Coast Guard Workers relying on food pantries thanks to 45's shutdown

[Darth Wedgius]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/22/politics ... index.html
For those of you concerned about border security and immigration, I'd like to remind you that a great deal of unauthorized immigration happens by sea, and it's the coast guard's job to deal with that.
Not that I suggest tis at all related.

You've made the same mistake you've made elsewhere, blaming a disagreement between two sides only on one side.

The goverment shutdown was caused when one party controlled all three wings of government and Mr Neelix rejected funding bills that had bipartisan support. It takes two to tango, but one person can be a jerkoff alone.

No, you know what? I don't even need that. THE PRESIDENT SAID HE WAS PROUD TO CAUSE A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN!

And you took him at his word? Do you do that a lot?

Tell me one reason why I should think you aren't just trolling me at this point. Are you just arguing in bad faith or trying an experiment in psychological warfare to see if it's possible to get another person's arteries to rupture soley using internet debate tactics?

It was a logical question. If your standards of evidence includes taking Trump at his word, your statement made sense. Otherwise it seemed irrelevant.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

MY standards of belief are not the issue. How do YOU respond to that? Do YOU believe him when he said he was proud to shut down the government? Because you're the one insisting that this is both sides being equally at fault instead of one man's petulance.

[Darth Wedgius]

MY standards of belief are not the issue. How do YOU respond to that? Do YOU believe him when he said he was proud to shut down the government? Because you're the one insisting that this is both sides being equally at fault instead of one man's petulance.

No, I don't believe him. How does him saying that change the facts of the situation. If congress had given in on the wall the shutdown would have ended. If Trump had dropped it the shutdown would have ended. Logically, both were responsible. You simply insist that a situation created by two intransigent groups are the fault of the side you like less.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

MY standards of belief are not the issue. How do YOU respond to that? Do YOU believe him when he said he was proud to shut down the government? Because you're the one insisting that this is both sides being equally at fault instead of one man's petulance.

No, I don't believe him. How does him saying that change the facts of the situation. If congress had given in on the wall the shutdown would have ended. If Trump had dropped it the shutdown would have ended. Logically, both were responsible. You simply insist that a situation created by two intransigent groups are the fault of the side you like less.

The key word is "ended". He STARTED it. He CAUSED it.

[Darth Wedgius]

MY standards of belief are not the issue. How do YOU respond to that? Do YOU believe him when he said he was proud to shut down the government? Because you're the one insisting that this is both sides being equally at fault instead of one man's petulance.

No, I don't believe him. How does him saying that change the facts of the situation. If congress had given in on the wall the shutdown would have ended. If Trump had dropped it the shutdown would have ended. Logically, both were responsible. You simply insist that a situation created by two intransigent groups are the fault of the side you like less.

The key word is "ended". He STARTED it. He CAUSED it.

The "starting" for something like this is the same as not ending it. The lack of an agreement for a budget was two sides not coming to an agreement. This really isn't that complicated. I'm surprised that you're still confused.

[Madner Kami]

The "starting" for something like this is the same as not ending it. The lack of an agreement for a budget was two sides not coming to an agreement. This really isn't that complicated. I'm surprised that you're still confused.

Assume this. You and me are argueing about something. I want something, you want something, you don't want what I want and I don't want what you want. We argue and don't come to a conclusion and if we just split now, nothing is going to happen to anyone and the status quo ante will remain, if we just go away from each other. I now pull a gun, grab someone that we are both responsible for, for the sake fo the arguement it's a relative of both of us, and put that gun to his or her head and tell you, that I am going to pull the trigger unless you subdue and agree to my proposal.

Now who is at fault in this scenario and responsible? Do you really want to argue, that you are at fault as well in this scenario, because you do not give in to my demands? Think about how you would see the exact same situation if Shillary were president and she'd pull that off, say about funding a controversial social program that you do not agree with.

Wedgius, you may want what Trump wants in this parallel and this is fine, even though we disagree. What is not fine and what you should really think about defending is, Trump pulling that gun and putting it the collective head of every single state-employee.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The scenario isn't really different from a filibuster. Exploitation of filibusters can be highly contemptible.

[Darth Wedgius]

The "starting" for something like this is the same as not ending it. The lack of an agreement for a budget was two sides not coming to an agreement. This really isn't that complicated. I'm surprised that you're still confused.

Assume this. You and me are argueing about something. I want something, you want something, you don't want what I want and I don't want what you want. We argue and don't come to a conclusion and if we just split now, nothing is going to happen to anyone and the status quo ante will remain, if we just go away from each other. I now pull a gun, grab someone that we are both responsible for, for the sake fo the arguement it's a relative of both of us, and put that gun to his or her head and tell you, that I am going to pull the trigger unless you subdue and agree to my proposal.

Now who is at fault in this scenario and responsible? Do you really want to argue, that you are at fault as well in this scenario, because you do not give in to my demands? Think about how you would see the exact same situation if Shillary were president and she'd pull that off, say about funding a controversial social program that you do not agree with.

Wedgius, you may want what Trump wants in this parallel and this is fine, even though we disagree. What is not fine and what you should really think about defending is, Trump pulling that gun and putting it the collective head of every single state-employee.

I'd say a direct threat of violence is a little different than not agreeing to a budget you disagree with. Shooting someone is considered a wrong except in self-defense, but not agreeing to a budget is not. If the president was always supposed to agree to a budget, the president shouldn't be a necessary part of the process.

If the sides were reversed, with Hillary wanting a social program Ididn't want, I think I'd still blame both sides. I think I treated Obama fairly, though I do respect him more than I do Hillary.