Conservative Politics & Daily Events Discussion

Quote from edwardaneal

as to this shut down it looks like one side is at least trying to negotiate - offered up something pretty major yesterday - at least its major if you care about the DACA kids - - and its something he doesnt need republicans to give - just like Obama did so can he

so where are the Democrats? - - if getting the government open is important where are they? if the really give a cr@p about the DACA kids where are they?

its really sad state we are in when not letting Trump win is more important than working for things that you have said are important

I thought the president made a decent offer and since the main objective during a hostage negotiation is to get the hostages freed. I would except his offer, because the 800k+ innocent hostages he has taken would be set free.

Now if taking hostages and making demands with threats of taking more hostages unless your demands are met is considered terrorism, the hostage taker would be a terrorist and as an American I could not negotiate with him until all the hostages were released, because we don't negotiate with terrorists.

However, hostage takers rarely give up their hostages without getting what they want because those hostages are the only leverage they have. In this situation you can't just have a sniper shoot the hostage taker, so again, I would accept the offer.

WOLF

Where are these 800k hostages you are inferring about?

For someone to be considered a hostage, they must be held against their will.

If you have the ability to stand up and say "I WANT TO GO HOME" and they send you home, YOU are NOT a hostage.

I thought the Presidents offer to Pelosi and the dumbocrats sucked ass.

I was 100% against it and still am.

That offer is basically telling a bank robber that since he took the trouble to get dressed, drive to the bank, hold it up and rob it, That the bank will not press charges, let him keep the money, not go to jail, and allow him to rob it every month for the rest of their lives.

I think the better offer would be, Build the wall, beef up border security and we will give every illegal immigrant a plane ticket to their legal home country of record, and allow them to apply for citizenship and move their application to the top of the list. If they do not accept the offer, then all illegals will be booted across the border, no ticket for ANYTHING, their name added to the do not fly list, they will NEVER be allowed to apply for citizenship, They will NEVER be allowed to cross the border even to visit family.

Quote from WOLF

I thought the president made a decent offer and since the main objective during a hostage negotiation is to get the hostages freed. I would except his offer, because the 800k+ innocent hostages he has taken would be set free.

Now if taking hostages and making demands with threats of taking more hostages unless your demands are met is considered terrorism, the hostage taker would be a terrorist and as an American I could not negotiate with him until all the hostages were released, because we don't negotiate with terrorists.

However, hostage takers rarely give up their hostages without getting what they want because those hostages are the only leverage they have. In this situation you can't just have a sniper shoot the hostage taker, so again, I would accept the offer.

you are showing your bias here - there are two sides disagreeing and both sides are equally responsible for the shutdown - either side also has the ability to end it.

also as I pointed out only one side seems willing to talk and negotiate. the other side is the one refusing to come to the table s#it they even tried to leave town to guarantee it would drag out even longer

As a side note I was reading this morning that the cost of the shutdown has already exceeded 5.8 billion

Quote from Bill Martin

I usually agree with you but this time I think you are being just a little bit harsh. If a baby was brought here illegally by their parents and the US is all that they know - it would be inhumane to send them back to a country penniless with possibly no family for support. I think they should be given a pathway to citizenship at the back of the line - ANY criminal convictions disqualify them. Of course no deal should be considered without tight border security so we never find ourselves in this position again.

yes - I agree

Quote from edwardaneal

you are showing your bias here - there are two sides disagreeing and both sides are equally responsible for the shutdown - either side also has the ability to end it.

also as I pointed out only one side seems willing to talk and negotiate. the other side is the one refusing to come to the table s#it they even tried to leave town to guarantee it would drag out even longer

As a side note I was reading this morning that the cost of the shutdown has already exceeded 5.8 billion

My "bias" is just a simple FACT. Trump is the ONE demanding anything besides funding the government. The Dems passed bills to open every department individually so Trump could fund all or leave Homeland security closed until it's funding(Wall) could be negotiated, but he chooses an all or nothing approach. Those are the FACTS, NOT BIAS.

Just because the FACTS make Trump look bad, doesn't make them "fake" and doesn't make a person "biased" for mentioning them.

Quote from WOLF

My "bias" is just a simple FACT. Trump is the ONE demanding anything besides funding the government. The Dems passed bills to open every department individually so Trump could fund all or leave Homeland security closed until it's funding(Wall) could be negotiated, but he chooses an all or nothing approach. Those are the FACTS, NOT BIAS.

Just because the FACTS make Trump look bad, doesn't make them "fake" and doesn't make a person "biased" for mentioning them.

First you are either forgetting or ignoring the FACT that Trump asked Pelosi if he opened the government now if she would promise to negotiate on the wall later and she said NO she said she would NEVER talk about the wall

also are you actually saying that building a wall would not be something that would be including in government funding if it is to be built?

Government funding covers all kinds of things, it buys tanks and guns, it builds government buildings it even pays for trips by Pelosi - - if building a wall is not something that would be included in a government funding bill where exactly do you think it belongs?

if not paid for by the government then who?

again you are showing your bias - you are against the wall so you think of it as an extra that Trump is asking for - Many people think of it as a national security necessity that should be funded before almost anything else

Like I said there are two sides - one is staying there in Washington and inviting the other to come talk and publicly offering to extend DACA

the other is sitting on their a$$ and doing nothing

And that my friend is a simple FACT

Fact - Trump asked Nancy Pelosi if he agreed to sign a bill opening government now would she agree to negotiate on wall funding later

Fact - Nancy said no - never

Wall funding is a government funding item that can only be funded if it is included in a bill approved by both houses Nancy has said she will never support it in any future bill so she really hasn't left Trump any other option than to fight for it now when he has something to use as leverage

Your facts do not contradict my statement Edward Neal. What you are biasedly talking around is the FACT that only one departments budget has bearing on the wall and the Dems approved bills to open every department individually.

I am not "against the wall" any more than I'm against my wife buying red bottom shoes. Do I think they are a waste of money? Yes. I don't care if Trump gets his wall or not using money from the pot that I paid into. I don't care if my wife buys those shoes or not using money from the pot that I paid into. She has two or three pairs of those stupid shoes, one pair I actually bought her. I have said on multiple occasions that I would give him his money, because it's your money too. When everybody (R,D, House, Senate, Trump) was ready to approve a funding Bill until Trump was called out for caving on wall funding, then Triump changes his mind and says "no deal without wall funding", you are damn right I consider it an "extra that Trump is" demanding, not "asking for".

I understand your need to paint me as a biased, irrational person and I forgive you.

Quote from edwardaneal

First you are either forgetting or ignoring the FACT that Trump asked Pelosi if he opened the government now if she would promise to negotiate on the wall later and she said NO she said she would NEVER talk about the wall

also are you actually saying that building a wall would not be something that would be including in government funding if it is to be built?

Government funding covers all kinds of things, it buys tanks and guns, it builds government buildings it even pays for trips by Pelosi - - if building a wall is not something that would be included in a government funding bill where exactly do you think it belongs?

if not paid for by the government then who?

again you are showing your bias - you are against the wall so you think of it as an extra that Trump is asking for - Many people think of it as a national security necessity that should be funded before almost anything else

Like I said there are two sides - one is staying there in Washington and inviting the other to come talk and publicly offering to extend DACA

the other is sitting on their a$$ and doing nothing

And that my friend is a simple FACT

Display More

Quote from edwardaneal

Fact - Trump asked Nancy Pelosi if he agreed to sign a bill opening government now would she agree to negotiate on wall funding later

Fact - Nancy said no - never

Wall funding is a government funding item that can only be funded if it is included in a bill approved by both houses Nancy has said she will never support it in any future bill so she really hasn't left Trump any other option than to fight for it now when he has something to use as leverage

Those 3 women would seek as much money as the fee loaders we are trying to keep out. Pretty face or not, come here legally

Quote from Bill Martin

If Trump caves on this I think that will kill him in the 2020 election - in reverse If Pelosi caves her liberal party will crucify her. This shutdown may be just startin

(sarcasm)Right, because both parties supporters will vote for the other side if this shakes out unfavorably for their side.

It remains the truth that Nancy has told Trump that if he doesnt stand his ground now she will never give him a second chance

so he is standing his ground

Heck if she had simply said "Yes Mr. President I will negotiate a wall later" this shut down would have ended weeks ago

but she said NEVER - so here we are

On a positive note I will add that I do respect Nancy for being honest - most politicians would have lied and said they would negotiate and then would have reneged after Trump signed the bill. At least she was honest

Quote from Bill Martin

Like whatever side wins won’t use it like a bat in the 2020 election - the 2020 election might be being held right now !! If Trump caves I’m going Edward Neal s route and throw my vote away on a libertarian - at least it would be easier to sleep at nite !!

So 2020 could be when pigs fly and hell freezes over?

Quote from edwardaneal

It remains the truth that Nancy has told Trump that if he doesnt stand his ground now she will never give him a second chance

so he is standing his ground

Heck if she had simply said "Yes Mr. President I will negotiate a wall later" this shut down would have ended weeks ago

but she said NEVER - so here we are

On a positive note I will add that I do respect Nancy for being honest - most politicians would have lied and said they would negotiate and then would have reneged after Trump signed the bill. At least she was honest

Display More

I agree, though he shouldn't hold nearly the entire government hostage over one, as argued by the Republicans, small(1/10th of 1%) item.

Quote from WOLF

I agree, though he shouldn't hold nearly the entire government hostage over one, as argued by the Republicans, small(1/10th of 1%) item.

I agree as well - it does seem like something so small that it shouldn't cause so much fuss, but at this point - - - - it is what it is I guess