Trump To Address The Nation Tonight

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

6 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

Who's not getting their pay checks?  No one has missed a paycheck yet in the government. 

 

Oh *****, you're stupid. You really don't realize that people are still getting food stamps and the IRS is still full go?!?

 

Holy ***** you're a mindless drone. It's like someone took Rachel Maddows *****, put Anderson Cooper's giggle, and then gave it arms and fingers and told it to type.

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?

[DC Tom]

On 1/9/2019 at 8:55 AM, nkreed said:

I don't think it was a good look for either side. I will agree with one point that was made by the Dems. Using government employees as leverage sucks.

 

 

Then they should pay for the wall.

 

The finger-pointing is ridiculous.  Each side is uncompromisingly childish and arrogant on this topic.

[boyst]

2 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

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?

1) so you're wrong and mispoke.  Kiss the ring

2) about a month.  Wrong again kiss the ring.  And let'm die off anyone. Freeloading bastards.

3) yes, they can. Just not where you'd know about it. Either way, most gov projects occuring now are fully funded to contractors so many are still working

4) see above. And they almosr always get back pay to some degree but if they're notnworking why should they get paid?

5) I don't have cable, I don't know anything about Breitbart. I use news.google for my open source news with no filters. I seldom watch TV. Didn't watch last night. Didn't realize Monday was the championship game until Tuesday when I saw Clemson won.  I don't keep enough track of current events because most of them are hysterical in nature. If I watch news it's some Japanese channel my girlfriend watches. HK something or other where a few of her friends are the anchors/reporters.

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Then they should pay for the wall.

 

The finger-pointing is ridiculous.  Each side is uncompromisingly childish and arrogant on this topic.

 

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.

[boyst]

5 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

Why? They didn't shut the government down. 

Then who did?

 

You're bad at answering questions when you know you're backed in to a hole

[nkreed]

7 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Then they should pay for the wall.

 

The finger-pointing is ridiculous.  Each side is uncompromisingly childish and arrogant on this topic.

I think that's the exact wrong way to prevent using government employees as leverage. Fund the government then have your wall discussions.  

 

Before you go and tell me that I'm an idiot (where is your bot anyway?) tell me how paying for the wall is he only answer? That's an impractical stance when speaking of employees used as leverage. In fact it only STRENGHTENS the idea of using then again 

[Foxx]

7 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

From Trump's echo chamber:

 

"Trump has insisted that federal workers are willing to endure some pain during the partial shutdown - which affects about 800,000 government employees in all - because they agree with him on the imperative of fortifying the border."

 

Ah... Yeah, right Disco Donny.  Federal workers endure pain? I went to training session and the bureaucrats brought pillows to sit on because the chairs were too hard.  Nice one Don... 

aww... was your flat ass okay afterwards? 

Edited January 9, 2019 by Foxx

[DC Tom]

7 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

Why? They didn't shut the government down. 

 

They did. Along with Trump.

 

You're arguing that the President should be nothing more than a rubber stamp for the House.  That's not how it works.

 

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

They did. Along with Trump.

 

You're arguing that the President should be nothing more than a rubber stamp for the House.  That's not how it works.

 

Funny, that's not what he said: "I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck"

 

I think we all remember that.

 

I seem to remember the Senate passing a bill to avoid a shutdown 100-0, told that this would avert a shutdown. I seem to remember a sudden flip right after that.

 

Trump took the credit. So goes the credit, goes the blame. If you want to ride McConnell too, let's go ahead, but the decision is 100% on Lil' Baby Trumpy

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, nkreed said:

I think that's the exact wrong way to prevent using government employees as leverage. Fund the government then have your wall discussions.  

 

If Pelosi had ANY history of negotiating in good faith, I'd agree.  Instead, she has a history of using delay as denial.  There is no negotiating with her.

 

There's also no negotiating with Trump, because he's a child.  Which is my point: BOTH SIDES are firmly entrenched in their uncompromising attitudes.  If you're pointing at either side and screaming "it's your fault for not caving in!" you're missing the very obvious fact that that equally applies to the other side.

1 minute ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

Funny, that's not what he said: "I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck"

 

I think we all remember that.

 

I seem to remember the Senate passing a bill to avoid a shutdown 100-0, told that this would avert a shutdown. I seem to remember a sudden flip right after that.

 

Trump took the credit. So goes the credit, goes the blame. If you want to ride McConnell too, let's go ahead, but the decision is 100% on Lil' Baby Trumpy

 

Sure.  Makes sense.  If you're a six year old. 

[nkreed]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

If Pelosi had ANY history of negotiating in good faith, I'd agree.  Instead, she has a history of using delay as denial.  There is no negotiating with her.

 

There's also no negotiating with Trump, because he's a child.  Which is my point: BOTH SIDES are firmly entrenched in their uncompromising attitudes.  If you're pointing at either side and screaming "it's your fault for not caving in!" you're missing the very obvious fact that that equally applies to the other side.

I get it Tom. I was going after the principle there. However context does matter, as you have clearly demonstrated.  This shutdown has a good shot of lasting a long time.

 

 

[Rob's House]

50 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

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. 

Not everyone follows politics. A lot of people only get headlines or what they hear in passing. Now they know the argument. They know the President wants a wall & why he wants it, and they know the Democrats strongly oppose it for no apparent reason.

 

Partisans aren't budging, but it's likely that some people who didn't have strong feelings about the issue are now more sympathetic to the President's side. Chuck & Nancy didn't persuade anyone - at least not in any way favorable to them.

 

And the relative handful of people whose checks stop coming might not be terribly sympathetic to Chuck & Nancy's decision to sacrifice their financial well being to spite President Trump. Most of those people are Dems anyway.

 

On a more basic level, the optics were just bad. Those two looked looney as tunes, and nothing they said betrayed that perception. It was a bad night for them.

[Buffalo_Gal]

28 minutes ago, nkreed said:

I think that's the exact wrong way to prevent using government employees as leverage. Fund the government then have your wall discussions.  

 

Before you go and tell me that I'm an idiot (where is your bot anyway?) tell me how paying for the wall is he only answer? That's an impractical stance when speaking of employees used as leverage. In fact it only STRENGHTENS the idea of using then again 

3

Yeaahhhhh I think we've seen that act before. It ain't working with this President.   Give wall funding, then we can "open the government".  

Why not give wall funding? If they have voted for wall funding in the past (and Schumer has) his only possible reasons to not give it now are:

1) He supports human trafficking
2) He supports drug trafficking
3) He wants to aid and abet illegal aliens 
4) He does not care about American citizens
5) He does not care about Federal works and if they are being paid
6) #orangemanbad
7) all of the above


 

[B-Man]

 

So should we talk about last night’s Oscar hosts?

 

 

 

 

 

It is common sense..................sadly uncommon for many here.

Quote

 

AP Politics‏Verified account @AP_Politics 11h11 hours ago

AP FACT CHECK: Democrats put the blame for the shutdown on Trump. But it takes two to tango. Trump's demand for $5.7 billion for his border wall is one reason for the budget impasse. The Democrats refusal to approve the money is another.

 

 

[nkreed]

5 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Yeaahhhhh I think we've seen that act before. It ain't working with this President.   Give wall funding, then we can "open the government".  

Context of statements matter. The context of my statement was to stop using these workers as leverage! If the ploy of using employees pay works, then the tatic will continue to be used. I don't think that should be the way EITHER side works.

[Buffalo_Gal]

2 minutes ago, nkreed said:

Context of statements matter. The context of my statement was to stop using these workers as leverage! If the ploy of using employees pay works, then the tatic will continue to be used. I don't think that should be the way EITHER side works.

I agree it shouldn't be the way either side works. However, it is always the way one side (and sometimes both sides) work. 

If you are on shutdown, call your local House Rep and Senator and ask them to vote for wall funding. The sooner that thin slice of government money is set aside for border security, the sooner the government can reopen. And while you are at it, ask your House Rep to work on a budget and not just stopgap funding - so federal employees will not be used as leverage again in a few weeks or months when the stopgap spending bill again runs out. 

[3rdnlng]

https://www.wnd.com/2016/11/1-main-reason-u-s-border-wall-hasnt-been-built/

 

On Oct. 26, 2006, President George W. Bush signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 saying: “This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an important step toward immigration reform.”

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

Democrats in Congress have blocked funding, arguing the barrier is too costly and a step away from their stated goal of “comprehensive immigration reform,” a code-phrase for proposed legislation that typically includes de facto amnesty for the millions of illegal immigrants already in the United States.

The bill was introduced into the House of Representatives (H.R. 6061) on Sep. 13, 2006, by Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. The bill received overwhelming support, passing the House by a vote of 283-138 on Sept. 14, 2006, and passing the Senate by 80-19 on Sept. 29, 2006.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 called for building some 700 miles of double-fence construction along the Mexican border, complete with vehicle barriers, checkpoints and lighting. Congress approved $1.2 billion in a separate homeland security spending bill to build the fence.

Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2016/11/1-main-reason-u-s-border-wall-hasnt-been-built/#2PeeW9j6bTlUKGJg.99

[Rob's House]

12 minutes ago, nkreed said:

Context of statements matter. The context of my statement was to stop using these workers as leverage! If the ploy of using employees pay works, then the tatic will continue to be used. I don't think that should be the way EITHER side works.

You do realize it's the Democrats in the Senate that are holding out, right?

 

The House passed a bill that the Senate Dems refuse to vote on.

 

President Trump hasn't vetoed anything. He has taken no official action to cause the shutdown.

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

https://mobile.twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/1083018774654144514

[Foxx]

14 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

https://www.wnd.com/2016/11/1-main-reason-u-s-border-wall-hasnt-been-built/

 

On Oct. 26, 2006, President George W. Bush signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 saying: “This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an important step toward immigration reform.”

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

Democrats in Congress have blocked funding, arguing the barrier is too costly and a step away from their stated goal of “comprehensive immigration reform,” a code-phrase for proposed legislation that typically includes de facto amnesty for the millions of illegal immigrants already in the United States.

The bill was introduced into the House of Representatives (H.R. 6061) on Sep. 13, 2006, by Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. The bill received overwhelming support, passing the House by a vote of 283-138 on Sept. 14, 2006, and passing the Senate by 80-19 on Sept. 29, 2006.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 called for building some 700 miles of double-fence construction along the Mexican border, complete with vehicle barriers, checkpoints and lighting. Congress approved $1.2 billion in a separate homeland security spending bill to build the fence.

Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2016/11/1-main-reason-u-s-border-wall-hasnt-been-built/#2PeeW9j6bTlUKGJg.99

i don't know that i would take away much of anything from WND.