Ten oz

The DACA extension is worthless. Trump currently can't do anything with DACA. As for the infrastructure, lawyers, and etc that is all stuff Democrats have already offered to give Trump. If that is true why didn't SCOTUS it up at Trump's request?

@Raider5678 Trump can't end DACA at the moment. Trump must wait a minimum of 10 months just to see if he can get SCOTUS to him his case out. There is no guarantee they will (they could've already if they wanted to) and the no guarantee they'd side with Trump if they did. So with that in mind what good is a 3yr DACA extension? Looks like Democrats have at least the rest of 2019 to negotiate a DACA deal and they have control over the House to negotiate from. Trump's offer doesn't really give them anything.

If someone thinks a comment is offensive, then it is to them. I have not implied than if someone thinks something is offensive than it must be in absolute terms. Same goes for sexism. If someone thinks something is sexist then to them, based on their values and life experience, it is.

+1, I am glad we are back on topic. First off it is worth understand what the 5.7 billion would be spent on. The Budget approved and signed off by Sec of Dept. or Homeland Security only ask for 1.6 billion for 65 miles of new wall construction and Developed the Agency Reform Plan, Comprehensive Border Security Study, and the Border Wall System Cost Estimate. Here is a link to the full budget proposal.. Also as previously discussed the govt doesn't own the land needed to build the Wall. They are numerous lawsuits already pending. So even if Trump got 5.7 billion from Congress he neither has a plan in place to build the wall or legal authority to build it on the land he wants to build it one. You asked if it was worth 3 billion, 1 billion, or whatever but that can't be answered. The Wall is an idea. It is a symbol of Trump's brand. It is not a tangible thing construction workers are standing by ready to build. It is both worth nothing in technical terms and worth everything in political banner waving terms. I understand why you feel it is a game for both sides but in what universe would Congress give the President 5.7 Billion dollars so something which doesn't yet even have plan? Again, when Republicans where in charge of the House they refused to give Trump the money too. Both sides (Democrats and Republican) have told Trump no. So this isn't a game both sides are playing. This is Trump controlling the media cycle, whipping up his base, and looking to score symbolic points. Trump has done this before. Early in his presidency he declared a travel ban but failed to roll out any legal instruction for it. It created chaos. Agencies dealing with immigration and travel were confused. The White House lawyers eventually wrote up official guidance but it was tossed out in court. That happened a few different times until they final created some temporary measures which weren't rejected in Federal Court. Trump also did this with Healthcare. After campaigning he'd replace the ACA with something better Trump demanded Congress vote to repeal the ACA and replace it with the Republican plan. However there wasn't a Republican plan and after attempting to assemble one on the fly Republicans failed to muster up the needed votes among themselves to repeal and replace the ACA. Trump is asking for 5.7 billion for a wall but doesn't have any idea what he'd do if he got it.

I meant vote to fund the govt and continue the Wall debate with an open govt..

You know that no one here is claiming "stupid" is sexist. It was the use of "woman" which it the issue. Your previous posts ( I quoted a couple but there are more) in this thread illustrate you understand that. You are currently posting in bad faith by playing stupid and attempting to re-position the nature of the conversation despite 19 pages of establishment. If you don't think Corbyn's use of "woman" is sexist that is your prerogative but please don't insult us all by pretending we've been debating the use of the word "stupid" all along when you clearly know that is not the case.

Currently the U.S. Govt is shutdown and 800,000 workers are without pay. What specifically (both sides should talk isn't very specific) do you think should happen? Ideally every post in context should have some relationship to a thread's topic. Otherwise it is off topic and doesn't belong. We all drift off topic from time to time; no big deal. My post reiterated the topic and lack of relationship to the topic. Far as I can tell Congressional Republicans do not have to give in to anything. Prior to Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of the House was Paul Ryan (Republican) and Congress didn't found Trump's wall then either. Trump failed to get funding for his wall from Republicans when they controlled all of Congress and is failing to get if now that Democrats control the House. For now McConnell is preventing a vote at Trump request so not the divide the Republican's base but it is known that the votes needed to pass the bill are there.

This thread is about border security. On this issue there is not a lot of division. Immigration has generally been an area where Democrats and Republicans have been able to agree. Senior Republican leaders like Bush, McCain, Rubio, and etc have proposed various bipartisan solutions over the years. It is the extreme politics of Trump which has created the current division on the issue.

This thread isn't about you. It is about Border Security in the U.S.. Whether people in Canada consider you fat, skinny, old, young, gay, straight, black, white, liberal, or conservative is irrelevant. It makes no difference to this discussion. Who cares? I don't mean that to be glib or as an insult I mean it literally. Who cares what you or I recognize ourselves as. If I identify as a Conservative Scientologist what does it change? The topic here is Border Security. Currently the U.S. Govt is shutdown and 800,000 workers are without pay. What specifically (both sides should talk isn't very specific) do you thinks to happen?

A unanimous Senate vote is hardly an example of " two parties went at each other". It is Trump who forced the shutdown and not Congressional Party members. Trump lost the popular vote by 4 million and Republicans just lost the popular in the midterm by 10 million. These are substantial numbers. The Majority of voters do not support Trump. The Majority do not want his Wall. The will of the people should be considered here. Simply wagging ones fingers at both sides ignores the will of the people. Trump is in office and does have his supporters. Trump does represent a portion of the country. However that portion is a minority. Shutting down the whole govt for a record breaking amount of time in an attempt to win a demand not supported by the majority of the country is asinine. It has never been done before by anyone from any political party. There are normal means of appropriations Trump can pursue for his wall. Holding the whole country hostage, especially without majority support, is ethically wrong in my opinion

Nothing in my post implied you were a liberal or conservative. I simply said what you're considered in Canada is irrelevant. I think you are too hung up on labels and the notion of bias. I personally do not care what you consider yourself or how you feel about cable news coverage. It is superfluous to this thread topics. The easiest what to find common ground is to focus on the facts and agreement. We both agree McConnell should hold a vote. So lets continue from there. You can start by addressing my previous post.

If McConnell held a vote and it earned enough votes to pass should Trump sign it? The Stalemate, far as I can tell, is imposed by Trump and Trump alone. Enough Republicans would support the budget as it is for it to pass. That is a matter of record. There is already a bipartisan majority in place behind the budget as it exists. What good is your plea for moderation and bipartisanship if you aren't willing to throw your support behind it. Republicans and Democrats are will to open the govt.. It is Trump who, acting alone, who is saying no. *Edit - Nothing prevents negotiations for the wall to continue with an open govt.

If the Senate already unanimously supported it why isn't that the obvious answer? You are calling on both sides and moderation. A budget which already achieved unanimous support is as bipartisan as it gets. Four Republican Senators ( Collins, Graham, Alexander, and Portman ) has signaled they support the proposal if McConnell allowed a formal vote. The 47 Democrats plus the 4 GOP Senators who openly support the proposal make up 51 votes. So the budget would pass. I believe McConnell should allow a vote. If is wins majority support Trump should sign it. If it fails then both sides should head back to the drawing board. Is that something you support? This thread is discussion a U.S. political issue. What you are considered outside the U.S. isn't relevant to anything.

Can you address the above question? You have called for civility and moderation. I think the question above is straight forward and civil.

"Might be" does specifically identify whose concerns you are "properly addressing". You appear to just be playing Devil's Advocate on behave of groups you assume are probably out there. It isn't useful to this conversation. I too can come up with arguments I assume might be agreeable to some groups. It isn't useful though. Right now my Govt is shutdown and 800k people are going without pay over the Border Wall. Now is the time for specificity based on the best data available and not Devil's Advocate arguments rooted in the date which doesn't exist. If by "both sides" you mean Democrats and Republicans than the moderate view would logically be for Trump to accept the Budget the Senate (which is majority Republican) already unanimously approved on Dec. 20th . I can't imagine what a person "moderate" with a moderate view would consider more civil and bipartisan than something unanimously agreed to. Can you please explain why Trump simply signing that budget isn't the obvious solution here?

Media is consumed al la carte. This isn't the 50's where everyone is getting news from the same 3 sources. You have control over which media outlets you choose to consume. If you are regularly coming across news you feel is inaccurate or bias I believe its a user error problem. The internet is the best platform the world has ever had for researching information. If you don't want bias news just stop following news you think is bias and focus your attention on news you feel isn't bias. Trump lies. Trump lies at levels never seen from a POTUS before. I believe that to be a fact everyone concedes. Some media outlets are more confrontational or disturbed than others when dealing with the way they report on those lies but that doesn't change the fact that Trump is a compulsive liar. It also doesn't change the fact that his campaign committed crimes.

A) - I said that argument was common in thread's and did not single you out. B) - I didn't address your question but there was a Mod note directing us to stay on topic directly following the exchange. If you start a new thread about sexism broadly in society I will happily discuss it a length with you. In context to this this thread's topic I think it is important to keep in mind Corbyn is a national figure who said "stupid world" for the world to see. Corbyn wasn't at home or in a bar being over heard by people ear hustling in on his conversation. My perception of you or vice versa is an off topic. There have already been a couple mod notes.

Trump called reports he was clashing with his Sec of State Rex Tillerson "Fake News" pretty much right up to the time he fired him. Likewise Trump and his supporters attacked reports regarding his rocky relationships with Preibus, Kelly, Session, McMaster, and Mattis. Trump also called initial reports about Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal "Fake News". It seems that most of the time something is labelled as "fake news" by the Trump administration it is definitely true. As this relates to Russia and Collusion the trend is for Trump to deny everything as "Fake News" and re-position the argument to be about something. Regarding Michael Flynn who has since plead guilty to numerous felons related to Russia Trump argued he only fired Flynn because he lied to Mike Pence. To this day,even as Flynn awaits sentencing, Trump has never acknowledge Flynn broke the law. Trump continues to deny the knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting while also insisting it was no big deal with tweets saying: "Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!" Meanwhile the Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya charged and shown to have connections to Russian Intelligence and Manafort (who was also at the meeting) has been proven to have Russian Intelligence ties. So much stuff happens it is tough to even keep straight but there is one consistent thing; if Trump calls it "fake news" it is most likely TRUE.

Below are the 4 arguments used in Brown vs Board of Education. It is sad to me that some version of all these arguments have been attempted here is this thread. The 4th in particular seems common in thread's about sexism. It goes something like 'progress has been made in good faith but woman are still behind because they take time away to have babies or focus on being mothers'.

Uhm, where was Corbyn when he said "stupid woman"?

I still do not fully understand whose perspective other than your own you believe you're taking? Are you addressing the concerns of people at the border, Republicans specifically, those who have been victims of crimes committed by immigrants, or who? I think it matter considering your questions about the specificity of the data. Again, I think it is best to just speak for ourselves. I was born and raised in a border state, lived in in a border city (San Diego) for several years, and have been to Mexico countless times. I do not pretend to be addressing anyone's beliefs or concerns other than my own. I certainly have thoughts on how others feel but it really isn't my place to speak for them. So rather than us all going in circles because you feel the concerns of some group of people you have yet to specifically identify aren't being properly addressed how about you just plainly outline your thoughts.

My advice to anyone working in a professional career would be to leave politics and religion at the door when showing up to work. It is just bad professional etiquette to bring such things into the workplace. I have seen in the past where you referenced going to church with your family. I am sure you have met people through your church who would be very offended by having co-workers telling the the facts about evolution. Do you think a deeply religious person should have to hear about evolution it they do not want to? I make it a habit of enabling peoples freedom of thought/belief when I am able. I think climate change denial is stupid but I do not think it should impact ones employment. Those who deny climate change still have a right to live their lives free from what they may perceive as harassment. I don't expect religious institutions to teach evolution. I think parents have the right to pull their children out of public school and send them to private schools if they choose. We can debate (in a separate thread) whether or not those private schools which don't teach evolution should receive full accreditation from the Dept. of Education but certainly (in my opinion) parents have that right.

...and you feel that you properly addressing those people's (whomever and where ever they are/I am still not sure) concerns? You don't have the same concerns that the people you are properly addressing the issue have. So how do you know you are properly addressing how they feel? I think this conversation would be simplier if we both just just to speak for ourselves.

A win is a win. By an inch or a mile Bush became POTUS. Who is to say All Gore wouldn't have gotten more votes had the impeachment never happened? The result was positive for the GOP. Impeaching Clinton did not cause them to lose. Nor did impeachment motions against Nixon cause Democrats to lose. There is no modern. Precedent o e can point to which would indicate impeaching Trump would cause Democrats to lose in 2020.

My point was that despite being a scientific fact it is also viewed as political by many. Regardless of my views or knowledge of climate change it isn't something I would discuss at work out if respect for others who have different views. It doesn't matter that I think their views are wrong. They are entitled to them. Likewise it doesn't matter if I believe using The gender specific label of woman is offensive. People may still be offended by it.