Ten oz

I just render my opinion on Booker's announcement. I didn't mean to imply it meant Booker and his policies shouldn't be discussed. The only reason I didn't want to get into the weeds about the only proposal but I think there is a good chance a few other posters here will turn into an argument about taxes and the role of govt broadly. I think there's more difference between Harris and Gillbrand than there is Booker and Harris. I think Harris, Warren, Castro, and Booker are mostly in agreement on most things. They just split the same core voters. I would like to see more diversity in ideology among candidates.

Which ever one is it will become less so if forced to battle it out vs their own allies.

Cory Booker has announced he's running. This is a bit disappointing to me. For the record I like Booker, Warren, and Harris. I just don't see much daylight between them policy wise. They are 3 candidates who all agree on 99.999% of policy. I don't see the use in filling the field with candidates who all share identical policies.

Time is observed as a measurement. Reading a clock requires observation which requires an observer. Humans are that observer and humans experience things comparatively. To us time flows in a prescribed manner. While time may not be linear in absolute terms we (humans), per our state of existence, experience it linearly. Many measurements are abstract like this. How would you define big, fast, soft, loud, hot, heavy, wet, tall, and etc in absolute terms free from comparative observation?

I don't believe Trump cares about a Wall. He was thirsty for a distraction. The house just switched hands on the 3rd and all anyone was talking about was the shutdown. Trump's goal was achieved. He loves to be the focal point of attention. Even as positions like Attorney General, Chief of Staff, and Sec of Defense remain empty Trump is tweeting about his Wall and climate hoax theory. His base has proven themselves to be very loyal. They won't split with him over this issue in my opinion. Trump lost the popular vote. Rather than trying to flip Trump voters (not happening) Democrats should focus on boosting turnout among likely Democrat voters.

Sadly I think it is more like 2/5 of the U.S.. I doubt this. Trump and his supporters are aware of Coulter but she is not more important to them than are most FoxNews pundits. There is already a thread addressing border security.

Correct but it was the veto threat that created all of that. Had Trump signaled he'd accept the bill it would have floated through Congress easily. The inability of Congress to pass and up or down vote on budgets isn't the main ingredient to shutdowns here in the U.S.. What causes shutdowns here in the U.S. is when the President is at odds with what Congress passes or plans to pass. In Australia they have a Parliamentary system. Parliament selects the Prime Minister. If a Prime Minister were to buck the majority of Parliament and threat to shut the govt down they'd basically be asking to be replaced. My comments are directed towards the differences in the two systems. They are not an analyse of for the lasted shutdown.

I wouldn't mind discussing these plans in detail. If you start a thread to do so I will participate. My comments in this thread regarding the plans primarily apply to there potential impact on the Democratic Primary. I think focusing on such proposals is a mistake. People are fairly dug in on issues regarding government assistance, what is considered a minimum wage/living standard, and taxes that dredging them up is like poking proverbial hornets nest. Friendly fire on the left will challenge is the plans go far enough while on the right they'll be indigent and throw around labels like socialism. No point in Democrats beating each other up going into the weeds debating proposals that will all look the same via twitter character limits and short news media segments. So often we hear the talk about Trump being a Liar, Sexist, Racism, and etc; he is an unethical leader. I think people lose track of the fact that he is also a bad President. He is bad at the job in additional to being unethical. Under Trump debt has skyrocketed, no decisions have been made to strength or overhaul the ACA, global partnerships have weakened, we have no longer strategy in the Middle East (Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc), and so on. Trump and Conservative Pundits can trash income percentage based assistance proposals like the Rent Relief Act in their sleep. Most of them build their whole careers out of trashing such ideas. Harder to address are those areas where the nation is currently totally directionless. I rather see Democrats debate Syria, debt, and the the role technology plays in trade between the U.S. and China. Highlight the less discussed areas where Trump is weak and to ill informed to produce quick bumper sticker comebacks.

The Senate passed a unanimous vote voice vote on Dec. 19th. https://www.c-span.org/video/?456094-1/senate-passes-short-term-spending-bill-house-vote-expected-today It was Trump indicating that he didn't support it, the Presidential veto threat, which cause McConnell to formally hold up the process.

Here in the U.S. Congress has no influence over who the President is. In a Parliamentary system they do. It is a significant difference. If Congress was able to vote for who the President was Donald Trump never would have become President. If the Majority party in Congress had their preferred President in office there would virtually be no need for a Presidential veto.

Separate what?

I did not mean to blame Presidents. Rather I was pointing out that Congress has always been able to pass a vote. Shutdowns occur when the President flashes their veto power. Sometimes it is for good reason and other times for bad reasons. In context to the post I was responding to I wasn't commenting of who is to blame for shutdowns rather i meant to describe the components needed for a shutdown. If the Presidential veto didn't exist the USA wouldn't have shutdowns. That isn't meant as a judgement on whether the presidential veto should exist. We have a 2 Party system. One party or the other is always in the Majority. Even when the Senate is split 50/50 the VP can break a tie. So getting an up or down vote is nearly always possible for the majority. So the way the Australian system holds Parliament accountable wouldn't work the same way here in the U.S.. Merely passing a vote is just a part of what it takes to keep the lights on or for a bill to become a law. Sometimes in the House and or Senate the majority party passes things they know will never go anywhere just to antagonize the President. For example Republicans voted to repeal the ACA over 50 times. In my opinion the easiest way to made shutdown more difficult is to pass a Constitutional Amendment that in lieu of Congress passing and POTUS signing a new year's budget the previous years budget is automatically renewed/continued as is till such time a new budget is passed.

The problem is that this whole situation is currently being negotiated in bad faith. Trump already asked for and received the budget increases to hire 15,000 new Border Patrol agents 2yrs ago. Despite massive spending increases and a mandate from Trump for more Agent there has only been a net gain of 128 individuals which is only a tiny fraction of what they need to meet mandates they have already been budgeted for. So the very Agency Trump and Republicans are trying to Gin up more money for can't even use the money they have already been give and per their own admission don't need due to historically low immigration levels. If this debate were actually about border protection and being handled in good faith an obvious point of discussion would be how to reach the staffing mandates already in place using the extra money already allocated. This whole thing is all smoke and mirrors. I understand that in a polarized political landscape everyone on both sides accuses the other-side of dishonestly so one natural assumes the truth must be somewhere between but in this case, with this President, we are literally dealing with a complete work fiction. Trump has no plan for a 5.7 billion wall, Border Patrol already received money they don't need and aren't using, and immigration levels are historically low. There is no logical deal for Senate Republicans and Democrats to reach. Any deal they reach is just window dressing Trump either approves or disapproves of.

Maybe but let's not forget the Senate also unanimously voted to support the bill which ultimately ended the shutdown prior to the shutdown occuring to begin with. Ultimately what Republicans will or won't support will depend on Trump. Nothing any other Republicans says currently matters.

You are qouting me in the absence of the rest of what I said regarding GDP.

As for the rest of your post this link illistrates that the stock market value under Obama out performed Trump through the same period. Can we get back on topic now?

Bottom five states specifically listed in the study your link cites are Kentucky (#46), Massachusetts (#47), New Jersey (#48), Connecticut (#49), and Illinois (#50). Kentucky & Massachusetts have had a Republican Governor since 2015, New Jersey's Governor was Republican Chris Christie from 2010 up till just 2 weeks ago, and Illinois Governor was Republican Bruce Rauner up till 2 just 2 weeks ago. 4 of the 5 states were Republican led at the time of the study. Of course that is a meaningless fact because the study your link cites didn't look at political party affiliation or tax policy as factors it analysed. Your link is gross misrepresentation of the study it cites. This link clearly identifies itself as an opinion piece and cites research done by American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) which is a well known conservative activist group.

Do you agree that their behavior was unhelpful? Polls related to the Russia investigation appear to show a more even split than on Trump approval itself. I think that is crazy considering the number of indictments and guilty pleas. Russian interference is a provable fact at this point yet polls beneath partisan issues of disagreement like direction of the country, Trump's approval, and blame for the shutdown. Anyways, I will let this conversation go. Thank you for participating. I don't think I really have anything left to add and am just rehashing.

@swansont sadly I saw Huckabee Sanders make an argument today about the general media and WikiLeaks which mirrors our discussion some. For the record this really upsets me. It is a massive false equivalent. It is Trump's campaign (Stone, Manafort, Cohen, etc) who broke the law. Committing felonies is not the same thing as reporting on felonies. It just fustrates me that better judgement wasn't shown. It leaves the door open to criticism and helps enable bold face liars like Huckabee to make disgusting generalizations.

I agree but with the caveat that tax cuts are a weak from of stimulus even when the economy is doing bad. People with capital nearly always come out of recessions ahead. When things are cheap it is a great time to buy.

A year on since Trump's tax plan went into effect costing trillions. Are there examples of positive impacts yet?

Rep. Ted Lieu Endorsed Kamala Harris. This early in the process it is surprising an endorsement from Congress already. Harris has a lot of steam out of gate having also drawn a huge crowd over the weekend.

Here in the U.S. the President's veto ability is what causes shutdowns. Congress has always been able to pass something.

If it only force elections for the Congress and not the President it wouldn't be a good idea. It would give the President way too much leverage.

My guess is they never would. They would never even tease it.