Ten oz

Yes, Republicans are enabling Trump at the moment to avoid dividing their base. However Democrats and Republicans in Congress mutual support the budget as initially passed and have held meeting looking for compromise. It is a partisan battle but in the traditional sense where Republican and Democratic representatives and at each others throats. Rather it is Democrats vs POTUS with Republicans Representatives trying to play peacemaker.

The money Trump is asking for is a separate appropriation from DHS's budget. DHS's budget has already been increased. Depending on the day of the week and time of the day Trump himself claims the wall is actually nearly complete already, will be concrete, will be a steel fence, some areas might just get more agents, and etc. It is unclear what Trump specifically even wants the money for. The federal govt doesn't even own the land it would need for a fence or wall yet. Ultimately Democrats, working with Republicans, have offered Trump up to nearly half of the money he is demanding but Trump refuses to sit down at the table and iron out a deal. Until a deal is singed it is impossible to say specifically where each dollar will go but as an overall appropriation bill we know both Democrats and Republicans have attempted to make Trump different bipartisan offers and Trump has refused all of them.

I think this is being overlooked/ignored. The current shutdown isn't a tradition Republican vs Democrat standoff. Republicans wouldn't fund Trump's wall either.This is Trump purposefully picking a fight with the new Democratic controlled Congress to please his strongest supporters.

The 2.5 billion was spearheaded by Trump's Vice President. Trump throw Pence under the bus and contradicted the proposal publicly. So it is unknown how that money would have been spent specifically. Trump refuse to come to the table and discuss it.

Such arguments are just distractions which shift focus from the tangible to the ideological. Trump's views on the environment vs Democrat views of morality don't change the facts of the matter. Every reason Trump has used in explaining the necessity for his wall has been rooted objectively false information. Despite this Congress has attempted to satiate Trump's demands with different compromises which have all been rejected. Rather than addressing Trump refusal to enter real negotiations or what steps could be taken by Congress J.C. is content complaining about the lack of parity they preceive in Phi's post. Facts do not matter when one chooses to focus on style at the exclusion of all else.

Can we get past rhetoric and opinion (talking points) nonsense and acknowledge the facts of what the various sides have done in an effort to compromise or not? The Senate unanimously (Democrats and Republicans) passed a spending bill. A unanimous Senate vote is nearly bipartisan as it gets. Trump told McConnell he'd veto it and McConnell held another vote blocking the spending bill, McConnell's own bill, and we entered a shutdown. Democrats have already given Trump 100% of the spending increases he asked for to hire more Custom and Border Protection (CBP) agents and increase fund for DHS overall. Rather than starting from a position of $0 for Trump's wall they have offered from 1.3 to 2.5 billion for the wall and various bipartisan proposals spearheaded by fellow Republicans like Graham and Pence have been totally rejected by Trump who will not budge from his full demand. Actions speak louder than words. In action Democrats have been working with Republicans on compromises, ones Republicans in the senate have supported, but it is Trump who is walking out of meetings. I think you are letting your displeasure for certain language coming from various outlets blind you from the facts of what;'s actually happening here.

I agree. I think localization of food and energy production will be critical. I think importing such basic necessities pits populations against each others and plays a role in scenarios where people cannot afford the very products they help produce.

I think giving Trump 100% of the increases in DHS spending he has requested and offering nearly half of what he has demanded for the wall is a lot of compromise. Especially when Democrats are willing to give all of that just to get the govt open and then continue these discussions. It is worth noting that Trump had a Republican House and Senate last year. Logic dictates getting what he wants from Republicans would be far easier than getting what he wants from Democrats. Yet Trump didn't make this demand last year and instead waited till Democrats had the house. This is a fight Trump has chosen to have and one Democrats have attempted to meet Trump half way on. I do not see what more Democrats can do. Compromised is required and Trump is refusing to compromise. Trump is rejected the plans his own people are bring to him:

Are you able to concede that Democrats have attempted to compromise and Trump has refused to?

We (USA) currently don't have an Attorney General, Sec. of Defense, Chief of Staff, and etc because Trump refuses to listen to his own appointees and fires them. Yet you think it's the Democrats who need to do a better job convincing Trump. How would compromise look to you. Congress has already athorized a 14% increase is Dept of Homeland Security spending under Trump. Now Trump wants 5.7 billion more for his wall. Democrats didn't say no. They said how about 1.3 to harden existing structures. Trump said no. Then Democrats working with Republicans said how about 2.5 billion and Trump said no. The inflexibility here is exclusively with Trump's and Trump alone. Half (the middle) of what Trump wants would be 2.85 billion. So the 2.5 billion offer was very close. Trump rejected out of hand with no counter offer.

*Warning sarcasm ahead* .....yeah but the govt wastes so much money anyway. If Democrats cared about federal workers they would just give Trump 100% of what he wants and end the shutdown. This is no time for compromise or bipartisanship. Trump has hostages. Democrats need to save those hostages or else the blood is on their hands. Democrats offered 1.3 billion and 2.5 billion. The 2.5 billion is nearly half (the middle) of what Trump has demanded and was negotiated by Trump's Vice President. How can you imply Democrats aren't doing their part?

DHS spending is already up 7.3 billion a year under Trump. Increases have already been provided. Then Trump demanded another 5.7 billion and Democrats then worked on offers of 1.3 billion and 2.5 billion (in bipartisanship with Republicans) and Trump rejected both. Now Democrats are offering to give the 1.3 billion up now to get the govt open for a month to allow time for further discussion without is hurting federal workers and Trump is saying no. The 2.5 billion Pence had worked out with Democrats basically met Trump halfway and Trump rejected it. Democrats have attempted to compromise. What is best for America (USA) is for our leaders is to work toward bipartisan compromises. Just giving in to partisan demands to reopen the govt runs to risk of encouraging further shutdowns. If I was POTUS and knew shutting down the govt would result is me getting 100% of what I want I would shutdown the govt every time Congress told me no. This sort of thing is why we don't negotiate with terrorists. Giving in to bad behavior only encourages more bad behavior.

@Raider5678 equivalent is a synonym for "similar" as well. It is time to stop being stubborn and let this go. You attempted to play semantics to re-frame what you posted and it has failed. Nothing about my use of the word "equivalent" was out of context or inaccurate and your replies have only proved as much. This is off topic. If you meant something else with your "similar case" or equivalent analogy as it relates to "stupid woman" just post it rather than wasting time denying what you have already posted. I don't think it is exclusively about whether or not one is offended. I think many people are aware that their own thoughts and behaviors lean towards what would become unacceptable if the more progressive voices are listened to. All battles for equality are power struggles where those benefiting from the status quo have something to lose. I think many rhetorically lash out against feminist movements like #metoo forfear of losing their own privilege more so than any honest disagreement rooted in which type of language offends them.

It also ignores how the same money could be better used to tackle the issues cited as the justification for a wall. The majority of illicit drugs which are brought into the country come in at ports of entry. This is especially true for heroin. Rather than wasting time, money, and national attention on remote southern border crossings we could focusing on strengthening security where it actually matters.

@MigL arguing that both sides are responsible and misbehaving ignores many different facts about what's happening. For starters the budget Dems approved for the Department of Homeland security (DHS) is a 7.8% increase over the previous years budget which itself had been a 6.7% increase. So at Trump request the annual budget for DHS is up 7.3 billion dollars a year since he has taken office. DHS budget 2019 and DHS budget 2018. The 5.7 billion Trump is asking for is additional money to the already twice increased DHS budget and would go directly towards his wall. It is a separate demand which isn't required for Customs Borders protection, Immigration Custom Enforcement, Coast Guard, or etc to operate. All those agencies already got more money. The amount of money going towards Trump's wall has been zero dollars. Trump wants 5.7 billion. The Democrat counter offer initially was 1.3 billion to improve current fencing. Trump rejected 1.3 billion and demand the full 5.7 billion. The VP Pence started working a deal with Democratic leaders for 2.5 billion and Trump shutdown those talks saying “Somebody said $2.5 [billion],” Trump said to reporters. “No. Look, this is national security we’re talking about." Link. Both 1.3 billion and 2.5 billion are compromises by Democrats who do not have to give any additional money at all. Trump has flatly rejected both offers. Where we are today is Democrats are offering to give the 1.3 billion, to get the govt open through February, and allow for further discussion on this matter with an open govt. So despite you suggestion to the contrary Democrats have been attempting to compromise and meet somewhere in the middle. Trump refuses to budge. Also nothing about this requires the the govt to be shutdown. An increase to DHS has already been approved. The wall money is a separate appropriation which can be handled at any time. Trump is choosing to do it now because federal workers make for good hostages.

Equivalent is a synonym of Parallel. Link

The overwhelming majority of non-locally produced illicit drugs which are shipped in from other countries enter via air or sea. Illegal border crossings have been in decline for years and border cities do not have crime rates which differ from the rest of the nation, Link. Every argument I have heard Trump make for the Wall (fence, technology, buzz word of the week) has been inaccurate. Additionally not all the land Trump wants to build on belongs to the Govt. Immanent Domain will need to successfully be use in Federal Court and then the administration will have to successfully beat back law suits from States and private land owners. So a Wall still has a lot of hurdles to pass. Then there is the cost. 5 billion won't cover it. Just has past fencing requires constant maintenance so to will any new fencing. Just has Trump claims some of the 5 billion will repair existing fencing so to will money have to be spend indefinitely on any new fencing.

Italy is another country worth discussion regarding this topic. Their population is in decline and various small rural towns have seen a revival from Syria refugees. Small town Mayor's in place like like Sutera, Riace, and Satriano are crediting refugees for boosting their town which had previously been in population decline for decades. Of course the larger political environment in Italy is more complicated. In a town like Sutera where the population dwindled from 5,000 in the 70's to just 1,500 a couple hundred migrants have an obvious appreciable impact locals can see. Across the whole country of 60 million the benefit isn't so obvious. Does redistributing solve the problem though? U.S. is a nation of immigrants and still our numbers are in decline. Loosing up Immigration is a stop gap which I think all nations with declining populations will be forced to do. Xenophobic hold outs are merely kicking the can against the inevitable. Aging populations in decline need working age people. At least they do within our current economic structures.

People have been using the exact same talking points against what they label to be PC culture my whole life. Below is a Bush speech from 1991, nearly 30yrs ago, and much of what he says has been posted almost verbatim by posters in threads like this one. The only difference being that people keep pretending to issue is new or specific to millennials. It is just easier to repeat talks points one heard some pundit say than give an issue true consideration.

Change can occur in a single generation. During a debate in 1858 Abraham Lincoln said it would take 100yrs to end slavery in the U.S. Link. Five years later he signed the emancipation proclamation. In 2008 both Obama and Clinton campaigned as pro civil-union station g they felt marriage was a religious thing for a man and a woman. Today both, along with the whole Democratic party, are loudy pro marriage equality. Sometimes the dam just bursts and things which seem a long ways away shift overnight. Japan is no less capable of change than other nations.

One of the things Japan is attempting to do is provide varies social safety nets (social security, Healthcare, etc) to those who do choose to have children as a means of encouraging more people to do so. However with an aging population having enough people work full time to pay for such programs is difficult. Here in the U.S. such programs come with political road blocks. Many despise young mother who utilities social programs. I understand what Japan is attempting to do and agree that those with children should have access to programs however I do not agree it should be done to encourage population growth.

I think in the long term societies need to come up with more equitiable ways of managing resources. A population in decline could be an impetus for change. Money is just a mechanisms, a structure, we use to control resources. Grain grows, water flows, wind blows, and the sun glows regardless of how we humans choose to control money.

Read an article this morning citing a CDC report stating that fertility rates in the U.S. currently are not high enough to sustain population levels without immigration. Nations throughout Europe are in a similarly position, Link. I personally see this as a good thing. I think the the planet is over populated. However within our economic models a declining population would stifle growth. So there are economic concerns. In the long run I see a decline in industrial production as a good thing because I think we over consume. Of course not everyone sees this issue as I do. Is there an inherent good to reproducing at rates high enough to sustain population growth? What are the ramification either way?

Your ability to identify that one could be offended fits in with the point on my last few posts. One does not have to agree with another's feelings to acknowledge them as valid. Nor do intentions have to be offensive to cause offense. Had Corbyn responded as you just did and said something like "I didn't mean to say that and I hope she wasn't offended" I doubt this thread exists.

Some feel there isn't a problem with the comment. Also no one here has denied May is a woman. No, Raider can be offended by whatever he finds offensive. I have literally posted as much. At no point have I posted about what Raider should or shouldn't be offended by I also have not brought up Raider's age. I am not attempting to have it both ways. I am not criticizing Raider for not being offended. I am criticizing the insults he is shading others with. Calling people "oversensitive" ridicules them for their beliefs.