Goverment Shutdown

[Revoltingest]

You don't know this, but you invoke the "it takes two" rule. Not very convincing this time @Revoltingest

Well, your partisan reasoning isn't convincing either, bub.
To deny that either party could end it isn't rational.
To not insist upon compromise enables shutdown continuance
because it inspires both sides to dig in their heels for political gain.

Now, I'm not blaming you personally.
But consider what message we want to send to Trump & the Dems.
Reach agreement....or continue the financial carnage?

 

[Valjean]

Even they don't want to eliminate that.
But they are weak on environmental protections.
That's where I'm a tree hugger.
(Although trees are reluctant.)

But they do. Not explicitly, as they did in1980, but they've been chipping away at public services ever since: staffing them with incompetents and directors hostile to their missions, defunding them then calling for their elimination 'cause they can't do their jobs, &c. They want to shrink government and drown it in a bathtub. They don't believe public service is the purview of government.

"Though the people support the government, the government should not support the people." -- Grover Cleveland.
"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit." -- same.

 

[columbus]

Oh, you fundie socialists....always misrepresenting me.
You make Jesus cry.

I am not going to go back through all the post-election stuff in your considerable post history to find the ones where you used the phrase "tyranny of the majority" to refer to electing POTUS.

Are you claiming that I am misremembering?
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

But they do. Not explicitly, as they did in1980, but they've been chipping away at public services ever since: staffing them with incompetents and directors hostile to their missions, defunding them then calling for their elimination 'cause they can't do their jobs, &c. They want to shrink government and drown it in a bathtub. They don't believe public service is the purview of government.

"Though the people support the government, the government should not support the people." -- Grover Cleveland.
"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit." -- same.

I think that's too extreme a characterization of the right.

 

[Shaul]

@Revoltingest lets not forget...MEXICO WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY FOR IT!

Who says they won’t? Have you never heard of fungible funding? Perhaps you have forgotten that the U.S.-Mexico trade agreement is being renegotiated. Oh, and that trade agreement only needs Senate approval, not House. IOW, President Trump has an alternative way to get his border funding if House Democrats take too long.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am not going to go back through all the post-election stuff in your considerable post history to find the ones where you.....

Of course not.
Because if you had to deal with an actual
post, your straw man would catch fire when
facing the concept of the constitutional republic.

 

[Prometheus85]

Who says they won’t? Have you never heard of fungible funding? Perhaps you have forgotten that the U.S.-Mexico trade agreement is being renegotiated. Oh, and that trade agreement only needs Senate approval, not House. IOW, President Trump has an alternative way to get his border funding if House Democrats take too long.

Hate to break it to ya. But Mexico has already said they are not paying for and trump can kiss Mexico’s a**

 

[columbus]

Of course not.
Because if you had to deal with an actual
post, your straw man would catch fire when
facing the concept of the constitutional republic.

Ahem:

Are you claiming that I am misremembering?

You didn't answer the question.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Ahem:


You didn't answer the question.
Tom

My post answered your question.
You aren't even remembering.
You cited nothing which I've posted.
All you provide is a mistaken impression.
And you still won't find a single post to take issue with.
Is this out of laziness or fear of being caught in error?
Do you oppose our having a constitutional republic?
Do you believe that one is not democratic? Why?

 

[RedDragon94]

Who’s to blame for the government shutdown and why.

Smh. We all are. We voted for all these people and we fueled/are fueling the news media to pit our political parties against one another when we should be united. Instead, we are divided indefinitely.

 

[columbus]

You aren't even remembering.
You cited nothing which I've posted.
All you provide is a mistaken impression.
And you still won't find a single post to take issue with.
Is this out of laziness or fear of being caught in error?

It's out of sheer laziness.
Plenty of the more politically minded RF members remember your characterizing a democratically elected POTUS as "tyranny of the majority".
Newer ones will easily find out for themselves.
Tom

 

[columbus]

We voted for all these people

Trump lost his only election by millions.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

It's out of sheer laziness.

Your delusion that Hillary won the presidency is so special.

A better approach....
Why not ask a question about my view on some issue, in order to discuss it?
That's better than bickering over some vague distorted impression.

 

[Prometheus85]

Say what?
Those are exactly what I mean by big, overreaching, government!
Tom

My bad. Maybe u missunderstood me. Let me clarify. Using the Teabaggers as a representative sample of Small Government proponents, we find that things not considered to be Big Government include:

The patriot act
War on drugs.
Securing the border
Keeping gays from getting married
Ironically All these things are big government but right wing nut jobs dont have a problem with them.

 

[RedDragon94]

Trump lost his only election by millions.
Tom

Let me clarify. We (or our politicians) voted for people who act like complete little children on both sides. Trump is just there adding to the childishness.

 

[columbus]

Then why not ask a question about my view on some issue, in order to discuss it?
That's better than bickering over some vague distorted impression.

Because it's already been discussed at greaeaeat length.

But you could say it again.
Why do you strongly oppose the POTUS being elected by the American voters?
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Because it's already been discussed at greaeaeat length.

So you want to avoid the central issue to your imagined complaint?

Why do you strongly oppose the POTUS being elected by the American voters?

Try asking your question honestly, rather than making it loaded.
You I cannot reward you with an answer when you misbehave.

 

[Prometheus85]

Smh. We all are. We voted for all these people and we fueled/are fueling the news media to pit our political parties against one another when we should be united. Instead, we are divided indefinitely.

Speak for yourself. I voted for Hillary Clinton and of Hillary was president we wouldn’t be in this mess. I mean republicans will probably be bigger jerks than they are now but things would be much more stable

 

[icehorse]

Well, your partisan reasoning isn't convincing either, bub.

How can you say it's partisan when trump couldn't get it done when he had a GOP house?

 

[Prometheus85]

Because the American People don't want it.
@Revoltingest is on record as opposing democratic processes.

He refers to it as "the tyranny of the majority".
Tom

Tyranny of the majority is how we got trump.