24
   

How (and when) will the Government Shutdown end?

 
 
Sturgis
 
  3  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2019 06:25 pm
@revelette1,
Quote:
I see no good options for anybody.



The best option is for both Houses to get together and remember that they are to work for all their constituents. This includes those who have been furloughed, those who are now in danger when flying. The people who are being warned of and now worrying about food stamp (SNAP) benefits being reduced. And millions of others, including many who have supported Trump until now. Cause them enough pain over a blasted wall and many are likely to abandon him.

This is about the people, not about saving face or guaranteeing a re-election in a few years. At least it should be.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2019 06:31 pm
@Sturgis,
What are you talking about. Both Houses are working for their constituents. The American people want this fight.

The Republican constituents want their side to hold firm. The Democratic constituents (and I am one of tens of millions of Americans who support the Democrats in this fight) want Pelosi to say a firm "No.". I would be furious if Pelosi gave in without receiving something very good in return (I would be willing to consider the DACA+TPS deal if the amount for the wall were no more than $2 billion).

Farmerman and Coldjoint are both constituents. Ask either of them how they would want their representatives to act differently than they are right now? The people on both sides want their representatives to stand firm in this fight.

It is very easy to say the nice thing... but it isn't real.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2019 06:35 pm
@Sturgis,
I am curious... McConnell has a lot of power in this fight, right now he is hiding his head in the sand. Let's say he calls you up for specific advice. He wants you to tell him exactly what specific actions to take; what bills he should bring up, should he ignore the president?

What advice (other than broad generalities) would you give him?
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2019 06:37 pm
@maxdancona,
I still believe in their intrinsic abilities to find the solution and learn to connect across the aisles the way in which many of then did at one time.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2019 06:40 pm
@Sturgis,
Sturgis wrote:

I still believe in their intrinsic abilities to find the solution and learn to connect across the aisles the way in which many of then did at one time.

And there's no reason not to believe in it, because it never stops being a possibility.

But for it to happen, people who are catering to voters who want them to fight would have to stand up to those voters and tell them that they're going to do what's right instead of giving the voters what they want.

I don't know how many representatives are willing to stand up to the people who elected them in such a way.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2019 06:47 pm
@livinglava,
Democracy is a form of representative government. Voters in Kansas vote for representatives who are pro-life. Voters in Massachusetts vote for representatives who are pro-choice. Which of these voters are "right" about abortion is irrelevant (if there even is an absolute right and wrong). Voters don't elect politicians who are going to defy them... why would they? I vote for people who agree with me on the issues, and I vote for people who will stand firm.

Mitch McConnell isn't even allowing a vote in the Senate on re-opening the government. His constituents would be angry at him if he did.
Sturgis
 
  3  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2019 06:47 pm
@maxdancona,
McConnell is a big boy. He needs to pull on his trousers, stand up and march into the Oval Office and make clear to the President, that he must let this go. Accept that at present he is only making matters worse for himself, not just the millions of the nation. Trump only seems to understand what he wants and what will make him look bad. Put together an imagery of how bad, he'll start to fold.
Tell him the wall will be negotiated for the next budget.


Direct advice on individual policies, is up to people in McConnell's shrinking circle. If he actually believes behaving as he is now will give him a good legacy, he's perhaps as delusional as Trump. I think he is aware now that he has screwed up by dilly-dallying for so long, alas, he knows not how to extricate himself from this mess.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2019 06:49 pm
@Sturgis,
Good...

And what specific advice would you tell Nancy Pelosi? Should she "let it go" and agree to give Trump the $5.6 billion he needs for his wall?
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2019 06:57 pm
@Sturgis,
Quote:
Accept that at present he is only making matters worse for himself, not just the millions of the nation.

A little hardship versus the dead that will never come back. Plus the terrorists and gang members that will kill more Americans will continue to come.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2019 06:59 pm
One side sincerely believes that the border wall is immoral, the other side believes it is necessary for our security.

Democracy is an adversarial system, sometimes there is room for compromise. Sometimes there is not. There was no woman's suffrage, abortion, civil rights, same sex marriage, evolution in schools; in each of these fights one side won, and the other side lost.

I think the Democrats have the winning hand in this one, and I think they will play it out (as they should). We will see if I am correct.
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2019 08:12 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
One side sincerely believes that the border wall is immoral

Bullshit, unless they are idiots. Or should I say sincere idiots. They want illegals or their handlers do. It is more than obvious.
revelette1
 
  3  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2019 06:18 am
Quote:
Texas landowners dig in to fight Trump's border wall

HIDALGO, Texas — As President Donald Trump travels to the border in Texas to make the case for his $5.7 billion wall, landowner Eloisa Cavazos says she knows firsthand how the project will play out if the White House gets its way.

The federal government has started surveying land along the border in Texas and announced plans to start construction next month. Rather than surrender their land, some property owners are digging in, vowing to reject buyout offers and preparing to fight the administration in court.

"You could give me a trillion dollars and I wouldn't take it," said Cavazos, whose land sits along the Rio Grande, the river separating the U.S. and Mexico in Texas. "It's not about money."

Trump is scheduled to visit the border Thursday in McAllen, a city of 143,000 on the river.

Congress in March funded 33 miles (53 kilometers) of walls and fencing in Texas. The government has laid out plans that would cut across private land in the Rio Grande Valley. Those in the way include landowners who have lived in the valley for generations, environmental groups and a 19th century chapel.

Many have hired lawyers who are preparing to fight the government if, as expected, it moves to seize their land through eminent domain.

The opposition will intensify if Democrats accede to the Trump administration's demand to build more than 215 new miles of wall, including 104 miles in the Rio Grande Valley and 55 miles near Laredo. Even a compromise solution to build "steel slats," as Trump has suggested, or more fencing of the kind that Democrats have previously supported would likely trigger more court cases and pushback in Texas.

Legal experts say Trump likely cannot waive eminent domain — which requires the government to demonstrate a public use for the land and provide landowners with compensation — by declaring a national emergency.


The rest at AP
livinglava
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2019 06:20 am
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:

Quote:
One side sincerely believes that the border wall is immoral

Bullshit, unless they are idiots. Or should I say sincere idiots. They want illegals or their handlers do. It is more than obvious.

On one level, the border wall IS immoral. Using national differences and separation is immoral. That's why discrimination according to national origin is a protected category of discrimination.

The problem is that even if you eliminated borders and merged all the nations of the world into a single nation, you would still have national ethnic differences causes people to abuse and exploit each other. I.e. there would still be class warfare where people view each other in terms of national stereotypes and who wouldn't hesitate to exploit other ethnicities for money by selling them drugs or using them as drug couriers or whatever.

So in other words, ask yourself the following: If all of North and South America were merged into a single nation, would cocaine and other drugs stop being produced south of Texas and brought to cities north of Texas for sale? If not, why not? If there were no national borders, why wouldn't cross-border crime and human exploitation/abuse not stop? Answer: because it's not the border control that's creating nationalist divisions or the will to exploit national differences for money and power. The borders and border control are just a byproduct of something deeper and more sinister, and the sad thing is that they become part of the solution for stopping the crime and abuses that are being perpetrated as a byproduct of national differences, which is the only hope for liberating migration to occur freely throughout the world.
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  4  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2019 06:32 am
Hate that this is a thing but...

Called it.

Why Federal Workers Still Have to Show Up Even If They’re Not Being Paid
Quote:
The law prohibits public employees from striking, forcing them into what one union leader called “involuntary servitude” during the government shutdown.


Quote:
Since the enactment of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, federal employees have been legally prohibited from striking. That law was intended to prevent public-sector workers from leveraging a work stoppage that could cripple the U.S. government or major industries in negotiations for better pay, working conditions, and benefits. But it likely did not envision a scenario where the government would require its employees to work without paying them, as is the case now.
Olivier5
 
  3  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2019 06:37 am
@revelette1,
Hey, if there was a river flowing on the border of my property, I wouldn't want anybody to fence me off it. I would want to be able to access that river, eg for watering my cattle, fishing, swimming, etc.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2019 06:48 am
@tsarstepan,
taft hartley was initially designed to control labor unions and prevent them from striking.I think it was aimed at Railroad Unions first because union-ism as beginning to be linked with Commun-ism. Interestingly, I just read that it was passed OVER a Truman veto but Truman invoked it 12 tims in his remaining years,
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2019 09:13 am
Quote:
“When you think about how hard you work, you’re waking up this morning, you’re trying to put food on the table, you’re going to work, many people go to jobs they don’t like, and then you look at the numbers,” the host said. “You’re spending about $80,000—a little over $80,000—for one of those illegals’ lifetime to keep them here in the U.S. You’re paying for them, and you’re working hard to pay for them,” she added.

Although Earhardt didn’t say where she got that exact figure, it appears to come from an article published by the Washington Examiner last February, which cited a report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). But the Fox News host appears to have either misread or misunderstood the reported data, as it was specifically talking about the cost of resettling refugees who come into the country through a legal route, not undocumented migrants.

Beyond erroneously conflating refugee resettlement with illegal immigration, Earhardt also failed to point out that immigrants—whether they enter the country legally or not—pay billions of taxes every year, just like American citizens, as Vox explained in detail in October. Documented immigrants, including refugees, pay the same taxes as any U.S. citizen.


Newsweek


I can't figure which motivating factor motivates die hard anti-immigrants, plain old prejudice or their thinking all illegal and legal immigrants vote democrat so if they can keep them out by any means necessary (lie, cheat or steal) democrats lose votes.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2019 09:30 am
Federal Emergency for the border in 2019, followed by...
Federal Emergency for climate change in 2021, followed by...
Federal Emergency for healthcare in 2022, followed by...
Federal Emergency for education in 2023, followed by...
Federal Emergency for infrastructure in 2024, followed by...


I hope Trump doesn’t escalate our already sickening partisanship.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  3  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2019 09:31 am
Getting back to strategies, I have been wondering two things. Number one, has Trump been willing to give on DACA and other immigration issues plus accepting a little less in exchange for the wall? Number two, is Nancy Pelosi willing to give on the wall at all?
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2019 09:32 am
@revelette1,
I think she may be (or at least on other border security measures)...but not until the government is open.

The government shutdown happened under republican watch. Pelosi took over during a shutdown.

Open the government and then we can govern.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 11:30:36