https://apple.news/ADeY7I0ChSWCwiJb3-wsoyw

bearister said:

---

https://apple.news/ADeY7I0ChSWCwiJb3-wsoyw

---

Difficult to read.

drizzlybears brother said:

---

bearister said:

---

https://apple.news/ADeY7I0ChSWCwiJb3-wsoyw

---

Difficult to read.

---

The cost of his presidency to the nation will be incalculable. The US faces massive domestic problems, diminishing world influence, and the rise of a far more dangerous rival than any we have ever known in China...and we have this guy at the head of our affairs.

Cave Bear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

bearister said:

---

https://apple.news/ADeY7I0ChSWCwiJb3-wsoyw

---

Difficult to read.

---

The cost of his presidency to the nation will be incalculable. The US faces massive domestic problems, diminishing world influence, and the rise of a far more dangerous rival than any we have ever known in China...and we have this guy at the head of our affairs.

---

And no small part of the blame is attributable to Fox News. If you force yourself to ever watch it you will notice that the Fox Talking Points are regurgitated over and over again by a significant part of the population.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/it-was-an-open-secret/549653/

+ 1

O/U on the duration of Trump shutdown? I say 11 days State of the Adult Daycare is on January 30th.

This seems like something that would happen in a s***hole country.

The Schumer shutdown could last more than 11 days as long as DACA amnesty is a requirement by the dems and 4 Republicans to fund the government.

Trump spoke to "Fox & Friends" in 2013 and was asked who would be fired during a government shutdown, as shown in a clip posted by "Morning Joe."

"Well, if you say who gets fired it always has to be the top," Trump said. "I mean, problems start from the top and they have to get solved from the top and the president's the leader. And he's got to get everybody in a room and he's got to lead."

He said that further down in history, "when they talk about the government shutdown, they're going to be talking about the president of the United States, who the president was at that time."

"They're not going to be talking about who was the head of the House, the head the Senate, who's running things in Washington," Trump said.

"So I really think the pressure is on the president," he added.
Source: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/369756-trumps-comments-blaming-obama-for-2013-government-shutdown-resurface

oski003 said:

---

The Schumer shutdown could last more than 11 days as long as DACA amnesty is a requirement by the dems and 4 Republicans to fund the government.

---

President -- Republican
Senate -- Republican
House -- Republican

10 years from now people won't remember who the Senate minority leader is during the 2018 fed gov shutdown, except that we had the most embarrassing president in the history named Donald J. Trump.

oski003 said:

---

The Schumer shutdown could last more than 11 days as long as DACA amnesty is a requirement by the dems and 4 Republicans to fund the government.

---

Or Republicans could just agree to protect DACA recipients, something most of them have always claimed to want to do.

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

The Schumer shutdown could last more than 11 days as long as DACA amnesty is a requirement by the dems and 4 Republicans to fund the government.

---

Or Republicans could just agree to protect DACA recipients, something most of them have always claimed to want to do.

---

To be fair they did come up with a bipartisan bill. Just that a showboating president decided not to like it for ****hole reasons, and his staff were aware of the consequences but couldn't or wouldn't do *****

The Republicans want to govern. Let them do it with more than 45 votes. It's not the minority's job to bail them out. No way should Schumer budge on DACA. Most likely it just gets kicked down the road per usual. If there is an agreement, give Trump his Wall for DACA.

Question: When was last time the entire federal budget went through the Congress before the fiscal year began? All these CR are silly maneuvers that has become norm process, as if these old fxxks would be bored if there is no constantly looming shutdown.

BearChemist said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

The Schumer shutdown could last more than 11 days as long as DACA amnesty is a requirement by the dems and 4 Republicans to fund the government.

---

Or Republicans could just agree to protect DACA recipients, something most of them have always claimed to want to do.

---

To be fair they did come up with a bipartisan bill. Just that a showboating president decided not to like it for ****hole reasons, and his staff were aware of the consequences but couldn't or wouldn't do *****

---

This is correct.

I'd also add that some on Trump's staff (Miller, Kelly) also actively worked to spike the bill. Never mind that Trump has previously also said that he wants to sign a compromise bill on DACA.

This is what it's like working with someone who has no core principles and no policy knowledge. He changes his mind constantly, usually depending on whoever he talked to last.

- A year into the Trump presidency and the government is shutdown. You can't make this up.
- When Republicans have the Presidency, control of the House, and control of the Senate, no amount of rebranding is going to make this a Chuck Shumer problem.
- All this while Mueller continues with his investigation into all things Trump while further details of his financial activities further link him to Russians looking to park enormous amounts of money in Trump real estate for some reason. Maybe the Trump properties are really nice and were designed specifically with the Russians in mind. (Been to a few Trump properties and they are adequate.)

On Friday evening, Senate Democrats, along with pro-amnesty Sens. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), voted to shut down the federal government because the spending bill to keep the government running did not include amnesty for at least 3.5 million illegal aliens who are enrolled and eligible for the President Obama-created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

oski003 said:

---

On Friday evening, Senate Democrats, along with pro-amnesty Sens. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), voted to shut down the federal government because the spending bill to keep the government running did not include amnesty for at least 3.5 million illegal aliens who are enrolled and eligible for the President Obama-created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

---

Yes, these Senators want to protect people who were brought to this country as children and have never lived anywhere else, so they are not deported back to a country where they know nobody and do not speak the language. This is happening because Trump decided to rescind the protection that Obama had offered to these people, and the clock is ticking (DACA ends in six weeks).

By the way, DACA people are not "bad hombres." The conditions for receiving DACA were that you had to keep a job or stay in school, and commit no crimes.

Do you have an objection to allowing these people to stay? If so, what is your rationale? I'm asking that on a moral level.

My opinion on DACA isn't relevant to who is responsible for the government shut down. Almost every Democrat in the Senate voted to shut down the government. Almost every Republican voted against shutting down the government.

As far as the fate of DACA, if that program is not extended, Republicans would bear responsibility.

oski003 said:

---

My opinion on DACA isn't relevant to who is responsible for the government shut down. Almost every Democrat in the Senate voted to shut down the government. Almost every Republican voted against shutting down the government.

As far as the fate of DACA, if that program is not extended, Republicans would bear responsibility.

---

DACA is relevant to the government getting shut down, though. It's the whole reason Democrats are making a stand now.

Republican leaders could easily do away with Democratic opposition (and some opposition within their own ranks) if they just allowed a vote on the Dream Act, which would resolve the DACA problem.

Anarchistbear said:

---

The Republicans want to govern. Let them do it with more than 45 votes. It's not the minority's job to bail them out. No way should Schumer budge on DACA. Most likely it just gets kicked down the road per usual. If there is an agreement, give Trump his Wall for DACA.

---

The Dems offered to fund the wall on Friday, per Kasie Hunt of NBC News:

Of course now the daycare center claims the problem is the Senate filibuster rule, not its own ability to govern. #TrumpShutdown

No doubt Pence is ambitious, so curious how and when he distances himself from Trump for 2020 or 2024. Embarrassing that a guy who refuses to dine alone with women without his wife chaperoning can abide by a boss who banged a porn star early in his third marriage with a new born fifth child. Pence can't hold both the Trump base and the Christian Right.

Cruz may not even make it to the 2020 starting line. Unless Trump resigns or is removed, think Haley or Cotton are more likely to be the next GOP nominee than Pence. Nikki will have to squirm almost as much as Pence to distance herself from Trump to have a viable elective future.

BearDevil said:

---

No doubt Pence is ambitious, so curious how and when he distances himself from Trump for 2020 or 2024. Embarrassing that a guy who refuses to dine alone with women without his wife chaperoning can abide by a boss who banged a porn star early in his third marriage with a new born fifth child. Pence can't hold both the Trump base and the Christian Right.

Cruz may not even make it to the 2020 starting line. Unless Trump resigns or is removed, think Haley or Cotton are more likely to be the next GOP nominee than Pence. Nikki will have to squirm almost as much as Pence to distance herself from Trump to have a viable elective future.

---

Wasn't he a disaster as governor of Indiana? Wasn't his political career basically over before Trump gave him a lifeline? And doesn't the Christian Right love Trump? Their followers are his most passionate supporters. (And they rationalized it way before the election.)

I don't see Pence being charismatic enough to have a post-Trump future.

His only hope is for Trump to be impeached and he could become president. But I think he's as bad as Trump, but he's very good at masking his incompetence (unlike Trump), which is way more scarier to me.

Here is Pence being booed 3 months before Trump tapped him:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/21/government-shutdown-immigration-graham-miller-354747

Miller shutdown?

Again, you can blame someone like Miller for issues you have with his immigration policies, but he is not responsible for the shut down. That responsibility should be born by the 5 Republicans and 44 Democrats who voted against a neutral spending bill.

oski003 said:

---

Again, you can blame someone like Miller for issues you have with his immigration policies, but he is not responsible for the shut down. That responsibility should be born by the 5 Republicans and 44 Democrats who voted against a neutral spending bill.

---

Was I quoted in the article blaming Miller? No, it was Lindsay Graham. You can really use a job in the White House, last time I checked they were still hiring 'talents'.

Cave Bear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

bearister said:

---

https://apple.news/ADeY7I0ChSWCwiJb3-wsoyw

---

Difficult to read.

---

The cost of his presidency to the nation will be incalculable. The US faces massive domestic problems, diminishing world influence, and the rise of a far more dangerous rival than any we have ever known in China...and we have this guy at the head of our affairs.

---

This seems like hyperbole. How are things different from a year ago exactly? Unless it's a cloak for your ideological and party biases and double standards.

If you took the media and all these threads seriously, you'd think the U.S. went from peaches and cream a year ago to the brink of armageddon in one year. Remarkable. Republicans have done nothing outside of a budget plan and tax deal.

Yogi Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

lAgree with all this, but at the same time, there is really no alternative as far as choosing a party (while we are still free to vote against candidates who are clearly disqualified). We have on the one hand the other party that is violently opposed to our faith. We have the Republican party that, while more suited for the prosperity gospel crowd, at least understands certain core elements of our belief. As much as I hate where the GOP is right now, I can't choose a party that is violently opposed to my faith and would gladly suppress and mock my exercise of faith.

---

I know you won't read this, but Obama is the same faith as you and he manages to be a Democrat just fine. I'm not sure why you think the Democratic Party is violently opposed to your faith. Of course, the first question would be if they are violently opposed, what violence has been committed against your faith? And as usual, there wouldn't be any examples.

Putting that aside, I just don't see the Democrats being opposed to Christianity. Where some Republicans see opposition is when it comes to things like LGBT rights and other things that they have a moral opposition to that they think supercedes the rights of all Americans to be free and to live life as they choose as long as they are not compromising another American's freedom to live his life as he chooses. And Christians have as many rights as LGBT people do in the minds of your typical Democrat. I'm sure there are some that hate Christians, but they're not advocating for any laws to deny you your right to worship or your freedom to live life as you choose.

---

I was about to attempt to correct 93 on Dems being "opposed to his faith". It's true much of the left, particularly the regressives and cultural marxists, denigrate religion and would prefer to discard it if they could, but you more or less have to at least feign loyalty to some form and brand of Christianity to get elected into office. Obama was one of them. No way does he believe the son of god revealed himself (which is fine by me) and feigns loyalty for political access into the system. Lots do it, you have to do it to play the political game.

What I reject in your post and the general assertion that not agreeing with the LGBT political and social agenda is bigoted towards gays as people, and essentially "anti-gay". It's not inherently anti-gay to oppose unisex bathrooms, a concept that everyone agreed was unacceptable until trans demanded that, in order to accommodate and affirm their own subjective interpretation of their own gender, bathrooms must be unisex as a moral axiom, which is such an absurd declaration it's hard not to be amused by the irony and double standard. It's not enough that they have the freedom to identify for themselves what they "are", but the privilege demanded by the agenda that everyone in society must accept that and accommodate that (e.g. by being forcibly subjected to unisex bathrooms) is the demanding of privilege not an advocating of "rights". Rejecting this, many of who have gay/trans family, friends, co workers who they care about, is not inherently "anti-gay" in any shape or form.

It is, however, the rejection of aspects of the LGBT social and political project. Just like it's not inherently "anti-rich" or "anti-poor" to advocate for tax increases on the wealthy or a cut to public programs. The LGBT agenda, much like many other movements that proclaim advocacy of equality like feminism and BLM, have little affinity for equality, they are advocacy groups advocating for privileges and 'rights' for their members. They want to swing the pendulum of arbitrary preferences to correct for history. Honest regressives don't hide from this agenda of reversing discrimination and bringing back the era of determining people's worth and value based on immutable characteristics not on the value of character and skill, citing it as "the price of progress".

sycasey said:

---

This seems like something that would happen in a s***hole country.

---

Haiti and Niger are only a plane flight away. They don't have a government to shut down, or running water, or a constitution protecting civil rights. But at least they don't have Trump or evil Republicans ruining their country.

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

The Schumer shutdown could last more than 11 days as long as DACA amnesty is a requirement by the dems and 4 Republicans to fund the government.

---

Or Republicans could just agree to protect DACA recipients, something most of them have always claimed to want to do.

---

Huh, then I wonder why virtually all Republicans (and three democrats) voted to defund DACA in 2013, given it was an illegal use of executive power to change and overrule federal immigration policy, it granted illegal amnesty and pseudo-citizenship to thousands of illegal aliens, and was acknowledged by Obama to be unconstitutional.

But let's let bleeding hearts get in the way of sound policy and loyalty to constitutional and legal statutes. It's one thing to say "hey I'm a bleeding heart and would support amnesty to minors, I don't care the cost or ramifications or legal standards". But of course a lot of the virtue signaling asserts not aligning with this agenda is racist and bigoted.

iwantwinners said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

The Schumer shutdown could last more than 11 days as long as DACA amnesty is a requirement by the dems and 4 Republicans to fund the government.

---

Or Republicans could just agree to protect DACA recipients, something most of them have always claimed to want to do.

---

Huh, then I wonder why virtually all Republicans (and three democrats) voted to defund DACA in 2013, given it was an illegal use of executive power to change and overrule federal immigration policy, it granted illegal amnesty and pseudo-citizenship to thousands of illegal aliens, and was acknowledged by Obama to be unconstitutional.

But let's let bleeding hearts get in the way of sound policy and loyalty to constitutional and legal statutes. It's one thing to say "hey I'm a bleeding heart and would support amnesty to minors, I don't care the cost or ramifications or legal standards". But of course a lot of the virtue signaling asserts not aligning with this agenda is racist and bigoted.

---

What cost or ramifications? DACA people are already productive members of American society. They have to be to qualify for DACA. You think they would behave differently after being granted citizenship? If so, why?

DACA probably was an overreach by Obama. He felt he had to do it because Congress couldn't come up with a solution. When Trump ended the DACA program, he stated that it was because Congress needed to deal with the issue. So that's what's happening now. Even if Obama made a mistake, so what? The current government has always had to deal with the situation left by the previous. That's what's being debated now.

I don't see why this is a "bleeding heart" thing. Yes, I do personally think it's the right and moral thing to allow DACA folks to stay in the country. But I also can't think of a practical reason why it's a bad thing to let them stay. This isn't about opening the borders to more immigrants, it's dealing with people who are already here and have been here a long time.