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

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

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.

[Madner Kami]

Why are they relying on food pantries, when they could take loans... Some elites learned nothing from Maria Antionette... :facepalm:

[TGLS]

Why are they relying on food pantries, when they could take loans... :facepalm:

Well, if you don't know how long until your next paycheque (Tomorrow? Next week? Next month?), then getting a loan/using a credit card might feel more dangerous...

[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.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I don't really think that frames the circumstance accordingly. Congress and the White House are checks and balances to each other. Trump knows well that the Democrats have never been receptive to the wall. Finangling any type of bill that slips it in there once is one thing. Doing it over and again to the point of a shutdown is deliberate on his part.

Then more speculatively, he could put any absurd provision on that bill, The Democrats aren't obliged to just accept it because of the shutdown. He's knowingly bringing the impasse to the situation. The speculation about the efficacy or warranting of the wall is a fair topic for consideration, but given that there has never been much objective information supporting such a financial endeavor.

[Darth Wedgius]

I don't really think that frames the circumstance accordingly. Congress and the White House are checks and balances to each other. Trump knows well that the Democrats have never been receptive to the wall. Finangling any type of bill that slips it in there once is one thing. Doing it over and again to the point of a shutdown is deliberate on his part.

Then more speculatively, he could put any absurd provision on that bill, The Democrats aren't obliged to just accept it because of the shutdown. He's knowingly bringing the impasse to the situation. The speculation about the efficacy or warranting of the wall is a fair topic for consideration, but given that there has never been much objective information supporting such a financial endeavor.

Nevertheless, the disagreement is between two groups. The Democrats aren't obliged to accept anything, but he isn't obliged to accept the bill without.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I don't really think that frames the circumstance accordingly. Congress and the White House are checks and balances to each other. Trump knows well that the Democrats have never been receptive to the wall. Finangling any type of bill that slips it in there once is one thing. Doing it over and again to the point of a shutdown is deliberate on his part.

Then more speculatively, he could put any absurd provision on that bill, The Democrats aren't obliged to just accept it because of the shutdown. He's knowingly bringing the impasse to the situation. The speculation about the efficacy or warranting of the wall is a fair topic for consideration, but given that there has never been much objective information supporting such a financial endeavor.

Nevertheless, the disagreement is between two groups. The Democrats aren't obliged to accept anything, but he isn't obliged to accept the bill without.

I don't think anybody's of the mind that the itemized wall isn't the exclusive feature of contention. Anybody can go ahead and assert that he's skeptical of their proposals despite the wall, but I'm not buyin that.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

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!

[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?

[Darth Wedgius]

I don't really think that frames the circumstance accordingly. Congress and the White House are checks and balances to each other. Trump knows well that the Democrats have never been receptive to the wall. Finangling any type of bill that slips it in there once is one thing. Doing it over and again to the point of a shutdown is deliberate on his part.

Then more speculatively, he could put any absurd provision on that bill, The Democrats aren't obliged to just accept it because of the shutdown. He's knowingly bringing the impasse to the situation. The speculation about the efficacy or warranting of the wall is a fair topic for consideration, but given that there has never been much objective information supporting such a financial endeavor.

Nevertheless, the disagreement is between two groups. The Democrats aren't obliged to accept anything, but he isn't obliged to accept the bill without.

I don't think anybody's of the mind that the itemized wall isn't the exclusive feature of contention. Anybody can go ahead and assert that he's skeptical of their proposals despite the wall, but I'm not buyin that.

I'm OK with the wall being the point of contention, but nevertheless we have two sides disagreeing.