• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If DHS is not funded, who is to blame?

Who is to blame?

  • Total voters
    19
P

Painter

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
583
Reaction score
314
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The non partisan question is simply, "Who is to blame?"

My take on it:

I believe only the most close minded loyal followers will blame the Democrats.
I think that if the Republican House really does push this all the way that they will lose a lot of Independents and turn off a lot of Conservatives.
You can not be highly visible adding an unrelated item such an anti-immigration to a sensitive and time critical department like DHS, and expect it to be unnoticed or ignored.
If DHS does not get funded it will be blatantly obvious that the blame falls 100% on Republican shoulders.
If Americans die due to a terrorist attack and this happened after DHS has a ripple... there will be hell to pay.
 
Painter said:
The non partisan question is simply, "Who is to blame?"

My take on it:

I believe only the most close minded loyal followers will blame the Democrats.
I think that if the Republican House really does push this all the way that they will lose a lot of Independents and turn off a lot of Conservatives.
You can not be highly visible adding an unrelated item such an anti-immigration to a sensitive and time critical department like DHS, and expect it to be unnoticed or ignored.
If DHS does not get funded it will be blatantly obvious that the blame falls 100% on Republican shoulders.
If Americans die due to a terrorist attack and this happened after DHS has a ripple... there will be hell to pay.
Click to expand...

it's clearly both parties.

the democrats share some blame for not agreeing to override Obama vetoes.

as far as terrorist attacks, DHS is one of the most incompetent agencies ever instituted, and the vast majority of our anti-terrorism agencies like the FBI, CIA, ATF, DEA, etc aren't even on the DHS budget.
 
Painter said:
The non partisan question is simply, "Who is to blame?"

My take on it:

I believe only the most close minded loyal followers will blame the Democrats.
I think that if the Republican House really does push this all the way that they will lose a lot of Independents and turn off a lot of Conservatives.
You can not be highly visible adding an unrelated item such an anti-immigration to a sensitive and time critical department like DHS, and expect it to be unnoticed or ignored.
If DHS does not get funded it will be blatantly obvious that the blame falls 100% on Republican shoulders.
If Americans die due to a terrorist attack and this happened after DHS has a ripple... there will be hell to pay.
Click to expand...
Democrats are filibustering the bill. If they allowed a vote, it would pass. Doesn't that make it democrats fault? Or are you just a 'closed minded loyal follower" of democrats?
 
well, i dunno... the standards of who to blame and why seem to change every time the majority in Congress changes.

wasn't too long age that folks were telling me that the majority should have it's will ,and the minority is simply being obstructionists... now that tune has changed to the exact opposite... all it took was a single election and BAM.. partisans reversed themselves midstride.


I think i'll go with.. both parties... because, well, it's true.
 
This is easily solved. You all want to see the DHS funded? Great.

I say McConnell grow a backbone and pull a Harry Reid. The Republicans should do what Harry Reid did in October 2013, in which he partially abolished the filibuster so he could pack the D.C. circuit court with three liberals. Then McConnell needs to abolish the filibuster over this incident. It would pass with Republican votes. Then have Obama have to veto or accept a bill which strikes out the funding for the immigration service and his illegal unconstitutional actions while it funds DHS.
 
vesper said:
This is easily solved. You all want to see the DHS funded? Great.

I say McConnell grow a backbone and pull a Harry Reid. The Republicans should do what Harry Reid did in October 2013, in which he partially abolished the filibuster so he could pack the D.C. circuit court with three liberals. Then McConnell needs to abolish the filibuster over this incident. It would pass with Republican votes. Then have Obama have to veto or accept a bill which strikes out the funding for the immigration service and his illegal unconstitutional actions while it funds DHS.
Click to expand...

Another solution. Do what Reid did to pass Obamacare. Make it a budget reconciliation bill, then you only need 51 votes. Not sure why this isn't being done.
 
Yet again, the rest of the world watches our Congress be unable to get its **** together.

Including the terrorists. They know this is a thing now.
 
Fletch said:
Democrats are filibustering the bill. If they allowed a vote, it would pass. Doesn't that make it democrats fault? Or are you just a 'closed minded loyal follower" of democrats?
Click to expand...

That's it.
 
It doesn't matter. The work will be done, the employees will be paid. In the end, someone will give in and everything will go back to normal. After the last government shut down republicans got the blame and in the next election picked up seats in congress. The electorate doesn't care about this. What the electorate cares about is the price of gas and groceries. They care if the family is working. The only people who care about funding DHS live inside the beltway or are in the media.
 
Painter said:
The non partisan question is simply, "Who is to blame?"

My take on it:

I believe only the most close minded loyal followers will blame the Democrats.
I think that if the Republican House really does push this all the way that they will lose a lot of Independents and turn off a lot of Conservatives.
You can not be highly visible adding an unrelated item such an anti-immigration to a sensitive and time critical department like DHS, and expect it to be unnoticed or ignored.
If DHS does not get funded it will be blatantly obvious that the blame falls 100% on Republican shoulders.
If Americans die due to a terrorist attack and this happened after DHS has a ripple... there will be hell to pay.
Click to expand...

 
Painter said:
The non partisan question is simply, "Who is to blame?"

My take on it:

I believe only the most close minded loyal followers will blame the Democrats.
I think that if the Republican House really does push this all the way that they will lose a lot of Independents and turn off a lot of Conservatives.
You can not be highly visible adding an unrelated item such an anti-immigration to a sensitive and time critical department like DHS, and expect it to be unnoticed or ignored.
If DHS does not get funded it will be blatantly obvious that the blame falls 100% on Republican shoulders.
If Americans die due to a terrorist attack and this happened after DHS has a ripple... there will be hell to pay.
Click to expand...

Who's to blame? The party in the Senate that refuses to vote on it unless it's a "clean bill".

That isn't the Republicans.
 
Whomever defunds this branch of the government we do not need should not be blamed but praised.
 
Whoever is to blame, deserves a beer!


**** the DHS, another agency we don't need.
 
I voted Both. Yet, the Democrats would mostly be to blame. How about a "clean Bill" that funds DHS but not the EO immigration orders President Obama signed.
 
Painter said:
The non partisan question is simply, "Who is to blame?"
Click to expand...
The blame rests with anyone who ever turned a blind eye .. or worse .. to illegal aliens trespassing, forging identities, and stealing jobs, classrooms, living space etc. from American citizens.

The blame rests squarely with them.
 
Painter said:
The non partisan question is simply, "Who is to blame?"

My take on it:

I believe only the most close minded loyal followers will blame the Democrats.
I think that if the Republican House really does push this all the way that they will lose a lot of Independents and turn off a lot of Conservatives.
You can not be highly visible adding an unrelated item such an anti-immigration to a sensitive and time critical department like DHS, and expect it to be unnoticed or ignored.
If DHS does not get funded it will be blatantly obvious that the blame falls 100% on Republican shoulders.
If Americans die due to a terrorist attack and this happened after DHS has a ripple... there will be hell to pay.
Click to expand...

I want DHS eliminated. It is a functionary of the Patriot Act and nothing good can ever come from that. We don't have a problem with terrorism, except in the Nations that we have supported terrorists in, i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Libya, etc. We are still arming and funding terrorists in Syria, Jordan, Israel, etc.
 
Not only should the DHS be defunded, but it should be totally abolished without a trace of it or any of it's powers left. It is an inefficient, unconstitutional, authoritarian agency. The worst, probably, this country has created thus far.

Frankly whoever is to blame deserves a slap on the back and, as Rev put it, a beer.
 
Painter said:
The non partisan question is simply, "Who is to blame?"

My take on it:

I believe only the most close minded loyal followers will blame the Democrats.
I think that if the Republican House really does push this all the way that they will lose a lot of Independents and turn off a lot of Conservatives.
You can not be highly visible adding an unrelated item such an anti-immigration to a sensitive and time critical department like DHS, and expect it to be unnoticed or ignored.
If DHS does not get funded it will be blatantly obvious that the blame falls 100% on Republican shoulders.
If Americans die due to a terrorist attack and this happened after DHS has a ripple... there will be hell to pay.
Click to expand...

You betray your bias with the "anti-immigration" comment. And show your lack of knowledge when you show you don't know the DHS is in charge of ICE, That terrorist attack could very easily come from folks sneaking in with the illegal aliens.
 
clownboy said:
You betray your bias with the "anti-immigration" comment. And show your lack of knowledge when you show you don't know the DHS is in charge of ICE, That terrorist attack could very easily come from folks sneaking in with the illegal aliens.
Click to expand...



You are more likely to drown in an arroyo than you are being a victim of a terrorist attack. disband the DHS.
 
Painter said:
The non partisan question is simply, "Who is to blame?"

My take on it:

I believe only the most close minded loyal followers will blame the Democrats.
I think that if the Republican House really does push this all the way that they will lose a lot of Independents and turn off a lot of Conservatives.
You can not be highly visible adding an unrelated item such an anti-immigration to a sensitive and time critical department like DHS, and expect it to be unnoticed or ignored.
If DHS does not get funded it will be blatantly obvious that the blame falls 100% on Republican shoulders.
If Americans die due to a terrorist attack and this happened after DHS has a ripple... there will be hell to pay.
Click to expand...

Who is to blame is simple. Every one who did not work with all seriousness to resolve the issue.
 
If DHS is not funded, then who cares? Nothing of value would be lost. They're not the FBI or the CIA. Hell, despite the NSA's incompetence at least they have a function.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom