The Border Wall or Fence

[Raider5678]

10 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Yesterday Democrats did pass a bill to fund the whole govt. It too would pay federal workers. 223 Democrats voted for it. So hundreds of Democrats did in fact vote to pay federal workers yesterday. 

And Democrats know for a fact that a bill to reopen the government, the same one they've passed how many times now, isn't going to work.

It's political posturing.

They care more about that then getting the federal workers paychecks. 

They didn't vote to pay federal workers yesterday. They voted on something to make themselves look good.

[John Cuthber]

31 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Funny. Because all but 10 Democrats voted against paying federal workers:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/10-dems-break-with-leaders-support-gop-bill-to-pay-workers-during-the-shutdown

 

But it's the Republicans holding federal workers hostage.

As 10 Oz has pointed out, that's nonsense ayay but, even setting that aside, you are failing to note the difference between delaying payment for work done and refusing to pay them at all for that work.

The latter is shitty, even by Republican standards.

Did you really think they were equivalent?

 

[Raider5678]

Just now, John Cuthber said:

Did you really think they were equivalent?

 

No. And I never said they were. But that being said, I do think they're similar.

But regardless, are they both, not shitty things to do?

Refusing to pay them at all. Shitty. Refusing to pay them later because it'd hurt your political position. Not as shitty.

Do you want a half shit sandwich or a fully shit sandwich? Preferably, I'd rather neither.

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

As 10 Oz has pointed out, that's nonsense ayay but,

If the Democrats proposed a measure to pay government workers in spite of the shutdown, and Republicans refused to let it pass, would you consider it nonsense?

 

I'm sure we both agree. Paying federal workers is a step in the right direction, correct?

Then why give up the good in pursuit of the perfect? 

[Ten oz]

12 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

And Democrats know for a fact that a bill to reopen the government, the same one they've passed how many times now, isn't going to work.

It's political posturing.

They care more about that then getting the federal workers paychecks. 

They didn't vote to pay federal workers yesterday. They voted on something to make themselves look good.

Trump literally sat in the oval office while cameras rolled and told Schumer he would be "proud to shutdown the govt" and that he wouldn't blame Democrats. I won't bother linking anything because I think we all remember that. Trump told ownership of this. People aren't being paid because of him.

[Raider5678]

33 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

These votes are meaningless less the Senate passes something and Trump signs it.  

I think progress is important here.

The GOP in the house was willing to do something. Democrats could embrace that and push it towards the Senate as a bipartisan bill.

Instead, they choose to push something they know will not pass once again. And I don't see a major reason as to why they'd do that, besides political posturing. Do you?

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

People aren't being paid because of him.

If you were given the option to send a bill to the Senate, would you send another bill that you know is going to fail, or would you send a bill that authorizes payment to federal workers but still doesn't open up the government?

I would vote for the latter. And I suspect you'd be right there voting for it with me. And I'd like for the Democrats to do the same. Because if they truly care more about the American people then they do about blocking Republicans, they'd vote in favor of paying them.

They're not dumb. They know the measure they're submitting won't pass. So why do they keep sending it again and again? Why can't they send something that's less, but at least lets some workers put food on the table?

Edited January 24, 2019 by Raider5678

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I think progress is important here.

The GOP in the house was willing to do something. Democrats could embrace that and push it towards the Senate as a bipartisan bill.

Instead, they choose to push something they know will not pass once again. And I don't see a major reason as to why they'd do that, besides political posturing. Do you?

I like how you characterize the GOP effort as "willing to do something", and the Democratic effort as "push something they know will not pass once again". 

Given that you could just as easily have switched the parties that you made those characterizations about, I'm afraid your bias is shining through.

[Raider5678]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Given that you could just as easily have switched the parties that you made those characterizations about, I'm afraid your bias is shining through.

I said the truth and it's perfectly fine if you think it sounds biased. It very well may be biased, but it's still an unconscious ad hominem on your part. Look at what you said. It focused on me but it didn't address my argument at all. I think it's important we focus on what's being said, rather than whether or not I might be biased. We should focus our efforts on finding the agreement that we can, rather than highlighting our differences.

So, in good faith, I'll ask you the same question I asked TenOz.

If you were given the option to send a bill to the Senate, would you send another bill that you know is going to fail, or would you send a bill that authorizes payment to federal workers but still doesn't open up the government?

Edited January 24, 2019 by Raider5678

[Ten oz]

9 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Instead, they choose to push something they know will not pass once again. And I don't see a major reason as to why they'd do that, besides political posturing. Do you?

It passed with a unanimous vote in the Senate before Trump signaled he wanted to shutdown the govt down, Link

14 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

you were given the option to send a bill to the Senate, would you send another bill that you know is going to fail, or would you send a bill that authorizes payment to federal workers but still doesn't open up the government?

Every senator already supported the bill before all this start. It is Trump who wanted the shutdown. Republicans in the Senate are prepared to vote on any bill Trump is willing to sign. 

 

[Raider5678]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It passed with a unanimous vote in the Senate before Trump signaled he wanted to shutdown the govt down,

We both know that it won't pass with a unanimous vote now. So this is a red herring to distract from what I said.

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Every senator already supported the bill before all this start. It is Trump who wanted the shutdown. Republicans in the Senate are prepared to vote on any bill Trump is willing to sign. 

 

And again, this is completely missing the point of what I said.

Answer the question I asked. I'm sure we can find something we agree on.

If neither of the two options I presented is one you would choose, then simply say so and tell me what you'd send instead.

Edited January 24, 2019 by Raider5678

[Ten oz]

10 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

We both know that it won't pass with a unanimous vote now. So this is a red herring to distract from what I said.

Do you concede that the only reason it won't pass now it because Trump doesn't want it? 

12 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

And again, this is completely missing the point of what I said.

Answer the question I asked. I'm sure we can find something we agree on.

If neither of the two options I presented is one you would choose, then simply say so and tell me what you'd send instead.

There is nothing about Trump's demand which requires the government to be shutdown. This whole thing can be negotiated with an open govt. The only reason Trump is doing it this way is to blackmail Congress. 

I think the only bill the House should pass is the one they pass and the Senate unanimously supported. Anything else rewards bad behavior and increases the likelihood of this sort of thing in the future. 

[Raider5678]

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Do you concede that the only reason it won't pass now it because Trump doesn't want it? 

I guess I concede it. I never held that position.

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

There is nothing about Trump's demand which requires the government to be shutdown. This whole thing can be negotiated with an open govt. The only reason Trump is doing it this way is to blackmail Congress. 

I think the only bill the House should pass is the one they pass and the Senate unanimously supported. Anything else rewards bad behavior and increases the likelihood of this sort of thing in the future. 

How is passing a bill to pay federal workers without opening up the government rewarding bad behavior?

The workers get paid. Trump still didn't get his wall. Where's the reward?

Additionally, by paying federal workers you'd actually be reducing what Trump can black main democrats with. Is that not a good thing?

 

It reduces Trump's leverage, it puts food on the table for at least thousands of federal workers, and it still doesn't give him a wall. It seems like something the Democrats should support to me. Unless, of course, it's about political posturing.

Edited January 24, 2019 by Raider5678

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

Preferably, I'd rather neither.

Well, if nobody had elected Trump, that's where we would be.
And, if they got rid of him then we would be there.

And if people stopped supporting him, that's where we would be.

[rangerx]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

How is passing a bill to pay federal workers without opening up the government rewarding bad behavior?

Because public health and safety is every bit as important as pay in arrears.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Well, if nobody had elected Trump, that's where we would be.
And, if they got rid of him then we would be there.

And if people stopped supporting him, that's where we would be.

Trump has relentlessly insisted for 3 and a half years that Mexico would pay for a border wall. No nuance, no doubts, no maybes, Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall.  He held rallies a;; over the country leading people in chants where he'd say "who's going the pay for the wall" and stadiums full of supporters when yell "MEXICO". Trump has given interviews and briefings where he'd cut reporters off and insult those who challenged how he'd get Mexico to pay. Now here we are with the govt shutdown as Trump demands a newly elected House majority give him the money tax payer money for his wall......and some people are actually trying to launch arguments blaming Democrats . 

[rangerx]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Now here we are with the govt shutdown as Trump demands a newly elected House majority give him the money tax payer money for his wall......and some people are actually trying to launch arguments blaming Democrats 

Exactly. When the wall and who pays for it are inextricably linked and one element fails, it's a failed policy. Period.

It always appears a desperate grasp at every straw to salvage a win, even if it means some disaster so he can declare an emergency.

That's dark

[Raider5678]

27 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

and some people are actually trying to launch arguments blaming Democrats 

So I take it you won't be addressing my argument nor answer my questions.

Instead, you'll just complain about Trump some more instead of talking to me.

30 minutes ago, rangerx said:

 Because public health and safety is every bit as important as pay in arrears.

So that means we shouldn't vote to give hundreds of thousands of workers the money they've worked for until we're able to open the entire government why?

This doesn't answer the question. 

Edited January 24, 2019 by Raider5678

[J.C.MacSwell]

15 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Trump has relentlessly insisted for 3 and a half years that Mexico would pay for a border wall. No nuance, no doubts, no maybes, Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall.  He held rallies a;; over the country leading people in chants where he'd say "who's going the pay for the wall" and stadiums full of supporters when yell "MEXICO". Trump has given interviews and briefings where he'd cut reporters off and insult those who challenged how he'd get Mexico to pay. Now here we are with the govt shutdown as Trump demands a newly elected House majority give him the money tax payer money for his wall......and some people are actually trying to launch arguments blaming Democrats . 

That's actually very amusing, and well stated. +1

I was with you right up to the bold...not that there is no truth to it as well...but nothing Trump has said or done, from the time he was born, absolves the Democrats of their responsibility to seek an end to the shutdown. (and no, that is not a suggestion they aren't trying to do just that, for anyone who feels compelled to jump to conclusions...)

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

So I take it you won't be addressing my argument nor answer my questions.

Instead, you'll just complain about Trump some more instead of talking to me.

I addressed your argument. I said I don't think the House should send anything other than the bill that was previously approved and explained why. If you disagree with my position it doesn't mean I fail to address your argument. 

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That's actually very amusing, and well stated. +1

I was with you right up to the bold...not that there is no truth to it as well...but nothing Trump has said or done, from the time he was born, absolves the Democrats of their responsibility to seek an end to the shutdown. (and no, that is not a suggestion they aren't trying to do just that, for anyone who feels compelled to jump to conclusions...)

Democrats have an obligation to do their best to serve their constituents and the nation as a whole. I agree. However I do not think placating Trump is in the best interest of the nation and certainly isn't in the best interest of the voters who put Democrats in office.

The popular saying is "we don't negotiate with terrorist". Nothing about Trump's demand require the govt to be shutdown. Trump did it as a means of taking hostages. That shouldn't be allowed to work. No deal until the hostages are freed is the only solution that makes sense to me. 

[rangerx]

23 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

So I take it you won't be addressing my argument nor answer my questions.

Instead, you'll just complain about Trump some more instead of talking to me.

So that means we shouldn't vote to give hundreds of thousands of workers the money they've worked for until we're able to open the entire government why?

This doesn't answer the question. 

Bullshit.

I made a point about public health and safety being equal to paychecks and you have the audacity to Trump it into something it's not and make an assumption about my motives.

Then you put words in my mouth by saying something I never said.

Grow TF up.

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Bullshit.

I made a point about public health and safety being equal to paychecks and you have the audacity to Trump it into something it's not and make an assumption about my motives.

Then you put words in my mouth by saying something I never said.

Grow TF up.

He didn't even question your point. Your point didn't answer his question. He questioned why the paychecks should be held up. If both issues are of equal concern and you can solve one independent of the other, why not at least get that done?

 

[rangerx]

9 minutes ago, rangerx said:

This doesn't answer the question. 

I answered it by putting PH&S on par with paychecks, not pitting a side.

If what you suggested it true then you'd be satisfied to sacrifice public health and safety in favor of getting the government folks paid.

Truth is I can't say that because I'm sure you're very concerned about public health and safety.

I'm only saying you didn't consider it.


Seems to me there's only one answer. Vote to open the government. No conditions.

 

Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

He didn't even question your point. Your point didn't answer his question. He questioned why the paychecks should be held up. If both issues are of equal concern and you can solve one independent of the other, why not at least get that done?

 

Ahh but it did answer the question.

[J.C.MacSwell]

20 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Seems to me there's only one answer. Vote to open the government. No conditions.

Trump is saying "hold the hostages" until he can get his money. (or is he willing to flex on that?)

Would you agree with, or not agree with, "hold the hostages" until you get public health and safety back?

There are a number of ways this can be framed.

It's kind of like the "Wisdom of Solomon" thing...except in this case Solomon turns out to be a bit of an ass if no one cares enough about the baby.

 

Edited January 25, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I said the truth and it's perfectly fine if you think it sounds biased. It very well may be biased, but it's still an unconscious ad hominem on your part. Look at what you said. It focused on me but it didn't address my argument at all. I think it's important we focus on what's being said, rather than whether or not I might be biased. We should focus our efforts on finding the agreement that we can, rather than highlighting our differences.

So, in good faith, I'll ask you the same question I asked TenOz.

If you were given the option to send a bill to the Senate, would you send another bill that you know is going to fail, or would you send a bill that authorizes payment to federal workers but still doesn't open up the government?

The GOP knew their proposal was unacceptable. Yet they proposed it anyway. How is that different than what the Democrats did?

[rangerx]

Holding hostages is wrong. Compromising ph&s is wrong.

Hanging one's self on the horns of a dilemma is not a choice.


One vote. Open the gov. Yay/Nay

It's that fn simple.
 

12 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Trump is saying "hold the hostages" until he can get his money.

Would you agree with, or not agree with, "hold the hostages" until you get public health and safety back?

 

[Raider5678]

12 minutes ago, zapatos said:

The GOP knew their proposal was unacceptable. Yet they proposed it anyway. How is that different than what the Democrats did?

It's not.

But I want to know why you think it's unacceptable to pay people their paychecks before the government reopens.

I think we'd both agree that the government should reopen. But if that's not going to happen any time soon, surely we can agree to pay them their paychecks?

3 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Compromising ph&s is wrong.

You have yet to explain how it's compromising on public health and security.

35 minutes ago, rangerx said:

If what you suggested it true then you'd be satisfied to sacrifice public health and safety in favor of getting the government folks paid.

Again, how is it sacrificing public health and safety if we pay the workers their paychecks?

If anything, it'd increase public health and safety, as workers like TSA agents would be able to do their job properly. 

36 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Seems to me there's only one answer. Vote to open the government. No conditions.

 

And why can't we vote to give workers their paychecks if we can't open the government?
It's not sacrificing health and safety. It's actually increasing it.

54 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Bullshit.
I made a point about public health and safety being equal to paychecks and you have the audacity to Trump it into something it's not and make an assumption about my motives.
Then you put words in my mouth by saying something I never said.
Grow TF up.

 

Relax buddy. It wasn't addressed at you.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

I addressed your argument. I said I don't think the House should send anything other than the bill that was previously approved and explained why.

Your explanation was that it was rewarding bad behavior. I asked how. You didn't respond.

So I'll ask again. How is it rewarding bad behavior?