• 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!

A Government shutdown looms!?

Fiddytree said:
I think the algorithm broke down.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Opps sorry I think I was on a different discussion


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
apdst said:
I'm still wondering we're paying for "nonessential" personel, to begin with.
Click to expand...

I guess that means Congress, the President, the Vice President and the Cabinet are no longer being paid.... Progress!
 
Ahlevah said:
And Trump has told Schumer and Pelosi that he's willing to sign a DACA bill if they provide funding for border security (the Wall). But, once again, they're more concerned about illegal aliens than the security and well-being of American citizens. Hence Shutdown Schumer and Nodeal Nancy deserve ALL of the blame.
Click to expand...
I thought Mexico was supposed to pay for the wall, not American taxpayers?
Experts say the wall is also unnecessary and that's the view of White House Chief of Staff John Kelly too.
 
TheRepublican said:
I’m not one of those people who want a wall but, I’m not ok with an open boarder. The way I look at it is a wall or a electric fence? Why should we just shut up and, let these families or individual is allowed to come here? Is it ok to make it a requirement to go through the immigration process with a agent that would be with you from the time you file for citizenship to whenever you get your citizenship finalized process? Or is that racist or whatever?
Click to expand...
We don't have open borders. A big wall to keep Mexicans out is both ineffective and unnecessary.

Experts agree that illegal immigration roughly has leveled off. Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, said roughly as many illegal immigrants in recent years have been moving south from the United States as have moved north. If U.S.-born children and spouses are included, he said, the total number leaving has been higher.
 
TheRepublican said:
Yeah if democrats were in charge they would put more high taxes and regulations because they believe that the taxes would be the solution? Any chance of a democrat from Detroit? Did the neighbor come back or still banned ?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatal
Click to expand...

The issue is not taxes nor regulations.
 
apdst said:
I'm going to exit the merry-go-round with: if they aren't essential, they don't need to be there, to begin with.
Click to expand...

I think you are misunderstanding the term "non essential". When agencies use the term "non essential" they are talking about people that aren't required as part of a skeleton team to keep the doors open. I will use the example of an Army National Guard aviation hanger. It works the same in every state. Essential people would be people that are required to keep the doors open and answer the phones in case of a state or national emergency. That wouldn't include worker bees. Mechanics, operations, fuelers and pilots would all be classified as "non essential". The only people that would be working are supervisory staff, in case of a state or national emergency. If there were an emergency the people that were non essential would become essential, as to respond to the emergency. Pilots are needed to fly helicopters but they aren't essential as they aren't required to respond unless there is an emergency. Defining "essential personnel" is necessary in cases like govt shut downs, blizzards and floods, just to name some examples.
 
NonoBadDog said:
I think you are misunderstanding the term "non essential". When agencies use the term "non essential" they are talking about people that aren't required as part of a skeleton team to keep the doors open. I will use the example of an Army National Guard aviation hanger. It works the same in every state. Essential people would be people that are required to keep the doors open and answer the phones in case of a state or national emergency. That wouldn't include worker bees. Mechanics, operations, fuelers and pilots would all be classified as "non essential". The only people that would be working are supervisory staff, in case of a state or national emergency. If there were an emergency the people that were non essential would become essential, as to respond to the emergency. Pilots are needed to fly helicopters but they aren't essential as they aren't required to respond unless there is an emergency. Defining "essential personnel" is necessary in cases like govt shut downs, blizzards and floods, just to name some examples.
Click to expand...

I think you're misunderstanding my use of the term. Well, I know you are.
 
apdst said:
I think you're misunderstanding my use of the term. Well, I know you are.
Click to expand...

Your definition doesn't mean ****. The only definition that matters is the legal definition that is used for the shutdown if you are discussing the meaning of "non essential" in the terms of a shut down.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Your definition doesn't mean ****. The only definition that matters is the legal definition that is used for the shutdown if you are discussing the meaning of "non essential" in the terms of a shut down.
Click to expand...

Of course my use of the term means ****. Who the hell do you think you are to say it doesn't?
 
apdst said:
Of course my use of the term means ****. Who the hell do you think you are to say it doesn't?
Click to expand...

I tried to explain the definition of "non essential" to you in simple terms that any idiot would be able to understand, without snark. Your reply was that you didn't want to use that definition when talking about a specific legal term but would rather use your own asinine and idiotic definition, that has absolutely not one ****ing thing to do with the actual definition that applies to the issue. If you want to post idiotic **** then go for it. Post all the idiotic **** that you want. I was just trying to protect you from the idiotic **** that you are posting about the use of the term "non essential". I am sorry for trying to help. Tell you what, post whatever silly, idiotic **** you want. It's your right. Yay 1st Amendment!!!!!!
 
NonoBadDog said:
I tried to explain the definition of "non essential" to you in simple terms that any idiot would be able to understand, without snark. Your reply was that you didn't want to use that definition when talking about a specific legal term but would rather use your own asinine and idiotic definition, that has absolutely not one ****ing thing to do with the actual definition that applies to the issue. If you want to post idiotic **** then go for it. Post all the idiotic **** that you want. I was just trying to protect you from the idiotic **** that you are posting about the use of the term "non essential". I am sorry for trying to help. Tell you what, post whatever silly, idiotic **** you want. It's your right. Yay 1st Amendment!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Here come the insults. Color me shocked! :lamo

Spare me the superiority complex.
 
TheRepublican said:
This is what I don’t understand that the democrats always clutch to something and, blame it on the Republicans. For instance, they are threatening a shutdown over the stupid thing CHIP which is the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Jimmy Kimmel who has been a advocate for the program because of his son. Ok, fine let’s back off from the program, this might be a stupid idea but, what other options do we have? Let’s take a look at the spending on welfare and, Let’s see how much we are giving out and, people who just take it and, not contribute to this society? Im not talking about the disabled program or the people who are working but seriously need some extra assistance that is fair and, as long those people can provide the reason and keep making a hard earning that is fine but, I am talking about the welfare system that capable people who can actually get up and, go to work but, they choose not too. I volunteer at habitat for humanity for three days and, I'm disabled by birth and, I receive social security but,I will never take a advantage of this because I believe that I’m unlike anyone else.
Click to expand...

And on the anniversary of Trump's inauguration too!!

:lamo:lamo

I hadn't considered that angle.
 
American said:
This is the most misleading bull**** that's always posted. Furthermore you contradict yourself.
Click to expand...

Republicans control it all dude: how is that misleading? They've done **** in an entire year and have just made monkeys out of themselves, which is what I for one was hoping they would do.
 
TheRepublican said:
I’m not one of those people who want a wall but, I’m not ok with an open boarder. The way I look at it is a wall or a electric fence? Why should we just shut up and, let these families or individual is allowed to come here? Is it ok to make it a requirement to go through the immigration process with a agent that would be with you from the time you file for citizenship to whenever you get your citizenship finalized process? Or is that racist or whatever?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If the immigration process were reasonable, i'm sure they would use it.

Is it okay to force a class of people in your country to have no rights, so that you can leverage the threat of deportation over them?
 
The thing that makes me want to lose my mind on the pathetic Schumer or i call him scumbag. You know he act like he knows what’s best for the country and, I’m sorry but what’s this our country


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
MTAtech said:
I thought Mexico was supposed to pay for the wall, not American taxpayers?
Click to expand...

What? You don't make sport out of reading Trump's tweets like every other critic?

The Wall will be paid for, directly or indirectly, or through longer term reimbursement, by Mexico, which has a ridiculous $71 billion dollar trade surplus with the U.S. The $20 billion dollar Wall is “peanuts” compared to what Mexico makes from the U.S. NAFTA is a bad joke!

The Wall is the Wall
Click to expand...

MTAtech said:
Experts say the wall is also unnecessary and that's the view of White House Chief of Staff John Kelly too.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many of these Beltway and/or academic "experts" have actually patrolled the border or even spoken to a Border Patrol agent. If you want a real expert, try listening to this guy:

"If we do it right' the wall will be 'important' and 'effective.'"

Border Patrol chief: 'If we do it right' the wall will be 'important' and 'effective'
Click to expand...
 
Ahlevah said:
What? You don't make sport out of reading Trump's tweets like every other critic?



MTAtech said:
Experts say the wall is also unnecessary and that's the view of [URL="https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/18/578796237/kelly-says-trump-now-believes-border-wall-is-unn]

I wonder how many of these Beltway and/or academic "experts" have actually patrolled the border or even spoken to a Border Patrol agent. If you want a real expert, try listening to this guy:
Click to expand...

Trump claiming Mexico’s trade surplus will pay for the wall displays an astounding ignorance of trade. The Mexican Government doesn’t get the surplus. If the U.S. adds a tariff, American consumers and businesses pay for the wall. Not only that, but adding a tariff violates trade laws.
Click to expand...
 
jet57 said:
Republicans control it all dude: how is that misleading? They've done **** in an entire year and have just made monkeys out of themselves, which is what I for one was hoping they would do.
Click to expand...

It takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass a budget bill, genius.
 
American said:
It takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass a budget bill, genius.
Click to expand...

(chuckle)

The Repubs wanted the wall etc. They didn't need that crap. The Dems are equally stupid; this should be clean bill, but the BS is what blows it up. The Repubs could have signed a bill.
 
MTAtech said:
I've never seen anything as cynical in politics as Republicans spending 4 months refusing to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program, then attaching reauthorization to another controversial bill, then blaming Democrats for not supporting CHIP. It's breathtaking.

The idea that there are huge numbers of Americans who are capable of working but choose not too, is a right-wing myth -- just like the idea that farmers will lose their farms to an estate tax.
Click to expand...

If Democrats were not the resistance then that wouldn't have been necessary.
 
Why won't the Republicans agree to pay the troops? Do they hate our military that much?
 
haymarket said:
Why won't the Republicans agree to pay the troops? Do they hate our military that much?
Click to expand...

For the same reason you had stunts being pulled back in 2013, like actually PAYING someone to guard and deny entry to memorials that would previously not have any employee working at in order to spread the narrative that republicans are denying our veterans the ability to go to memorials....pathetic disgusting political games in the name of swaying public opinion and exerting pressure.
 
Zyphlin said:
For the same reason you had stunts being pulled back in 2013, like actually PAYING someone to guard and deny entry to memorials that would previously not have any employee working at in order to spread the narrative that republicans are denying our veterans the ability to go to memorials....pathetic disgusting political games in the name of swaying public opinion and exerting pressure.
Click to expand...

I see the criticism of a previous action taken five years ago by your political enemies - but I see no answer as to why the Republicans refuse to pay the troops today in 2018.

If NOT paying the troops is a "stunt" being conducted by Republicans, how do they benefit from this "stunt"?
 
haymarket said:
but I see no answer as to why the Republicans refuse to pay the troops today in 2018.
Click to expand...

Then apparently you didn't bother to read in your dogged pursuit of trying to demonize your enemies.

Zyphlin said:
pathetic disgusting political games in the name of swaying public opinion and exerting pressure.
Click to expand...

2013's actions and 2018's actions share the same reason for why they're occurring....because those pulling the stunts are desiring to sway public opinion and exert political pressure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom