WhitewalkerInPhilly

Why? They didn't shut the government down. Every person who gets screwed over by Trump means another person more likely to vote for them. If they DO eventually give an inch, then they're the heroes who had to make a devil's bargain.

Democrats: "Hi we passed a bill to fund the government, which included border security. We can debate and negotiate the other thing you want once that is done." Trump: "No. Give me it now. I will be responsible for shutting the government down." Democrats: "...ok." Trump: "...are you ready to give me what I want yet?" Democrats: "...No. We said we can discuss it after the government is open." Trump: "Why did you shut the government down then?!!!" Yeah...both sides. Kind of like how it's both sides when someone commits vehicular manslaughter and the others shouted.

Read my ****ing location you moron. It's like saying "Buffalo" when you play your games in Orchard Park.

It will be on Friday. Clearly, "aren't getting" is not the same thing as "Haven't got" Food stamps will in about a month. People already can't get any federal processing of loans. Contractors who worked for the federal government are unlikely to get backpay. It's funny watching the people who love Breitbart and Fox News calling other people drones...oh wait, you just said that Fox News wasn't a reliable source. How is 4chan and the Daily Stormer working for you?

The veto threatened to shutdown the government if any spending bill is passed without "DA WALL!!!!!!!!! NANCY AND CHUCK WON'T GIVE ME MY WHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAL" The spending Bills passed the House. They are the same bills that the Senate unanimously passed back in December, 100-0. It's just lil' Baby Donny having his temper tantrum that is holding things up.

I'm in Jersey. Thank Christ, I don't need to call them. Both are voting yes on the bills that would restart the government without an extra $5 billion in useless spending. The question is "why aren't you calling your congressmen to get them off their asses and override the damn veto"

So...for people who aren't paying attention and are completely oblivious, he did more by restating exactly the same baloney he says on Twitter? I don't buy it. That little pep talk going to do jack for the people who aren't getting paychecks, or are about to run out of food stamps, or can't close on a house or aren't getting their tax refunds.

You know, I actually agree with you. To be honest, I think the idea of a contiguous wall is infeasible and stupid. If the compromise is strategically placed barriers, increased enforcement, but you actually make some progress on paths to citizenship and/or legal residency (with proper monitoring and vetting) I could stomach it. There are legitimate chips on the table for real immigration reform and border protection. We shouldn't be putting the entire government on hold to have them be the stakes in a fake crisis.

...I am going to screencap the part where you said that Fox News is not a fair and worthwhile source. Just for the record. How about NPR News? Pretty much the most straight line, centrist reporting? (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/npr-media-bias) https://www.npr.org/2019/01/09/683474397/7-takeaways-from-president-trumps-oval-office-address https://www.npr.org/2019/01/08/683205814/fact-check-trumps-oval-office-pitch-for-a-border-wall

It's the only way I see anyone who isn't Republican would see a "crisis". Of course immigration needs fixing, but come on...a continual drop in crossings since 2006? Well over a decade? Zero terrorists crossing the Southern border, our of 4000 caught a year? Drugs coming...through legal checkpoints, rather than where the wall would protect? (according to the DEA) https://www.npr.org/2019/01/08/683205814/fact-check-trumps-oval-office-pitch-for-a-border-wall Locking kids up in cages, on the other hand...

Well, because of your poor syntax, I am not sure of which you mean: that is was a loss for both sides, or that I felt dumber by watching. I can, in fact, provide both. Here is the collection of the ones where pundits were...shall we say mixed: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/facing-pressure-networks-fact-check-trump-speech/2019/01/08/9ee81efc-13c3-11e9-ab79-30cd4f7926f2_story.html?utm_term=.47281e3f703b Here in particular is one from Fox News: Regarding that it was a wash: Now, as to the parts that made my brain hurt. In particular, the line from the president: "this situation could be solved in a 45 minute meeting" Mostly because...it's true. The government shutdown could be finished in 45 minutes. The House just passed a bunch of spending bills to reopen the government. The Senate, back in 2018, passed those measures by unanimous vote. All that would be necessary to reopen the government would be for Trump to sign in, and then go about brokering a deal to get more border wall funding. Hell, I think there's a good chance that if this continues much longer, the House can get a 2/3rds majority for a veto override. And, again, unanimous Senate passage so we could solve it easily if Trump says "ok, I'll finish off the shutdown I chose to own" or Republican House leadership releases their people to vote their conscience, this would be over in a heartbeat.

Really? Because from all the reactions come this morning it's that it was a loss for both. It certainly has for my brainstem. I feel dumber after watching all of Trump's speeches. It would certainly explain you lot.

Sorry, I had to step away because your lunacy was too much to take. Look, Trump called all immigrants from Mexico rapists. You asked for specific evidence, I provided it in quote and video form. Now about this "If "some good" people are in a group, can that entire group be "all bad"? " bit? Well, it's rather simple: Trump has admitted to forcefully grabbing women's genetalia. His ex-wife has stated that he "Made Me Feel ‘Violated’ During Sex" He endorsed Roy Moore, the man banned from a shopping mall for his pedophilic tendencies. Trump nominated a man who has multiple accusations of sexual assault to the Supreme Court. Simply put, it seems that Donald Trump does not think that rape disqualifies people from being "good people" It explains a lot, doesn't it?

... Dude. I mean, I suppose that it makes sense that modern Republicans have a hard time parsing the context of five to seven sentences into a full thought. But this is just sad...

Right...I'm talking to the group where " I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the *****. You can do anything" is the preferred joke and not horribly rape-y.

Speaking of cherry picking, let's hit literally the sentences before "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you." It is literally the people coming from Mexico that he is describing. Blanket statement. I don't know how you can be that willfully ignorant, but here we are.

Dude, I posted the entire effin quote. How much more context do you need? ... Right. I need to remind myself about your "completely ignoring objective reality" disorder.

Well that's funny, because from what he stated, he literally said all Mexicans coming from Mexico were rapists. Now, maybe he is just so unintelligible that he didn't mean that, but: A) If he is that unintelligible, it should have disqualified him from the jump B) It means that people elected him thinking he said that C) Considering his record, he probably meant that

…. "They're rapists" No "some are rapists". No "We need a wall to deter human trafficking" It was simply stating that the people coming from Mexico and South America are thus: "They are rapists." I was right about the apart about you rejecting objective reality.

How about video? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/16/trump_mexico_not_sending_us_their_best_criminals_drug_dealers_and_rapists_are_crossing_border.html But just to be safe, here is the full quote Now the bold emphasis is my own, but this was the man ANNOUNCING HIS CANDIDACY. And not only is he stating that crime, drugs and rape is coming from immigrants, he is also throwing in this patented "I bet Middle Easterners are in there too!" although he admits he has zero evidence. I don't know why I bother. You are going to reject objective reality like you always do.

...and you think that what she's done since winning has, in any way...decreased her chances for reelection? It's been 26 years since the district voted Republican. I am going to take a wild guess that you haven't been to Astoria lately. I've been there, and people there have set up ICE warnings through social media. There's a reason why it kicked out an establishment Centrist. It's young, urban, and diverse, pretty much the anti-current Republican party (old, bum***** nowhere, old white men who like to yell at people of color on TV). I mean, miracles happen. But man... You talk about Trump living in liberal's heads rent free? ACO is your version of that.

Dude. Her district in the Bronx and includes Astoria in Queens. Until she won her primary, it's hard to imagine a more hardline working class Democratic district. She is going nowhere for the next couple of years, unless she decides to try for Senate.

You might not like her politics, or think she's naïve, but man, she has a sense of humor. I will also second the "I would rather see her dancing than Maxine Waters or Nancy Pelosi"

Well, it's a shame because I love puns. But man, there is zero way that made any sense in Vietnamese, and was purely done for the wordplay. At least it's better than Miso Hani.

Amen. I think this is something we can all agree on.