, would be poor reasoning on their part.
    However, a huge demand from the president, would be poor reasoning on his part.

    That this shut down is over such a small budget matter, and has zero principles inolved... means that it is the dems being unreasonable for the sake of opposition.
    I think you are misrepresenting what is going on. The fact is the Republicans had both houses of Congress for two years and this "small budget matter" was not passed in all of that time. I don't know why that is but it clearly shows that it wasn't just some small budget matter that would be really easy to make happen. Otherwise, the money would have already been spent.

    So you are going to need to support your assertion before I will accept it. Currently, it does not seem to be accurate.

    And you cannot use your lack of awareness on the reasons that the Democrats don't want the wall as the basis of an argument that says that they are not opposing the wall on principles. Chuck Shumer has clearly stated why they won't approve the wall.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If I thought he COULD have gotten this done apart from a shut down, then I would agree that he "shouldn't" do it like this. But it hasn't happened. So it appears that it is going to take this kind of use of power (or rather here the denial of use), to get this very small matter resolved, and that is all on the dems for being so oppositional.
    He's had two years with Republican controlling both houses to get wall funding. And as I have supported, he can negotiate for wall funding in the future since Democrats may make a deal. I see no support for the position that this is the only way he could get funding and therefore reject that as a premise.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't particularly care for the so called "danger".
    I mean airpot security, is just security theater anyway. So I don't agree or belive that it creates some danger.
    Now it may create an enjoyable flying experience.. i mean for those who don't like to be felt up by strangers (joke).
    as to the "pain". I guess I am kinda for that.. in that I would like to see many gov workers lose their gov jobs permanently.. as I am for smaller gov.
    Not because I don't like those people.. but it is a reality of my position on smaller gov.
    So, I can hardly cry about a smaller gov when I do get it.
    Do you care about whether your lettuce has e coli on it? Food safety is compromised.
    Would you like to see your tax refund? Not until the government re-opens.
    Do you think that those who are still working should get paid for the hours they worked?

    I won't argue with you about whether smaller government is desirable or not but even if one wants to shrink government, this is clearly not the way to shrink it. You shrink government in a rational gradual manner so it causes as least harm to the employees and the public as possible. So even if we are going to shrink the government, we first have to re-open the government and then work out a plan to properly shrink it. What is going on is harmful.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, as it was a campaign promise, I think the evidence is aplenty that this is an issue for him. What you are left to complain about is the timing.
    Which I don't have a problem with, and don't see it as an issue that would call into question that this is an issue. I mean I litterall voted for him for this specific reason.
    So if your telling me that it isn't really an issue, then you have a ways to go to convince me of that. I'm all ears for the timing, but as long asthis is politically the best time to push this issue.. then I see no problem with him coming to that realization... as I think it is correct.
    This does not rebut my argument at all. To summarize, I have supported that he is doing this in order to make himself look good in the eyes of his base instead of out of serious concern for border safety. Nothing in your argument supports that he is currently fighting for the wall for a reason other than the one I stated.

    Do you not agree that Trump should not shut down the government primarily to avoid looking bad to certain people?



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yea, because apprently without this level of preasure.. no deal is going to get done with the dems. It didn't get done when the republicans only needed a few of them (10), and it isn't going to get done now that they need MORE of them.
    So.. Yea, this appears to be apolitical inevitability if there is to be movement on this.
    You will need to support that he could not or cannot make a deal with the Dems before I will accept an argument with that premise.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't think it is worth it, that is why I think the dems should give the money.. because it shouldn't be an issue for the elected president to dictate .008% of the budget.
    Especially when said budget requires his approval. I mean.. is he not supposed to have a say? .. and what form or force would it have other than this exact thing?
    Here's a form - A deal that the Democrats will accept. If you are saying that such a thing cannot happen, please support. I will forward that it's possible that the revived Wall-for-Daca problem will result in wall funding. If you are saying that such a thing cannot happen, please support.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I am asking you to support that.. like you asked me to support when I said I know they said they weren't going to fund the wall.. no funding etc.
    I'm not going to support it. So I do not forward it as something that is "true" but instead it is something that I believe. I heard a Democrat say it on NPR radio and therefore believe that that is a reason they are not budging.

    Now, let's remember where the burden lies. You are arguing that the Democrats are not using principles in this negotiation which means not only is my belief unsupported but it factually wrong. So unless you can show me that I'm wrong, that Democrats don't hold the principle that I believe they do along with any other principle, your argument fails.

    So I'l say that I believe that they hold the principle I mentioned and have been presented with no argument that supports that I should believe otherwise.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    A principle is something that doesn't change. Dems have clearly changed on this issue. So it isn't a principle.
    This does not logically follow (as written). Maybe lay it out in a logic chain.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That makes no sense. Your talking about a principle of the democrats. That means it is a principle of the party, that presumably would apply in other situations.. like any time a president says "i won't sign a bill".
    You are not offering support, but hope.
    I didn't say "principle of the Democrats" but just "principle". And if this helps clear things up, if someone follows a principle on Monday and then doesn't follow the principle on Tuesday, you can call them hypocrites or whatever but you cannot say that they did not follow the principle on Monday.

    But either way, you have not identified a situation where the Democrats failed to adhere to the principle they are using (if there is one) in the face-off with Trump So even if you want to say that violated principle is no principle, you have not shown that they violated the principle they are using here.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not really. Your support used dem's that are not in negotiation with the president, and thus don't represent any force in the negotiations.
    Those actually negotiation on behalf of the dem party, have said (and I supported) that they are not going to fund the wall. That it isn't going to happen.
    I have never heard them say that it will IF.. insert criteria or demand.. is met. Instead they have called immoral, and called the president a crybaby, throwing a tantrum.
    1. All Dems have a voice in negotiations over budgets since they all have a vote. If the majority of Democrats and Republicans want the Wall-for-Daca deal, it will very likely happen.
    2. You have not supported that Pelosi has said that she will never allow wall funding. Again, she was talking about the CURRENT budget and therefore her statement cannot be considered true for future negotiations for the wall.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, no it isn't supported that they will in the future plan to fund the wall.
    Shifting the burden. You need to show that they will not negotiate in the future to support many of your arguments (like the shutdown is the only way to get his wall) are supported.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    They have made it clear that the president doesn't get a say, and should sign the bill they want.. all of which have had zero wall funding.
    Actually, the President did have a say. He could have included a request for the wall in the bill. From the article I used earlier.

    "Although Trump initially did not include this request within the upcoming bill a House-passed continuing resolution to fund the United States Government, members of his party criticised him over this decision, forcing him to reverse his decision and include it."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govern..._United_States



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Look the president represents the Americans that put him into office for his campaign promises. That one such promise requires so little, means that the president and congress should easily get this done. The only reason it isn't done, is because dems don't want Trump to "win" on this issue.[So it comes to this, Trump's only power over the budget is to say "I won't sign it".So he is using his power, as he should. Now the dems are also elected... but I don't believe they were elected to keep trump from doing anything. It is because of their past history of being "for" this issue that makes it even less of a thing. So their willingness to allow the impasse to keep the gov from running shows that they are being unreasonable.]If this was their version of the abortion issue, I would understand, but because of their hypocrisy .. I don't. Now trump could have used other timing. But I think this is just sort of the time to get it done. The dems are willing to kick this down the road as long as it takes and it is going to take the Pres forcing the issue to get it addressed. So I don't have a problem with the timing. As to "negotiations", the clock started when dems took control and met with the pres. After 20 some odd days, we can see the nature of the negotiations. Dems don't want to, they want the president to give up. .. .. so here we are.
    Because I don't think the dems are being reasonable, I am fine with the shut down till they stop being so opposition. If they truly want the gov shut down to end, they will give up something. Unfortunatly, that means trump is going to get something.. and we can't have that. We can't have people actually getting what they voted for.
    Well, I think you might be just telling me what you think here instead of trying to make a challengeable argument. If so, fair enough. I think it's very incorrect on many levels with many unsupported assertions but I don't plan to offer a rebuttal because it doesn't seem to be forwarded as debate.

    But maybe I'm wrong. So if you are indeed forwarding this as "factual" and therefore welcome a challenge, let me know and I will rebut.

    Instead I will offer my own summary of what I think is going on. First off, Trump is not sincerely concerned about the US having a wall. It was something that he said in the campaign that the crowds reacted strongly to and thus became a central plank of his campaign. And now that he's President he only wants the wall because he will look bad if he doesn't make it happen. There is plenty of evidence that the wall will not be particularly effective at pretty much anything and border security money is better spent in other ways but that doesn't matter to Trump. He needs to make the wall happen so he won't look bad. And the Democrats are opposing it for solid reasons, including that it's not a wise way to spend money for border security. And they are refusing to give in to the "hostage taking" because it can lead to the same tactic being employed in the future.
    Last edited by mican333; January 14th, 2019 at 07:42 AM.

  9. #267
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,796
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I meant the Fed has grown in scope, or seeks control of, areas of life not spoken of in the constitution.
    You'll have to point to where in the constitution such things are prohibited. Exploration of outer space, NASA, for example, is not mentioned in the constitution. Show how that is prohibited.

    ---------- Post added at 12:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post

    "horse ****" indeed, but only at the liberal level of "thought processes".....
    Indeed, that which brought us the enlightenment and revolution. Maybe someday you'll decide to get on the trolley and ditch the powdered wig.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  10. #268
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    @ mican. You are moving the goal posts. You asked for support to my assertion that the dems(as a group) have stated no wall money, ever. I provided quotes to support that they spoke in those terms. They called it immoral (which imploes never) they spoke of no money for the wall absolutely.
    Now you are shifting it to be some claim to an actuality. Like that they will actually never provide wall funding, as opposed to just talking like it.
    That is moving the goal posts without recognizing that I supported the original claim.

    It is not my claim that Dems will not move in the future on this issue. Only that right now their position of "negotiation" is to say no to wall funding and not offer any future compromise to provide the wall funding being asked for.
    Also, while you say there is no king of the Dems, there are leaders and it is perfectly reasonable to take the leaders as the proper representatives of the party. So your counter argument is not valid as it uses non leaders of the party and presents them as relevant to the negotiations.

    Then there is the issue of past republican control. And this is where I am unsure. So maybe you can shed some light. While the Republicans had the majority and could set the agenda, they did not have a super majority so as to be able to pass whatever they wanted. The rep always needed 10 votes from Dems in the Senate and the Dems are not moving (per leadership).
    If you disagree with this political reality.. let me know. But in your response you have taken the approach that there would not have been this conflict on these line before now. And that doesn't seem to be correct.
    To serve man.

  11. #269
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,529
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    @ mican. You are moving the goal posts. You asked for support to my assertion that the dems(as a group) have stated no wall money, ever.
    And you have not provided a direct quote with them actually saying the words "never" or "ever" nor made a supported argument that they intend to never fund the wall, especially in the face of my support that some are indeed willing to negotiate wall funding for DACA protections.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I provided quotes to support that they spoke in those terms. They called it immoral (which imploes never) they spoke of no money for the wall absolutely.
    I am unaware of any "absolutely" quote from any Democrat and saying it's immoral does not imply that they are unwilling to negotiate. Obviously when one negotiates they are willing to allow for something that they would otherwise oppose, even if the opposition is on moral grounds.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Now you are shifting it to be some claim to an actuality. Like that they will actually never provide wall funding, as opposed to just talking like it.
    That is moving the goal posts without recognizing that I supported the original claim.
    But you didn't support it.

    Your strongest argument is Pelosi said she will not fund the wall. But that is in reference to the government shutdown ONLY and therefore cannot be construed as saying she will never fund the wall. It is neither an absolutist or "ever" statement.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is not my claim that Dems will not move in the future on this issue. Only that right now their position of "negotiation" is to say no to wall funding and not offer any future compromise to provide the wall funding being asked for.
    Also, while you say there is no king of the Dems, there are leaders and it is perfectly reasonable to take the leaders as the proper representatives of the party. So your counter argument is not valid as it uses non leaders of the party and presents them as relevant to the negotiations.
    I have supported that they are relevant to the negotiation in my prior post. Anyone who gets a vote is relevant to budget negotiations and if a majority of the Democrats approve of a deal, then it's likely to be a deal that the Democrats will support regardless of whether Pelosi wants it or not. And you have not at all supported that Pelosi would be against the Wall-for-Daca deal. She certainly never said that she would oppose it.

    So I forward the it's entirely possible that in the future, the house Dems, along with Pelosi, will agree to fund the wall for Daca protections and therefore there are ways to get wall money beyond what Trump is currently doing (which, btw, does not appear to be a tactic that will work for getting wall funding).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Then there is the issue of past republican control. And this is where I am unsure. So maybe you can shed some light. While the Republicans had the majority and could set the agenda, they did not have a super majority so as to be able to pass whatever they wanted. The rep always needed 10 votes from Dems in the Senate and the Dems are not moving (per leadership).
    If you disagree with this political reality.. let me know. But in your response you have taken the approach that there would not have been this conflict on these line before now. And that doesn't seem to be correct.
    Well, I was just bringing it up to show that an argument of yours does not seem to align with the political reality and not seeking to make a particular argument of my own. So I have no further comment on this at this time.

  12. #270
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,117
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    You'll have to point to where in the constitution such things are prohibited. Exploration of outer space, NASA, for example, is not mentioned in the constitution. Show how that is prohibited.[COLOR="Silver"]
    I don't believe I said "prohibited"...

    However,
    (Wiki)
    The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. It expresses the principle of federalism and states' rights, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution for the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.

    ---------- Post added at 05:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:18 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Indeed, that which brought us the enlightenment and revolution.
    Would you be so good as to expand on this thought please? I am not sure I understand what you mean.

    ---------- Post added at 05:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:19 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Maybe someday you'll decide to get on the trolley and ditch the powdered wig.
    That I hate political correctness, have seen good intentions get people killed, and I am less likely to make decisions with my heart, does not make me a republican.

    Straight out of school I worked a union job and was quite liberal. Probably not quite as far left as you seem, but I was liberal and outspoken about it.

    It scares me that liberals can/will not admit the democrats have/are contributing to a $trillion per year deficit. We could spend all day talking about republican failures, as there is no shortage of that, but democrats are the second piece of a two piece puzzle. The US can't continue on it's current path indefinitely. Interest on our debt is about to overtake military spending, baby boomers are about to retire in masse, and we continue to steal...I mean barrow from the Social Security trust to fund current expenditures. The US barrowed $0.46 for every $1.00 it spent in 2013! It hasn't gotten better since then.

    But instead of telling these asshats in congress get it done per your oath of office, we should just keep bickering whether the rep's or dem's are the worst! It really doesn't matter who is worst, they both suck. We have actual problems that affect everyone's ability to live in a "free" country, but we worry about redefining words and what Kim Kardashian is doing....

    Tell me three things the US gov't does well if you can. I have asked dozens of people and nobody has been able to. I haven't had to argue against any answers so far because nobody has ever given me an answer other than the military.

    Some of the scariest words in the English language are (per Ronald Reagan):
    "I'm from the gov't and I'm here to help"
    Last edited by Belthazor; January 14th, 2019 at 04:47 PM.

  13. #271
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And you have not provided a direct quote with them actually saying the words "never" or "ever" nor made a supported argument that they intend to never fund the wall, especially in the face of my support that some are indeed willing to negotiate wall funding for DACA protections.
    Certainly I have. I offered the quotes of them saying that a wall is immoral, and statements of them saying "no" emphatically to any wall.

    You are the one that is saying those things are in the context of "right now" and with a limiting factor of the shut down.
    That is not apparent to their language or their approach.

    So I have in fact offered evidence, you are just inserting your own reasoning, without supporting that it is also THEIR reasoning.
    When I challenged you you said it was just your opinion

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I am unaware of any "absolutely" quote from any Democrat and saying it's immoral does not imply that they are unwilling to negotiate. Obviously when one negotiates they are willing to allow for something that they would otherwise oppose, even if the opposition is on moral grounds.
    No, that is not obvious at all. They said no, and they have not stated any mitigating factor. Like "no.. until we get the gov going".
    It has been "no wall, absolutly not.. why are we still talking about a wall".

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But you didn't support it.

    Your strongest argument is Pelosi said she will not fund the wall. But that is in reference to the government shutdown ONLY and therefore cannot be construed as saying she will never fund the wall. It is neither an absolutist or "ever" statement.
    Challenge
    Support that it is a reference to the shut down only.
    the quote I provided did not say anything about it being limited to the shut down, and that is just you projecting your own reasoning onto the situation, in order to deny that I supported my claim.

    You are once again mistaking your disagreement, with my offering support, with me not offering any. It's annoying, and I would like to think comes off different then you intend it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I have supported that they are relevant to the negotiation in my prior post. Anyone who gets a vote is relevant to budget negotiations and if a majority of the Democrats approve of a deal, then it's likely to be a deal that the Democrats will support regardless of whether Pelosi wants it or not. And you have not at all supported that Pelosi would be against the Wall-for-Daca deal. She certainly never said that she would oppose it.
    I don't have to prove a negative. You have to prove a positive.
    Namely that their "no" is contentment and not absolute.
    A "no" is an absolute statement until some contingent is introduced.. and you have been challenged in this post to provide that support for your claim that there is some stated contingent.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So I forward the it's entirely possible that in the future, the house Dems, along with Pelosi, will agree to fund the wall for Daca protections and therefore there are ways to get wall money beyond what Trump is currently doing (which, btw, does not appear to be a tactic that will work for getting wall funding).
    Of course it is POSSIBLE. No one is arguing that it isn't possible. on day 500 of the shutdown the dems POSSIBLY give trump dictatorial powers.
    This is not about what is POSSIBLE. This is about what they are saying, and the current state of the negotiations.
    Which you don't seem to understand the actual condition or state of.

    ---
    From previous post

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Well, I was just bringing it up to show that an argument of yours does not seem to align with the political reality and not seeking to make a particular argument of my own. So I have no further comment on this at this time.
    Yea, and what you brought up doesn't seem to reflect the political reality that the republicans never had the votes.
    Your portrail that they did in the past but didn't do it, appears to be incorrect.. so unless you have more information to add, what you brought up is not actually true or relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I meant refusing to approve the budget. To repeat, the shut down during the Obama years was not due to Obama refusing to accept the budget.
    Not true. The obama shut down was directly related to Obama saying he would veto appropriations bills.
    while it wasn't a "budget" it was still the same thing.. funding the gov.
    So no real distinction.
    https://www.politifact.com/facebook-...hutdowns-same/
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    But if Obamacare was one rallying cry, the debt ceiling turned out to be just as important. The government was closing in on the legal limit of $16.699 trillion in debt. Without the flexibility to borrow more, Washington faced the prospect of not being able to pay back Treasury notes as they came due. Republicans wanted broader spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt limit.

    At the time, Republicans controlled the House, and Democrats held the Senate. Obama had said he would veto any bill that defunded Obamacare. His veto threat and the Democratic-controlled Senate doomed any measure that undermined the fledgling health care program.

    The House passed several bills that eliminated Obamacare funding, and the Senate kept stripping out those provisions.
    (From above, I understand those "bills" to be debt and spending bills.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    That in no way rebuts my argument so I will repeat the main point so it doesn't get forgotten.

    I'm unaware of any prior President doing (what Trump is doing) and therefore reject your argument that what's going on is just how government typically works.
    It does rebut your point, because it points out the context and meaning of the balances of power when it comes to veto's regarding budget and spending issues.
    The pres assertion of a veto is the same as what trump is actually doing. As trump has not vetoed anything. The effects may be different, but that is not because what the president is doing is itself different.
    Your claim to be ignorant, is not evidence that this is not an actual rebuttal, or doesn't rebut your point.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I think you are misrepresenting what is going on. The fact is the Republicans had both houses of Congress for two years and this "small budget matter" was not passed in all of that time. I don't know why that is but it clearly shows that it wasn't just some small budget matter that would be really easy to make happen. Otherwise, the money would have already been spent.
    My point was that it is a small budget matter (which is undesputable) therefore it SHOULDN'T be a big deal.
    Dems are opposed to it, and have been, so that is why we are where we are. Republicans never had so much power that they didn't need the dems.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So you are going to need to support your assertion before I will accept it. Currently, it does not seem to be accurate.
    Is this a challenge to support the assertion that it is a small budget matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And you cannot use your lack of awareness on the reasons that the Democrats don't want the wall as the basis of an argument that says that they are not opposing the wall on principles. Chuck Shumer has clearly stated why they won't approve the wall.
    It isn't based on a lack of awareness, rather the awareness of the sudden change of standard.
    That isn't a principled decision of anything other than "anything but what trump wants".
    You can't campaign for a wall, and then turn around and be against it and have claim to a "principled" stance.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    He's had two years with Republican controlling both houses to get wall funding. And as I have supported, he can negotiate for wall funding in the future since Democrats may make a deal. I see no support for the position that this is the only way he could get funding and therefore reject that as a premise.
    I am not certain that this is the "only" way. However, this may be the point of most power for him to assert it.
    I think it is pretty clear that if the president doesn't have anything to veto in regards for the wall, then he can't force the issue on the dems.
    Is there another way for the president to force the issue?.. Other than threatening Veto?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Do you care about whether your lettuce has e coli on it? Food safety is compromised.
    Would you like to see your tax refund? Not until the government re-opens.
    Do you think that those who are still working should get paid for the hours they worked?
    1) not a big issue, and not something the gov stops.. people get sick, it gets reported.. then it gets stopped. So our lettuce will be fine without the gov.
    2) Everyone is going to get their tax refunds. .. may take a little longer, but we will live.
    3) People will be payed for what they worked. They may have to wait for their paycheck.. but that happens to everyone. I certainly live that in my life, doctors don't get paid for months and years.
    ... so.. it's life, It sucks.. but the fact that they will be payed makes it not a huge concern for me.. or rather, not a violation of a principle that they deserve to be paid.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I won't argue with you about whether smaller government is desirable or not but even if one wants to shrink government, this is clearly not the way to shrink it. You shrink government in a rational gradual manner so it causes as least harm to the employees and the public as possible. So even if we are going to shrink the government, we first have to re-open the government and then work out a plan to properly shrink it. What is going on is harmful.
    If tomorrow I were able to pass a bill that cut the gov size in half over the next 3 years... There would be nothing but stories of heart ache and pain from those who lose their gov jobs that pay good money and support families, and all their benifits, and now they have to get re-trained, and they don't have money and some old lady is sick.

    So no, I don't accept the premise that the "pain" would be substantially different.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    This does not rebut my argument at all. To summarize, I have supported that he is doing this in order to make himself look good in the eyes of his base instead of out of serious concern for border safety. Nothing in your argument supports that he is currently fighting for the wall for a reason other than the one I stated.

    Do you not agree that Trump should not shut down the government primarily to avoid looking bad to certain people?
    You can't argue that he is trying to not look bad to his base, and ignore that he would only look bad to his base because he campaigned on his care about the boarder.
    You can't have your cake and eat it too.
    So, yea.. that rebuts your argument directly.

    No, I don't agree with your statement about trump shutting down the gov. I think he should refuse to sign, or threaten veto of any budget that doesn't fund the priorities I voted for him to push.
    I am disapointed it didn't occur sooner.. but I don't see a problem with it being now, as it is as good a time as any, and may be the best political chance it has to succeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Here's a form - A deal that the Democrats will accept. If you are saying that such a thing cannot happen, please support. I will forward that it's possible that the revived Wall-for-Daca problem will result in wall funding. If you are saying that such a thing cannot happen, please support.
    I assume there is a broken link in this portion?

    It can't happen unless the dems forward it in negotiations as a compromise.
    They are not currently doing that. so.. while it "could" happen. It is not actually occuring.
    So your just speaking about speculation, and not responding to facts on the ground.

    Also, I provide a quote from pence reflecting the dems refusal to negotiate even if they are given what they want.
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'm not going to support it. So I do not forward it as something that is "true" but instead it is something that I believe
    you can belive whatever you like. Please don't waste my time with irrelevant discussions of your opinions that you are not going to support.
    It just spams up the thread.
    My original claim stands as unrebutted.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Now, let's remember where the burden lies. You are arguing that the Democrats are not using principles in this negotiation which means not only is my belief unsupported but it factually wrong. So unless you can show me that I'm wrong, that Democrats don't hold the principle that I believe they do along with any other principle, your argument fails.
    I have no burden to respond to your opinions.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So I'l say that I believe that they hold the principle I mentioned and have been presented with no argument that supports that I should believe otherwise.
    What you believe is your business.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    This does not logically follow (as written). Maybe lay it out in a logic chain.
    1) A principle is a core belief that doesn't change with situations.
    Like, Human's life has value, is only a principle if it doesn't change with the cercumstance. Like what about black lives.. do they matter?
    2) Dems have changed on the idea of a wall. They voted for, and spoke in favore of a wall in the past, but now that trump wants it, they are against it.
    3) Therefore, Being against the wall is not a principled objection, but an objection of political convience.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I didn't say "principle of the Democrats" but just "principle". And if this helps clear things up, if someone follows a principle on Monday and then doesn't follow the principle on Tuesday, you can call them hypocrites or whatever but you cannot say that they did not follow the principle on Monday.
    sure you can, because to everyone else.. that is what it means to have principles. \
    A hypocrite is someone who doesn't have principles or fails to live according to certian principles.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But either way, you have not identified a situation where the Democrats failed to adhere to the principle they are using (if there is one) in the face-off with Trump So even if you want to say that violated principle is no principle, you have not shown that they violated the principle they are using here.
    The principle is that the wall is "immoral". That people who want the wall are racist, and that dems will not provide money for a wall.

    --Support racist--
    [QUOTE=LINK] en. Lindsey Graham went on national television Sunday morning and declared that there would be no deal to end the partial government shutdown until top Democrats stopped calling Republicans “racists” for supporting a U.S.-Mexico border wall. *

    Read more here: https://www.mcclatchydc.com/latest-n...#storylink=cpy[/QUOTE

    --Support immoral
    https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-o...htmlstory.html
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    In a “Meet the Press” interview in April 2017, she said: “The wall is, in my view, immoral, expensive, unwise.”
    --No to wall absolutly
    https://www.investors.com/politics/e...ts-hate-trump/
    Quote Originally Posted by link
    "He left the room today because Speaker Pelosi said that even if he gave her what she wanted, she would never agree to the border security priorities we have on the table," said Vice President Mike Pence, who's heading the talks to end the shutdown.
    In referance to the last "negotitations" that went on.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    1. All Dems have a voice in negotiations over budgets since they all have a vote. If the majority of Democrats and Republicans want the Wall-for-Daca deal, it will very likely happen.
    2. You have not supported that Pelosi has said that she will never allow wall funding. Again, she was talking about the CURRENT budget and therefore her statement cannot be considered true for future negotiations for the wall.
    1) Not in an equally relevant way. What pelosi and Chuck say, has more weight than what some random senator or house member has to say.
    Leadership matters, especially because they are the ones that control the priorites of the party.
    2) See above. There is no situation offered by pelosi under which a wall would be funded. You can't simply assume they will in the future, in the face of repeated denials in absolute terms in the face of concessions right now.
    The support is undeniable, and your standard is irrational.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Shifting the burden. You need to show that they will not negotiate in the future to support many of your arguments (like the shutdown is the only way to get his wall) are supported.
    My burden is to show that they are SAYING they will not provide funding for the wall, and that their claim does not contain any contegencies for the future or future changes.
    I have done that.
    You are making the positive claim that they WILL or reasonably could change in the future on this matter.
    You offered the support of dems in the house/senate of unestablished significance.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Actually, the President did have a say. He could have included a request for the wall in the bill. From the article I used earlier.
    You have conflaited what was being referanced. I was referancing the dems, you are referanceing the republicans.
    Your response doesn't contradict my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Well, I think you might be just telling me what you think here instead of trying to make a challengeable argument. If so, fair enough. I think it's very incorrect on many levels with many unsupported assertions but I don't plan to offer a rebuttal because it doesn't seem to be forwarded as debate.

    But maybe I'm wrong. So if you are indeed forwarding this as "factual" and therefore welcome a challenge, let me know and I will rebut.
    No, just laying out where I am coming from, as it may help your approach in communication.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Instead I will offer my own summary of what I think is going on. First off, Trump is not sincerely concerned about the US having a wall. It was something that he said in the campaign that the crowds reacted strongly to and thus became a central plank of his campaign. And now that he's President he only wants the wall because he will look bad if he doesn't make it happen. There is plenty of evidence that the wall will not be particularly effective at pretty much anything and border security money is better spent in other ways but that doesn't matter to Trump. He needs to make the wall happen so he won't look bad. And the Democrats are opposing it for solid reasons, including that it's not a wise way to spend money for border security. And they are refusing to give in to the "hostage taking" because it can lead to the same tactic being employed in the future.
    I think any claim by the gov along the lines of "wise way to spend money" is hillarious. I don't take it serous coming from politicians, and I am willing to bet a list could easily be made of all the absurd things those same dems are for, that would over shadow anything being requested.
    I also think that the "unwise" is at least partially subordinate to "what the people asked for". Finally, I think attacking trumps person opinion is irrelevant as long as he is accuratly represengint his base.
    So I just don't see the teeth in your concerns, but I do respect that they are your personal concerns, and understand why they would matter to you. I wish we lived in a world where some of this stuff mattered more. Like "wise" use of public funds.
    Even though I disagree on this being an unwise use of it.. i think that is the context much gov spendging should take. It's just that politicans suck so much that it is always cherry picked as an argument.. like O.. I want this, so lets not have that 'wise use of money" discussion.
    O.. but what YOU want.. O, we are taking it down to the matt man, and standing on the pricniple of wise spending because that is what the people want! (yawn).
    To serve man.

  14. #272
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,796
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I don't believe I said "prohibited"...

    However,
    (Wiki)
    The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. It expresses the principle of federalism and states' rights, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution for the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.
    So do have an example of anything which your supposed mandate prohibits. I'll help. The states are responsible for implementing an educational system, yet somehow we have a Department of Education (Bless you, Jimmy Carter).

    ---------- Post added at 11:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post

    Would you be so good as to expand on this thought please? I am not sure I understand what you mean.
    During the Revolution you would've been a Tory. Is that clear enough? You are a conservative both politically and socially which means keeping things the same..."Marriage has always been between a man and a woman"

    ---------- Post added at 11:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:26 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post

    It scares me that liberals can/will not admit the democrats have/are contributing to a $trillion per year deficit. We could spend all day talking about republican failures, as there is no shortage of that, but democrats are the second piece of a two piece puzzle. The US can't continue on it's current path indefinitely. Interest on our debt is about to overtake military spending, baby boomers are about to retire in masse, and we continue to steal...I mean barrow from the Social Security trust to fund current expenditures. The US barrowed $0.46 for every $1.00 it spent in 2013! It hasn't gotten better since then.
    No democrats haven't advanced ill-advised tax cuts, that's your side...responsible for the entire debt and deficit (Clinton produced a surplus remember)

    ---------- Post added at 11:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post

    Tell me three things the US gov't does well if you can. I have asked dozens of people and nobody has been able to. I haven't had to argue against any answers so far because nobody has ever given me an answer other than the military.
    I'll let Thom answer:

    https://youtu.be/hBmGrfDxlkU
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  15. #273
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,529
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    MT,

    Damn, my post is a lot longer than I would have liked and don't look forward to responding to your response if you address every point. If you can find a way to merge some of it together in your response, that'd be great. If I have time late, I'll try to compress it a bit but can't do it right now so you will probably get to it before I do. But do what you want, of course. But if you can compress it a bit, that's be cool.

    Either way, have at it!


    -------------------------------

    Okay, this might shorten your response. I'm going to make a "nutshell" argument which (I hope) accurately summarizes our positions on Pelosi's statement and you may use your response to this one argument in place of several points below.

    So we have differing interpretations of Pelosi's statement. We don't disagree that she said "No money for the wall" in negotiations for the shutdown. The difference is how we interpret that statement in regards to future negotiations. So:

    MICAN'S POSITION: Since Pelosi made the statement while negotiating the government shut down, it can only be applied to the shut down and cannot be reasonably considered a position regarding any negotiations for the wall in the future.

    MT's POSITION: Since there was no direct indication from Pelosi that the "No Wall Money" statement was restricted to the government shut down negotiation, we can take the statement as her position in all future Wall negotiations and hold that she will never be for giving Trump money for the wall EVER.

    So now the question is which of the two positions is supported. And the answer, from what I can tell, is neither of them. They are both differing interpretations of something that was said that, in and of itself, did not directly say one way or the other.

    So since your position is based on your personal interpretation of a vague comment (vague in regards to future negotiations), it is not a valid basis for support.

    So neither interpretation is supported as accurate and therefore you have not supported that Pelosi would never negotiate to give Trump his wall money (such as if the Wall-for-Daca deal gains traction). I see no supported reason to hold that Pelosi would refuse to give Trump his wall money in exchange for Daca protection.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Certainly I have. I offered the quotes of them saying that a wall is immoral, and statements of them saying "no" emphatically to any wall.
    But what you have not shown is them saying "No wall EVER"

    Saying it's immoral does not equate saying that they will never allow funding for the wall
    Refusing to give money for the wall in a current situation is likewise not saying that they will never allow funding for the wall in the future.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You are the one that is saying those things are in the context of "right now" and with a limiting factor of the shut down.
    That is not apparent to their language or their approach.
    And you are taking things that are said in the context of "right now" and extending them into the future. That is not apparent in the language either. And it's your argument that the Democrats have taken that position and therefore the burden is yours to support your interpretation before I have any burden to support a different interpretation.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So I have in fact offered evidence, you are just inserting your own reasoning, without supporting that it is also THEIR reasoning.
    When I challenged you you said it was just your opinion
    No, you've offered statements and have offered your own interpretation of what that means. I disagree with your interpretation of what is said and until you support that your interpretation is accurate, it's just a personal interpretation and therefore not support.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No, that is not obvious at all. They said no, and they have not stated any mitigating factor. Like "no.. until we get the gov going".
    It has been "no wall, absolutly not.. why are we still talking about a wall".
    In the CURRENT shut down negotiation, yes.

    They have made no direct statement about future negotiations so taking their current statement and projecting it into future negotiations is like thinking that because someone says "I'm voting Democrat" in the upcoming election means that they will only vote Democrat in every election from then on just because they didn't offer any mitigating factors like "But I'm not necessarily going to vote Democrat in following elections". If someone says nothing direct about their actions beyond the current situation, the ONLY logical view one can take about their future actions is that it's not known what they will do in the future.

    To say "Since they didn't say they wouldn't oppose the wall beyond today, it is supported that they will oppose the wall in the future" is essentially engaging in the argument from ignorance fallacy.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Challenge
    Support that it is a reference to the shut down only.
    As I said in my nutshell argument above, I have no more supported that it is in reference to the shut down only than you have supported that it is in reference to all future negotiations.

    So I will not offer support that it is in reference to the shut down only and ask that you support that it is in reference to all future negotiations.

    And to be clear, it is your argument that is being addressed so the original burden is yours.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    the quote I provided did not say anything about it being limited to the shut down, and that is just you projecting your own reasoning onto the situation, in order to deny that I supported my claim.
    The quote you provided did not say anything about it applying to any negotiations beyond the shutdown, and that is just you projecting your own reasoning onto the situation, in order to support your claim.

    And your personal interpretation is not support so your argument fails for lack of support.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't have to prove a negative. You have to prove a positive.
    Namely that their "no" is contentment and not absolute.
    A "no" is an absolute statement until some contingent is introduced.. and you have been challenged in this post to provide that support for your claim that there is some stated contingent.

    I am unaware of any rule of logic that states that a "no" is an absolute statement unless a contingent is introduced.

    If you are going to continue with that position, please support it with some external link revealing that rule of logic. When applied to a situation, it doesn't hold up at all.

    If an election is coming up and someone asks me "Are you going to vote Republican" and I say "no", they cannot logically conclude that I will never vote Republican in any future elections just because I didn't specify that I might when I said "no". If asked if I will ever vote Republican in future elections based on the answer I gave about the current election, the most logical answer by far is "I don't know".



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Of course it is POSSIBLE. No one is arguing that it isn't possible. on day 500 of the shutdown the dems POSSIBLY give trump dictatorial powers.
    This is not about what is POSSIBLE. This is about what they are saying, and the current state of the negotiations.
    Which you don't seem to understand the actual condition or state of.
    I am well aware of the current state of the negotiations. They are CURRENTLY refusing to give Trump border wall money to get him to end the shut down. And your argument is that they have said they will NEVER give Trump wall money which means that even if he gives in, they still will not give him wall money in any future negotiations. And that argument is not supported. I believe you are taking a statement about the current situation and interpreting it to mean something else. Maybe I'm right about that and maybe I'm wrong but either way, you need to support your interpretation of the situation for your argument to succeed.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    From previous post
    I will probably refrain from responding to anything that is redundant from what's above. Just to keep things concise.





    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    My point was that it is a small budget matter (which is undesputable) therefore it SHOULDN'T be a big deal.
    Dems are opposed to it, and have been, so that is why we are where we are. Republicans never had so much power that they didn't need the dems.
    So what's the problem, then? Dems are free to oppose anything that they don't want to spend money on. Assuming one agrees that the wall should not be funded (which is another debate entirely), the Dems SHOULD opposed funding.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It isn't based on a lack of awareness, rather the awareness of the sudden change of standard.
    That isn't a principled decision of anything other than "anything but what trump wants".
    When you support that assertion, I will address it. Until then, it's ignored as unsupported.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You can't campaign for a wall, and then turn around and be against it and have claim to a "principled" stance.
    The Democrats campaigned for the wall? Please support.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I am not certain that this is the "only" way. However, this may be the point of most power for him to assert it.
    I think it is pretty clear that if the president doesn't have anything to veto in regards for the wall, then he can't force the issue on the dems.
    Is there another way for the president to force the issue?.. Other than threatening Veto?
    I don't know about "forcing" the issue but there are better ways to get the wall. As I said, negotiate and give the Dems something they want for the wall. Like DACA.

    The shutdown strategy is not a good method of getting the wall as it's pretty apparent that it's not going to work. It's clear this won't end with the Democrats giving in and funding the wall.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    1) not a big issue, and not something the gov stops.. people get sick, it gets reported.. then it gets stopped. So our lettuce will be fine without the gov.
    It's something the government PREVENTS. People get sick because the lettuce was not as inspected as it would be if the government was on the job. Once people get sick, the damage has already been done. I'm against people getting sick from lettuce and therefore I want the shutdown to end. If you disagree, then I guess we just hold different positions on food poisoning.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    3) People will be payed for what they worked. They may have to wait for their paycheck.. but that happens to everyone. I certainly live that in my life, doctors don't get paid for months and years.
    And people get evicted from their homes because they can't pay the rent/mortgage or people go without needed medicine that they can't afford. Employees are going to food banks because they apparently can't afford to buy food. People are likely going into deeper debt which ultimately will cost them more money in the future. If you want to say "meh" to actual human suffering, I guess you can. I can't make you care if you don't want to. But going on the premise that unnecessary human suffering is a bad thing, this issue is a very good reason to not shut down the government. And the people WON'T get payed for their work until after the government re-opens. So being for continuing the shut down is to be for the people continuing to not get paid.

    I'm against that. If you aren't, I don't know what to say.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If tomorrow I were able to pass a bill that cut the gov size in half over the next 3 years... There would be nothing but stories of heart ache and pain from those who lose their gov jobs that pay good money and support families, and all their benifits, and now they have to get re-trained, and they don't have money and some old lady is sick.

    So no, I don't accept the premise that the "pain" would be substantially different.
    So you don't think that how the government trims itself would make any difference to those who are effected? There's no difference between being aware months or even a year in advance that your job is about to end and suddenly learning, without warning, that you no longer have a job? Maybe you don't care in which way a person loses his job, but it certainly makes a difference to the person. So there is a substantial difference.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You can't argue that he is trying to not look bad to his base, and ignore that he would only look bad to his base because he campaigned on his care about the boarder.
    Who's ignoring that? That's pretty much my point. He would look bad to his base if he didn't succeed in achieving what he campaigned about (a wall at the border) and therefore he's trying to get the wall so he doesn't look bad to his base.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No, I don't agree with your statement about trump shutting down the gov. I think he should refuse to sign, or threaten veto of any budget that doesn't fund the priorities I voted for him to push.
    I am disapointed it didn't occur sooner.. but I don't see a problem with it being now, as it is as good a time as any, and may be the best political chance it has to succeed.
    Okay. So the fact that's doing it just so he won't bad to his base is an acceptable reason to shut down the government? People being poisoned by lettuce (and all else) is a fair price to pay so Trump doesn't look bad?

    We might have to agree to disagree on this issue.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It can't happen unless the dems forward it in negotiations as a compromise.
    They are not currently doing that. so.. while it "could" happen. It is not actually occuring.
    So your just speaking about speculation, and not responding to facts on the ground.
    Your argument is likewise speculation and not responding to facts on the ground. If the Democrats will NEVER support funding a border wall per your argument, then such prospective negotiations will ALWAYS exclude wall funding. So by accepting that in the future, there may be negotiations that allow wall funding means that you cannot say as a fact that the Democrats will NEVER ("No funding for the wall EVER") accept funding for the wall.

    So will you concede that it's not necessarily true that the Democrats will never allow funding for the wall?

    In fact, if you are going to argue that Pelosi will not support a Wall-for-Daca deal if it were to be forwarded, please support that assertion. If you don't support, then it's established that she might very well support such a deal if it comes up.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Also, I provide a quote from pence reflecting the dems refusal to negotiate even if they are given what they want.
    In reference to the shut down or did he make it clear that he was talking about their ongoing position in all prospective negotiations?

    If you say it's the latter, please support.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    you can belive whatever you like. Please don't waste my time with irrelevant discussions of your opinions that you are not going to support.
    It just spams up the thread.
    My original claim stands as unrebutted.
    I have amply explained why your claim is not supported. In a nutshell, the Democrats did not explicitly say that they would never fund the wall and you are interpreting a statement that does not explicitly say that as saying that. Since I don't agree with your interpretation and you have not supported that your interpretation is correct, your argument is not supported.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    1) A principle is a core belief that doesn't change with situations.
    Like, Human's life has value, is only a principle if it doesn't change with the cercumstance. Like what about black lives.. do they matter?
    The principle itself does not change but a person can inconsistently abide by a principle. For example, if Joe refuses to murder Frank because he holds the principle that murder is wrong, then he took a principled action. If he later kills Bob, he has violated his principle but that does not change the fact that he still did follow the principle when he didn't kill Frank.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    2) Dems have changed on the idea of a wall. They voted for, and spoke in favore of a wall in the past, but now that trump wants it, they are against it.
    3) Therefore, Being against the wall is not a principled objection, but an objection of political convience.
    As I already stated above, not consistently abiding by a principle does not mean that one is not following a principle when taking a certain action so your argument fails for that reason. You can argue that they are hypocrites but you have not supported that their decision was not based on a principle.

    And beyond that, you have not supported that the Democrats have supported what Trump is proposing in the past so you haven't even made a supported case for hypocrisy (which would be a valid charge if you are correct). So I guess at some point the Democrats were okay with some kind of wall? And if so, was it the exact same thing that Trump proposed (a wall that stretches across the Southern border)? And besides that, you need to identify the principle that the Democrats are using in order to assess whether they are violating it. I mean if the principle is "no walls for any reason", then of course they would be violating it if they proposed any wall at all. But then I doubt that a principle that they hold.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    sure you can, because to everyone else.. that is what it means to have principles. \
    A hypocrite is someone who doesn't have principles or fails to live according to certian principles.
    No, it's just the latter. In other words, you have to have principles in order to be a hypocrite (you can't violate your principles if you have no principles)/



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The principle is that the wall is "immoral". That people who want the wall are racist, and that dems will not provide money for a wall.
    But of course this is all in reference to Trump's wall and does not necessarily apply to any other proposed wall. They certainly are not saying that ALL walls are immoral, racist, and not worth the money.

    And I don't even know what wall they apparently supported in the past so it's not even supported that they once were for a wall. I mean I'll take your word for it but you do need to specify the situation where they were for a wall before we can assess whether the principles apply to that situation as well.

    And I can accept the first and third as "principles" but I don't think that it's a common Democratic principle that those who are for the wall are racist. Just because someone from a group says X, does not make X a group principle. A principle should roughly speak for the whole group.

    But again, positing the Trump's wall is immoral does not oblige them to see ALL proposed walls as immoral so they are not necessarily violating their principle by supporting some kind of wall. Again, you need to specify the situation before this issue can be analyzed and your assertion supported.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    en. Lindsey Graham went on national television Sunday morning and declared that there would be no deal to end the partial government shutdown until top Democrats stopped calling Republicans “racists” for supporting a U.S.-Mexico border wall.
    Opposition party assessment of their opponents is not valid support. Otherwise, A Democrat calling Trump "racist" would be support that he's actually racist.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    --No to wall absolutly
    https://www.investors.com/politics/e...ts-hate-trump/

    In referance to the last "negotitations" that went on.

    "He left the room today because Speaker Pelosi said that even if he gave her what she wanted, she would never agree to the border security priorities we have on the table," said Vice President Mike Pence, who's heading the talks to end the shutdown.
    which appears to be about the shut down negotiations and therefore is not necessarily a valid indicator of anything outside of the current shut down negotiations. So yes, she absolutely won't give them wall money in order to end the shut down but that's about it. If you are going to say that this extends to any future negotiations, you will need to support that.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    1) Not in an equally relevant way. What pelosi and Chuck say, has more weight than what some random senator or house member has to say.
    Leadership matters, especially because they are the ones that control the priorites of the party.
    2) See above. There is no situation offered by pelosi under which a wall would be funded. You can't simply assume they will in the future, in the face of repeated denials in absolute terms in the face of concessions right now.
    The support is undeniable, and your standard is irrational.
    No, your standard is irrational. I didn't say that Pelosi does not have more power than other representatives. I said that the Representatives do have power and if they want to vote for a deal, it's likely to happen. Pelosi does not have veto power over the majority of the representatives . And your standard of taking what if being referred to in CURRENT negotiations and saying that it extends to future negotiations that hasn't even happened yet is very irrational.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    My burden is to show that they are SAYING they will not provide funding for the wall, and that their claim does not contain any contegencies for the future or future changes
    I have done that.
    Which says NOTHING about the future. When one is speaking of the present, then they are speaking of the present and it's illogical to say that their position in a current negotiation is the position that they will take in all future negotiations. If one does not speak of their position in future negotiations, then any assessment of their position in such negotiations is pure guesswork.

    So basically you are guessing that what goes for the current negotiations will go for future negotiations because she didn't say otherwise. Guesswork falls far short of support.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You are making the positive claim that they WILL or reasonably could change in the future on this matter.
    You offered the support of dems in the house/senate of unestablished significance.
    Right. I'm saying that they may very well negotiate a wall deal and have supported this with the article about the Wall-for-Daca.

    And I have not put down the odds of it happening because I don't know and neither do you. I see no support for the position that if such a deal was forwarded, the Pelosi would reject it. So I have supported that it MAY happen and therefore have supported that Trump MAY be able to get his wall funded by negotiating with the Democrats.

    If you want to posit that the odds are slim or offer some kind of argument regarding the odds, you will need to support your assertion. Otherwise it stands that Trump might be able to get wall funding by negotiation with the Dems.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think any claim by the gov along the lines of "wise way to spend money" is hillarious. I don't take it serous coming from politicians, and I am willing to bet a list could easily be made of all the absurd things those same dems are for, that would over shadow anything being requested.
    Which is irrelevant to my point. I am speaking for myself based on my best understanding of the situation and not relying on what the government is saying. I AM saying it's not a wise use of money.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I also think that the "unwise" is at least partially subordinate to "what the people asked for".
    And polls show that a majority of the people oppose the wall.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Finally, I think attacking trumps person opinion is irrelevant as long as he is accuratly represengint his base.
    A President should put the good of the country above what his base wants. So if he's wrong, I should point it out and assuming I'm right in my criticisms, it's better that people listen to me (going on the principle that we should listen to those who are accurate).



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So I just don't see the teeth in your concerns, but I do respect that they are your personal concerns, and understand why they would matter to you. I wish we lived in a world where some of this stuff mattered more. Like "wise" use of public funds.
    Even though I disagree on this being an unwise use of it.. i think that is the context much gov spendging should take. It's just that politicans suck so much that it is always cherry picked as an argument.. like O.. I want this, so lets not have that 'wise use of money" discussion.
    O.. but what YOU want.. O, we are taking it down to the matt man, and standing on the pricniple of wise spending because that is what the people want! (yawn).
    Again, I am not appealing to politicians or even the majority. I oppose the wall based on the best information that I currently have and criticize the President's handling of the situation based on my best observation on what he is doing and a belief in what a President in his situation should do.
    Last edited by mican333; January 15th, 2019 at 08:03 AM.

  16. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  17. #274
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    MT,

    Damn, my post is a lot longer than I would have liked and don't look forward to responding to your response if you address every point. If you can find a way to merge some of it together in your response, that'd be great. If I have time late, I'll try to compress it a bit but can't do it right now so you will probably get to it before I do. But do what you want, of course. But if you can compress it a bit, that's be cool.

    Either way, have at it!
    Yea, I thought the same thing about my last post.. just didn't have time to condense it. I will try to compress it this afternoon. thanks for the time and effort responding.
    To serve man.

  18. #275
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,117
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    So do have an example of anything which your supposed mandate prohibits. I'll help. The states are responsible for implementing an educational system, yet somehow we have a Department of Education (Bless you, Jimmy Carter).
    Interesting, I rarely hear anyone promoting Carter....

    ---------- Post added at 05:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:18 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    During the Revolution you would've been a Tory. Is that clear enough? You are a conservative both politically and socially which means keeping things the same..."Marriage has always been between a man and a woman"[COLOR="Silver"]
    Actually no! This isn't clear at all, not one little bit....?

    I asked you to expand on your statement:
    "Indeed, that which brought us the enlightenment and revolution."
    You seem to be suggesting liberalism delivered this to us and I was inquiring how/in what ways.

    Instead you give an ignorant response regarding my personal opinions/political leanings.

    ---------- Post added at 05:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:24 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    No democrats haven't advanced ill-advised tax cuts, that's your side...responsible for the entire debt and deficit (Clinton produced a surplus remember)[COLOR="Silver"]
    (I don't have a side Skippy. The Rep's piss me off, and Dem's scare me!! This is why I keep telling you BOTH parties suck. That you stereotype all non-liberals as a group with the exact same beliefs is naive)

    I see, so per you,

    the Gov't spending vastly more than it takes in isn't an issue at all!
    The sole and only reason there is a deficit is the Gov't is not taking/taxing at a high enough rate.

    This leads us to what is a fair tax rate? What are proposing?

    ---------- Post added at 05:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:29 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I'll let Thom answer:

    https://youtu.be/hBmGrfDxlkU
    If "Thom" was participating in our conversation maybe, but since he is not, you have failed to provide any answer to "three things the Fed gov't does well" as this just smacks of link warz.

    I would be happy to address any point in your video if you can be more specific.

    ---------- Post added at 05:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:34 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    (Clinton produced a surplus remember)
    Clinton was more conservative than Bush IMHO.

    ---------- Post added at 05:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    During the Revolution you would've been a Tory. Is that clear enough? You are a conservative both politically and socially which means keeping things the same..."Marriage has always been between a man and a woman"[COLOR="Silver"]
    For the liberal person believing in inclusion, understanding, and tolerance, you take a somewhat nasty tone on opinions that are different than yours...

    But no, I would not have been a Tory, I don't believe in Monarchies, I see change can be good or bad (depends on the change).
    I don't like changing definitions of words for PC reasons. I do like personal property rights and freedom of speech (even when I disagree with the speech). I think people should be responsible for their actions. I don't believe in a nanny state/ it takes a village thinking.

  19. #276
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,796
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post

    If "Thom" was participating in our conversation maybe, but since he is not, you have failed to provide any answer to "three things the Fed gov't does well" as this just smacks of link warz.

    I would be happy to address any point in your video if you can be more specific.
    Easy enough to fix, here's the transcript:

    "three things that the government's does more efficiently than the private sector I want to continue on this riff that I started with the in the first hour about the efforts of the libertarians to tear down our government to destroy our government here in the United States and Alex Anderson wrote a great piece that's over at AlterNet it's titled here are three things the government does more efficiently than the private sector:
    00:20
    the first is Medicare Medicare operates
    00:23
    far more efficiently than any health
    00:25
    insurance company in the United States
    00:27
    and in fact I just retweeted a tweet off
    00:30
    that Bernie Sanders put out that was a
    00:33
    Canadian doctors testimony before
    00:35
    Congress in which she's puncturing all
    00:36
    these false narratives that are floating
    00:40
    up on the right
    00:41
    that Canadian doctors are leaving the
    00:43
    public system they're not that Canadians
    00:46
    are coming to the United States for
    00:47
    health care they're not that you know
    00:50
    actually more doctors are moving from
    00:52
    America into Canada more people go from
    00:54
    the United States into Canada that the
    00:56
    other way around the yeah it's pretty
    00:57
    remarkable how she just and she just
    00:59
    nails it she lays this stuff out so
    01:01
    Medicare Medicare actually works which
    01:04
    is one of the reasons why the
    01:06
    Republicans want to destroy it because
    01:08
    Medicare was brought to you by Lyndon
    01:09
    Johnson a Democrat and a Democratic
    01:12
    Congress although there were some
    01:13
    Republicans who voted for Medicare that
    01:16
    ain't happening anymore because the
    01:17
    Republicans are firmly under under
    01:19
    control of the libertarian billionaires
    01:22
    the people that Joe Scarborough calls
    01:24
    classic liberals know they're
    01:25
    libertarians in the United States they
    01:27
    wouldn't be considered liberals maybe in
    01:29
    the UK but not in the United States
    01:32
    another thing is the US Postal Service
    01:34
    the US Postal Service does things better
    01:36
    than you know private companies I mean
    01:38
    if you think that if that that the US
    01:43
    Postal sorry this is from the article I
    01:46
    you know he says it's so well Alex
    01:48
    Anderson
    01:49
    he says ironically if Republicans
    01:50
    succeed in privatizing the Postal
    01:52
    Service it will be small towns in rural
    01:54
    areas the Republican base that would
    01:56
    suffer the most not the urban Democrats
    01:58
    presently one consent a one-ounce letter
    02:00
    anywhere in the United States for 50
    02:02
    cents an especially good deal if you
    02:03
    live in a remote Montana South Dakota or
    02:06
    Idaho but there's no way the rural towns
    02:08
    in small towns would continue to enjoy
    02:10
    mail services such a price under the GOP
    02:12
    privatization scheme
    02:13
    EEMA and that's true it's just you know
    02:16
    we're spreading the costs all across the
    02:18
    United States to make this service
    02:20
    available to everybody just like we do
    02:22
    with Medicare just like we do with
    02:23
    Social Security and the third one that
    02:25
    he points out is high-speed rail travel

    02:27
    you know we we buy semi privatizing
    02:30
    Amtrak and not really giving it the
    02:33
    government support it needs and it has
    02:35
    to use privatize rails we privatized all
    02:37
    the rails up and down the East Coast and
    02:38
    so Amtrak can't even you know most of
    02:40
    the rail can't even sustain seventy
    02:42
    miles an hour so Amtrak has to go slow
    02:45
    in that Northeast Corridor and it's not
    02:47
    because the trains can't go faster the
    02:49
    trains can go over a hundred miles an
    02:50
    hour it's it's particularly the Acela
    02:52
    okay 150 miles an hour it's not the
    02:54
    trains it's the track and the track was
    02:56
    privatized and it's owned by a
    02:58
    hodgepodge of companies that charge
    03:00
    Amtrak to travel over it and won't you
    03:02
    know create new new track where you know
    03:05
    the same thing in the UK when Margaret
    03:07
    Thatcher came along and she said oh we
    03:09
    need to privatize everything because you
    03:10
    know this whole idea of society is a
    03:12
    myth there's no such thing as society
    03:14
    there's only a collection of individuals
    03:16
    that's virtually a verbatim quote by the
    03:18
    way from Margaret Thatcher this is the
    03:21
    libertarian you know core idea that the
    03:24
    government shouldn't be doing anything
    03:26
    so she privatized the rails in the Great
    03:28
    Britain and what happened the price went
    03:30
    up the service went down it was totally
    03:34
    predictable right I mean somebody's got
    03:36
    to make a buck how do they get that buck
    03:38
    they raise the cost of the tickets and
    03:39
    they cut the cost of maintenance now you
    03:41
    know it's or higher people who are less
    03:44
    well qualified to run the trains which
    03:46
    is exactly what happened meanwhile the
    03:49
    Anna Tory order the New York Times is
    03:51
    editorializing this was a couple of
    03:52
    weeks ago July 19th about the national
    03:56
    guideline clearinghouse the national
    03:59
    guideline clearinghouse is something
    04:00
    that you and I pay for with our tax
    04:02
    dollars and it is used by doctors if a
    04:06
    doctor wants to an actual physician
    04:08
    wants to know quote can this emergency
    04:11
    room patient tolerate a procedure that
    04:12
    normally requires an empty stomach does
    04:14
    that patient need a stent which for
    04:16
    antibiotics should this patient be
    04:17
    started on right these are
    04:19
    life-and-death things and doctors need
    04:21
    to be able to get this information fast
    04:23
    on Monday the Department of Health and
    04:26
    Human Services took this
    04:27
    off-line why well according to the
    04:31
    editorial board it's part of the Trump
    04:33
    administration's plan to eliminate
    04:34
    science from government's agenda I would
    04:38
    say it's this is something that could be
    04:40
    done by private industry you're gonna
    04:42
    see companies popping up all over the
    04:43
    country or maybe one big company is
    04:45
    going to make their services available
    04:46
    all over the country and they're gonna
    04:47
    be saying to doctors and hospitals we've
    04:50
    got the new database now that the
    04:51
    federal government has taken the
    04:52
    database down there was paid for with
    04:55
    tax dollars we've got one and you can
    04:57
    access it if you subscribe for only $500
    05:00
    a year and it's going to be a new profit
    05:03
    Center this is the idea of these
    05:05
    libertarians the government cannot and
    05:07
    should not do anything and thus
    05:09
    everything gets more expensive and the
    05:11
    quality of everything goes down and the
    05:13
    social safety net is tore apart which is
    05:15
    exactly what they want what I've been
    05:16
    talking about all day you get where
    05:18
    they're going with this you get how I
    05:20
    mean this is this is just so insidious"

    ---------- Post added at 11:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post

    I see, so per you,

    the Gov't spending vastly more than it takes in isn't an issue at all!
    The sole and only reason there is a deficit is the Gov't is not taking/taxing at a high enough rate.

    This leads us to what is a fair tax rate? What are proposing?
    Let's start with repealing the dumb Trump tax cuts. I'm sure there's other proposals out there that I'd agree with.

    ---------- Post added at 11:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Interesting, I rarely hear anyone promoting Carter....
    Right, the corporate media has done a good job smearing him and elevating a sleaze and traitor like Reagan...not so much with Nixon though it's hard to argue against his own recorded scumbag voice but every now and then I hear them try, and as far as covering for the current "president", well, if it were Hillary that was destroying the notes of her interpreter she be gone. I doubt she would have been let back in the country after the first Helsinki meeting.

    Perhaps you weren't around back then, but Carter was an excellent President, and he's a damn fine human being.

    ---------- Post added January 16th, 2019 at 12:11 AM ---------- Previous post was January 15th, 2019 at 11:50 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post

    Actually no! This isn't clear at all, not one little bit....?

    I asked you to expand on your statement:
    "Indeed, that which brought us the enlightenment and revolution."
    You seem to be suggesting liberalism delivered this to us and I was inquiring how/in what ways.

    Instead you give an ignorant response regarding my personal opinions/political leanings.
    "I don't like changing definitions of words for PC reasons."


    That you take that stance on that issue tells us everything anyone needs to know about your views, and yes, you would've been a Tory. I'd suggest a re-reading (if you've ever read it) of the DOI (not the surface quotes). No, definitions weren't changed for PC reasons, rights were expanded to included those who had been previously denied. It's obvious you would have been against integration also.

    Yes, the liberal/progressive march through history is sometimes uncomfortable and may, at times, seem like it is going to far. I was recently chastised at work for using the word "slut" in an example. ME! In a totally harmless analogy with no intent to harm. I also self-identify with the term "queer" and have been called out for that. Sometimes it seems a bit silly, and yes, hurts at times, and yes, isn't perfect, but is what comes from living in reality as opposed to the perfect bubble you believe you live in with your infallible king and your complete knowledge book from the guy who lives in the clouds where you deny you need any "village".

    So, you see, you deny you need a nanny state, yet you'll wrap yourself up in the blanket of the worst kind of a bully totalitarian state.

    ---------- Post added at 12:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:11 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post

    For the liberal person believing in inclusion, understanding, and tolerance, you take a somewhat nasty tone on opinions that are different than yours...
    What do you find "nasty"?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  20. #277
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,399
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Because I don't think the Dems are being reasonable, I am fine with the shut down till they stop being so opposition. If they truly want the gov shut down to end, they will give up something. Unfortunately, that means Trump is going to get something.. and we can't have that. We can't have people actually getting what they voted for.
    Come on man. You didn't strike up this tune when the Congress didn't give Obama what he wanted or when they stonewalled him on a number of issues. And this thread is dedicated to arguing that a shutdown is no problem, and you supported that idea, so what's the problem?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  21. Thanks CowboyX thanked for this post
  22. #278
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Come on man. You didn't strike up this tune when the Congress didn't give Obama what he wanted or when they stonewalled him on a number of issues. And this thread is dedicated to arguing that a shutdown is no problem, and you supported that idea, so what's the problem?
    How has my tune changed? I said I was o.k. with the shutdown under obama, and I am saying I am fine with the shut down now.
    My concern, is the level of opposition that it signifies this time. Under Obama it was over an issue that effected 1/3 of the economy. This is over a rounding error of funds. I don't have a problem with the house not funding whatever the president want. Isn't that how Vietnam ended? So I'm not arguing that dems are abusing their power or anything.

    The shut down will come and go, but the level of opposition I don't think is healthy for the nation. I think the worst case scenario is trump uses emergency powers angle to resolve it.
    So my objection here is to the hypercritical reasoning behind the dems stance, not any "pressure" of the shut down.

    does that clear it up for you? Still have the impression that I have changed my tune? Why?
    To serve man.

  23. Likes Squatch347, Sigfried liked this post
  24. #279
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    -Now vs the future-
    You have badly misunderstood the context of what I have argued.
    you went from
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN post 261
    I very much doubt that you have heard any Democrat say no money at all ever but if you have, please present the statement. Direct quote with link, please.
    To saying this...
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So will you concede that it's not necessarily true that the Democrats will never allow funding for the wall?
    I am not arguing that dems will in actuality NEVER fund the wall.
    I am just forwarding that their current position is that they will never fund the wall.
    Your challenging me to concede something that I argued in the last post (large post.. so I get you missing it). (I speculated about day 500 of the shutdown or some such).

    What does this "No" mean? Does it mean No until we get what we want?
    There is evidence against that, because Trump has offered all sorts of stuff, Doca.. whatever. and many people have pointed out that right now is a time the dems could ask for anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK 4
    So why not give Trump his wall in exchange for something they want? They could give Trump the $5 billion he is asking for to begin construction of the wall in exchange for a path to citizenship for the nearly 2 million “Dreamers” — mainly immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children through no fault of their own. Trump would negotiate on this basis in a heartbeat.
    Is it "no until the shut down ends", no because Pelosi spoke that she is interested in "boarder security" not the wall after the shut down (Link 1 below).
    but what does that mean a head-line like "Dems are not going to fund trumps immoral boarder wall" In the link, there is an aversion by Pelosi to even agree to funding more fencing under a CR which would keep things the same as before.
    But what does no mean?
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK2
    When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said “no wall” — not now, not ever — she meant it.
    Now she didn't say "Not now, not ever".. but that is what is being communicated by
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK2
    But semantics are not the same as symbolism. As long as Trump’s “wall” — the campaign rallying cry — is the centerpiece of the White House’s border security demand, don’t expect Democrats to engage.
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK 4
    But in a fit of pique, Democrats are throwing away their leverage, insisting that they will never — under any circumstances — give Trump the wall he so desperately wants. The reason? Because he wants it and they despise him.
    But What does no mean? Given all the surrounding rhetoric and posturing... It means they have no intention of negotiating trumps wall, and that is specifically NOT limited to just the shut down.
    The biggest reason for it not being limited to the shut down, is because after the shut down the president will have very little actual power to push the discussion. The dems will be equipped to just ignore him, where as right now he has the power to assert his office and his role in gov and force the discussion to take place (well, to as great an extent as he ever will be able to).

    (Link 1) https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...rder_wall.html
    (Link 2) https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-wall-shutdown
    (link 3) https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rank...ry?id=60392024
    (link 4)https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...213-story.html


    -Your summary-
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    MICAN'S POSITION: Since Pelosi made the statement while negotiating the government shut down, it can only be applied to the shut down and cannot be reasonably considered a position regarding any negotiations for the wall in the future.

    MT's POSITION: Since there was no direct indication from Pelosi that the "No Wall Money" statement was restricted to the government shut down negotiation, we can take the statement as her position in all future Wall negotiations and hold that she will never be for giving Trump money for the wall EVER.
    So what you have as my position, is really just a response to your claim that there is a limit.
    My argument is made up of what she said, how people are taking it, and more general circumstances around the debate.
    Not only is there no limiting principles in the statements, they are presented in an uncompromising way. And in their other speaking there is a general aversion to anything trump wall related. (like link 1, where she shuffles around even a fence).

    What is not supported is your interjections. Like your assumption that they are standing on the "he shouldn't shut the gov down" as a basis for their wall money refusal. That isn't found anywhere in the discussion.
    Also, that they would move after the shut down. You also argued that there are others that contribute to the debate, but trump recently invited any democrat to come speak with him.. and no one showed up. (link 3)
    That also undercuts your arguments against the democratic leadership being the ones that matter in the negotiations.

    Finally, it is their language about future negotiations that really is the most convincing. They will say they don't want to negotiate "boarder security" until after the shut down. So they are showing zero intention of negotiating the wall.

    - Shut down negative effects -
    In regards to the pain of those in various gov jobs. Your points are all right. I mean it would be better for them if it was all well planned reduction of the gov.
    At this point, I'm just a little hostile to the gov in general, and that means government workers. I mean, I know the gov isn't going to shrink. No one is going to make the gov smaller.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Who's ignoring that? That's pretty much my point. He would look bad to his base if he didn't succeed in achieving what he campaigned about (a wall at the border) and therefore he's trying to get the wall so he doesn't look bad to his base.
    I agree with this.
    I just think you sort of twisted it to be a bad thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Okay. So the fact that's doing it just so he won't bad to his base is an acceptable reason to shut down the government? People being poisoned by lettuce (and all else) is a fair price to pay so Trump doesn't look bad?

    We might have to agree to disagree on this issue.
    Yes, the great lettuce menace should run rampant until we get a wall.
    Sorry, I'm laughing a little at the idea that lettuce is the major concern in our nation.



    ---Principles ---
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    As I already stated above, not consistently abiding by a principle does not mean that one is not following a principle when taking a certain action so your argument fails for that reason. You can argue that they are hypocrites but you have not supported that their decision was not based on a principle.
    By showing that they supported walls on the souther boarder in the past (support below), I show that they are not standing on a consistent principle of the past.
    They may be establishing a new principle for the future, but then you don't get to argue that, because you are currently arguing that they may in the future negotiate for the wall.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And beyond that, you have not supported that the Democrats have supported what Trump is proposing in the past so you haven't even made a supported case for hypocrisy (which would be a valid charge if you are correct). So I guess at some point the Democrats were okay with some kind of wall? And if so, was it the exact same thing that Trump proposed (a wall that stretches across the Southern border)? And besides that, you need to identify the principle that the Democrats are using in order to assess whether they are violating it. I mean if the principle is "no walls for any reason", then of course they would be violating it if they proposed any wall at all. But then I doubt that a principle that they hold.
    https://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion...t-13536503.php
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Worse, Democrats are doing it over a border wall strikingly similar to one that they almost unanimously supported just five years ago. While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., now says that “a wall is an immorality,” back in 2013, she supported a bill that required the construction of 700 miles of border fencing. (Trump has called for a wall of “anywhere from 700 to 900 miles” long.) The bill negotiated by the Gang of Eight, which included current Democratic leaders Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois declared that “not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary (of Homeland Security) shall establish … the ‘Southern Border Fencing Strategy,’ to identify where 700 miles of fencing (including double-layer fencing) … should be deployed along the Southern border.”
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Every Senate Democrat voted for the Gang of Eight bill — including 36 Democratic senators still serving today. President Barack Obama agreed to sign it. Indeed, he praised the bill for including what he called “the most aggressive border security plan in our history” and said that “the Senate bill is consistent with the key principles for commonsense reform that I — and many others — have repeatedly laid out” That bears repeating: Obama said building a 700-mile fence on the southern border was consistent with the principles of the Democratic Party.

    Pelosi supported the Gang of Eight bill, saying at the time that “every piece of this legislation has had bipartisan support.” But now we are shutting down the government over a wall much like the one that Pelosi and Senate Democrats fully supported just five years ago?

    It is here supported that the dems were for a southern barrier (here specifically a fence).
    That a wall was just recently in line with their "principles", and was praised by the dems.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But of course this is all in reference to Trump's wall and does not necessarily apply to any other proposed wall. They certainly are not saying that ALL walls are immoral, racist, and not worth the money.
    I can't take serious the distinction between a fence and concrete wall as being relevant in any moral context.
    When both keep people out.. or are intended too. It appears to be a bit of mental gymnasitics to make such a distinction.

    Your just adding distinctions where they are not stating any.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Opposition party assessment of their opponents is not valid support. Otherwise, A Democrat calling Trump "racist" would be support that he's actually racist.
    I have to say this is annoying, that you constantly demand higher and higher levels of support for claims that.. if your kinda paying attention to the goings on, are not really controversial.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...emocrat-admits
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    In an interview Monday on CNN, freshman Rep. Katie Hill, D-Calif., admitted that she’s in favor of building some new southern border wall barrier, but that her Democrat colleagues in Congress are refusing to offer any funding for it because it would force them to go back on their repeated claim that the wall is racist.
    To serve man.

  25. Thanks mican333 thanked for this post
  26. #280
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,117
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Easy enough to fix, here's the transcript:
    [COLOR="Silver"]
    Let me respond to this part in another post, only have a few minutes right now.

    ---------- Post added at 07:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:16 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Let's start with repealing the dumb Trump tax cuts. I'm sure there's other proposals out there that I'd agree with.

    ---------- Post added at 11:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 PM ----------

    Well, you answered kind of, but I sense we might be getting a bit closer.

    Can we agree that spending is an issue as well, not just how much the gov't collects in taxes?

    ---------- Post added at 07:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:20 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Perhaps you weren't around back then, but Carter was an excellent President, and he's a damn fine human being.[COLOR="Silver"]
    I remember. Most people do not question his humanity. He is after all one president that said "I will not lie to the American people" after he was elected and I don't think he did.
    Some presidents made less than altruistic comments once they were elected!

    That however, does not necessarily make you a good leader of a country, just a good person

    ---------- Post added at 08:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:31 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    That you take that stance on that issue tells us everything anyone needs to know about your views, and yes, you would've been a Tory.
    This shows a bit of narrow mindedness if I may say. If you give me a chance, instead of thinking you already know who I am, you might be surprised.

    ---------- Post added at 08:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:16 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    What do you find "nasty"?
    The way you group me with all that you find undesirable, as all the same beliefs. You make it sound as if I have no mind and know what I will say next based on other people's responses in your past.
    Clearly you do not, or tell me, what are my thoughts on the first part of your post I am waiting to respond to (hopefully tomorrow as I am out of time tonight. I appreciate your thoughts)?
    I will be honest in my response if you can tell me.

 

 
Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: April 26th, 2013, 10:18 PM
  2. Replies: 32
    Last Post: November 27th, 2012, 07:34 AM
  3. Mind Trapped in a dream #1
    By MindTrap028 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 13th, 2008, 12:34 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •