J.C.MacSwell

You're welcome.

I think that is how Kamela Harris might justify it as well. The ends justify the means.

As you might know, the Washington Post gave her "four Pinocchios" last year: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/11/did-brett-kavanaugh-offer-dog-whistle-abortion-foes/?utm_term=.b765f9dcf4b1 It was one they considered too be among the biggest of 2018, on a list of course dominated by Trump: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/14/biggest-pinocchios/?utm_term=.fb63d8d16b2f She of course has agendas, as do all politicians, and can make good arguments very forcefully (a good thing), relentlessly overstates her case and is misleading (understandable in the current political climate, if not forgivable.), but unfortunately has demonstrated a willingness to lie...not a white lie...but a bare false witness level accusatory lie.

Not a fan of some of her tactics, but she is certainly a force to be reckoned with.

I was kidding. We help them by calling that a wall. Trump gets some fencing...gets to brag about how big a wall it is....much bigger than your average wall...

Can we not help them out? Not at all. Just a hypothetical if it came down to that. I would actually assume 1,2,3, in that order, but your post left some doubt. Essentially MigL's point...the third option is clearly the worst. Why die on that hill?

So, assuming just the 3 options are available: For you: 1. Option 1 McConell allows the vote 2. Option 3 Shutdown til 2020 3. Option 2 Dems capitulate Is this correct? In the mean time I think it would help if everyone started calling this a wall...

No. You gave me a yes/no for focusing on capitulation by the Democrats instead of McConnel proceeding with a vote. Both seemed unlikely but at least this one had some merit as it didn't imply capitulation. (I would have replied no to the reverse as well, but why clarify when this is IMO the better route of the two) I'm not against this in principle if you mean reasonably respectful protests. But I think it is not a good tactic for them. They already overdid this during the Kavanaugh "trial". So they need to match that to have any effect, and if they do what is that going to look like? Again though...not against this in principle. I don't have much better to add, but I think the Democrate might find something Trump might agree with. They, both Democrats and Trump, were elected. They need to find something acceptable to both. Ideally for them (Democrats) it would be something they could play down, but substantial enough that it looks better over time (say in 2020). Ideally for Trump it is something he can spin the other way.

Tell him they should have a meeting with the Democrat Senators to explore possible ideas of how to break the impasse, including that one. You didn't answer my question, but that's fine. How do you recommend we go about convincing the GOP led Senate to schedule the vote which seems unlikely to occur, but I agree ought to?

Yes or No? No. Your turn... We should focus on getting McConnell to allow a vote in the Republican controlled Senate on any of the bills the Democratic controlled House has already passed instead of focusing on getting Democrats to capitulate. Yes or no?

You have a serious bias if you feel I instigated any of this. Any personal attacks were in kind, except I have never attempted to mischaracterize your positions. Ten oz is not right on this. You have repeatedly admonished me for replying in the exact same manner he attacked me with. He makes clear mischaracterizations of positions. Following complaints or attacks with an appeal to get back on topic is disingenuous. If you or he don't want replies to your negative comments don't make them. If you want to discuss this further you should PM me. I can agree with those four statements as written.

Raider. I would not put too much attention to up and down votes. I don't believe you do as you post true to your beliefs, but if you would like to here it would be good to listen to INow. Here is a good example of one of his better post in terms of upticks, currently +4, so presumably a very agreeable post. I'm sure we can all agree on that, regardless of any political positions: Now, you can probably learn a ton more in the Science section by reading a Janus +1 or +2, but that's doing it the hard way.

Must admit when I saw the term "carcass" I was hoping for something a little bigger.

Keep them coming. You've already found them so let's see them. Out with them. I think this pretty much sums it up. You set the bar, for yourself, much too low IMO. With you? Why bother?

Agree. I have this American friend even. He's a very clever and astute American...

I am sure Trump would agree with that. Country north of the border decides whether to build one, country south of it pays for it. Makes complete sense. We just need to elect a wingnut Prime Minister and get it started.

If all that the Democrats allow Trump is a small picket fence...Trump will call it a wall...paid for by the Mexicans... (disclaimer: no small animals or Democrats were hurt in attempting that joke...)

I'm not trying to win. At least not trying to defeat anybody. I do feel I've lost when the discussion goes South (seriously anyone let me know if that has become politically correct, i do not know the history behind it). I don't think anyone else wins either. Not extremes, but certainly enough to leave a lot of fertile ground in the middle as I said. It is. I will stand by that one also. So you have two minor examples where I have in fact assessed some blame toward the Democrats. Why is it that you find it so unacceptable to hold this position, and find the need to mischaracterize it to the degree you do? If you wish to stay on topic, why do you so consistently do this?

It can be. That is why you need proper context, and you certainly shouldn't assume it. It was asking a question about a future hypothetical...so if you had inferred from that that I might think the Democrats could still become blameful, I think that would be fair. Maybe. I think I make a reasonable effort to be precise. I'm no wordsmith, but I think it is more that some people are reading it with a preconceived idea of opinions i might hold. Compare it to MigL's that I put in quotes above. I have no idea how he could have made himself clearer. Is there any doubt in your mind that he blamed Trump more than anyone else? Mine was a question, so I don't think I needed to make it clear how I myself might distribute blame,

I think it is intentionally misleading. I also believe Ten oz would characterize it as lying if the equivalent was said by Trump. But it seems to get a lot of positive reinforcement around here, and negative feedback for pointing it out. ...and it takes away from a lot of otherwise good posts.

Let's look at the full quote: Note that these are questions, and directed at INow's claim that the Democrats could not be blamed in any way for the shutdown, even going forward, and his claim that he would endure significant financial hardship rather than give in to Trump. My question was with regard to INow's resolve, not a statement blaming Democrats. MigL had suggested that the Democrats still had an obligation to try to resolve the impasse. MigL said: "As far as I'm concerned, D Trump is totally responsible for the wall mess ( and many others ). Not the Democrats, nor most Republicans. However, both Democrats, and most Republicans have it in their power to help 800,000 people affected by the Government shutdown, 600,000 DACA immigrants and another 300,000 ( not my numbers, I'm assuming they're correct ) affected by the TPS extension. Instead of playing D Trump's game, why don't the Democrats release a statement saying... " We are going to do what governments are supposed to do. Help people. We, and some of our fellow Republicans are going to give in to that idiot's demands for the good of the country. We will not hold the American people hostage because of ideology or ego ( in D Trump's case ) " But that's just an opinion as I'm not one of the people affected by the government shutdown, or who could be helped by this deal. ( just wondering if anyone on this forum hasn't received any pay for the last month ) Some here will of course interpret MigL's position, with regard to blame on the impasse, very differently from any reasonable reader. Why that might be true is best Left to another thread...

You would be concerned that Trump would not hold up his end of the bargain? Wouldn't that ensure he is ousted in 2020 (if it isn't already), followed by it passing shortly after that time (regardless of who gets in would that not be most likely?)

I don't think I have made any statements blaming the Democrats, or Republicans. I certainly have with regard to Trump. I have questioned all three, mostly the Democrats and Trump as I see that as to where the impasse will most likely be broken. That would be a nice way to break it.

I was replying to a personal attack, in exactly the same manner as the attack, while being careful not to state anything misleading. You might ask yourself why you question one and not the other.

I Where have either of us even suggested that's the case? I think that's correct. Both the assumption and the logic.