'Out for long time': Trump tweets as US shutdown sets new record

[Skeptic Bob]

Which McConnell has already said he would not send legislation to the President he will not sign.
So the Dems should learn they need to cooperate.

Which brings us full circle back to my original point that McConnell is holding up the next step.

 

[roughdraft274]

We only have a shutdown because we have such a weak president.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[chuckiechan]

Which brings us full circle back to my original point that McConnell is holding up the next step.

Unless the democrats give him the wall, they should go out and campaign for illegal immigration.

 

[Excon]

Which brings us full circle back to my original point that McConnell is holding up the next step.

No. Preventing something from moving forward because it will not be approved is not holding anything up, simply because it will not be approved.

Holding things up is what they are all doing by not cooperating with each other.

 

[Excon]

Since you aren’t willing to pick up a dictionary, I’ll help you out.

From OED: capitulate
VERB
[NO OBJECT]
Cease to resist an opponent or an unwelcome demand; yield.

cooperate
(also co-operate)
VERB
[NO OBJECT]
1Work jointly towards the same end.

You no longer have any reason for your ignorance.

You’re welcome.

Oy vey. :doh My ignorance?
The only ignorance and absurdity here is your own.
You clearly understand that under marriage capitulation can be cooperation, but still fail to actuality acknowledge it can be under negotiations.
That is just absurdity.

Yes, cooperation, regardless if by force, is still cooperation.

But this is regards to negotiations, not forced. Tit for tat. Yet the Dems are failing to negotiate.


As for further info about your ignorance claim

While I already know what capitulate means, I also understand why you only provided the root definition when the word on it ls own has a slightly different definition.

capitulation

: a set of terms or articles (see article sense 1c) constituting an agreement between governments

2a : the act of surrendering or yielding the capitulation of the defenders of the besieged town

b : the terms of surrender​

You no longer have any reason to feign ignorance, especially as you already knew by it's application in a marriage scenario.

 

[Excon]

I used the definition of extortion, and all you respond with is "nuh uh!".

That is right, because extortion is not part and parcel of negotiations between the branches of a government. Which you should have comprehended when I said what I did. "Extortion covers that which is actual extortion, not that which is part and parcel of negotiations."
The use of extortion is nothing more than hyperbole on your part, not reality.

Sorry, doesn't work that way.

Yeah, it does.
Hyperbole doesn't cut it.

There is no negotiation in what Trump is doing

iLOL Wrong.
There is no negotiation when Pelosi says she will not approve any money for the barrier/wall when she certainly could say she wants something in exchange for such approval.

Trump submitted his budget earlier this year and only asked for $1B or so for border security. He never asked for $5.7B. This figure did not show up until this latest CR fight. Totally out of the blue.

Irrelevant, or are you of the opinion that things are static and can not change?

Trump has not even begun to really spend the $1B he was already given. Why not?

Because this has nothing to do with honest negotiation.

iLOL An unsupportable claim.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Oy vey. :doh My ignorance?
The only ignorance and absurdity here is your own.
You clearly understand that under marriage capitulation can be cooperation, but still fail to actuality acknowledge it can be under negotiations.
That is just absurdity.

Yes, cooperation, regardless if by force, is still cooperation.

But this is regards to negotiations, not forced. Tit for tat. Yet the Dems are failing to negotiate.


As for further info about your ignorance claim

While I already know what capitulate means, I also understand why you only provided the root definition when the word on it ls own has a slightly different definition.

capitulation

: a set of terms or articles (see article sense 1c) constituting an agreement between governments

2a : the act of surrendering or yielding the capitulation of the defenders of the besieged town

b : the terms of surrender​

You no longer have any reason to feign ignorance, especially as you already knew by it's application in a marriage scenario.

I tried to help you, but it’s clear that you’re incapable of learning. Oh well.

 

[Excon]

I tried to help you, but it’s clear that you’re incapable of learning. Oh well.

You are clearly confused. You do not have the upper hand here.

The reality is that I tried to help you, but it’s clear that you’re incapable of learning.

They are all are not cooperating and are responsible for that.
Period.

 

[Excon]

We only have a shutdown because we have such a weak president.

Hilariously untrue.

 

[Chomsky]

To the emboldened. No reason to speak about something that isn't going to happen.
All this is irrelevant to the cooperation that is going to be required. They are all responsible for their lack thereof.

That's fair, though I don't see equal blame, and it seems the public is with me in this.

The biggest issue I see, is Trump forcing a shutdown over this. Quite honestly, despite all our fair & reasonable discussion here, I still see letting Trump essentially hold the government hostage (as I see it) as a dangerous precedent that Congress cannot accede to. I just don't see how they can allow him to get away with it.

I would hope not, and I severely doubt it would come to this, but the very worst case scenario is this gets decided by an election in 2020.

 

[Excon]

That's fair,

Of course it is fair.

though I don't see equal blame,

Which can be explained by bias.

and it seems the public is with me in this.

Not really a resounding affirmation.

The biggest issue I see, is Trump forcing a shutdown over this.

Two sides of the coin here.
The Dems are just as guilty in forcing the shutdown by their lack of cooperation as the President is for his lack of cooperation.

Quite honestly, despite all our fair & reasonable discussion here,

With each side blaming the other without acknowledging their own side's culpability I do not see the discussions being fair.

I still see letting Trump essentially hold the government hostage (as I see it) as a dangerous precedent that Congress cannot accede to. I just don't see how they can allow him to get away with it.

1. A biased view.
2. The Dems are just as guilty. This is how things can operate and currently is. The parties involved are responsible for it.


One side has to blink first.
You probably hope it is the President, while those who support the president likely hope it is will be the Dems.

 

[Manc Skipper]

There is no question of apportioning blame. There is only one guilty party, who actually boasted about his action.

 

[Excon]

There is no question of apportioning blame. There is only one guilty party, who actually boasted about his action.

Wrong as usual.

 

[Chomsky]

Of course it is fair.


Which can be explained by bias.


Not really a resounding affirmation.


Two sides of the coin here.
The Dems are just as guilty in forcing the shutdown by their lack of cooperation as the President is for his lack of cooperation.

With each side blaming the other without acknowledging their own side's culpability I do not see the discussions being fair.

1. A biased view.
2. The Dems are just as guilty. This is how things can operate and currently is. The parties involved are responsible for it.


One side has to blink first.
You probably hope it is the President, while those who support the president likely hope it is will be the Dems.

Sorry Excon, I don't see equal culpability here. It's just not there.

 

[Airyaman]

That is right, because extortion is not part and parcel of negotiations between the branches of a government.

So? You're talking about someone who has spent years suing people to get his way. You are not talking about a normal politician who might follow such "norms". Toss that out right away then.

Which you should have comprehended when I said what I did. "Extortion covers that which is actual extortion, not that which is part and parcel of negotiations."

See above.

The use of extortion is nothing more than hyperbole on your part, not reality.

Seems you haven't a clue what "hyperbole" is. I pointed out the definition of extortion, and it fits perfectly with what Trump is doing. No "hyperbole" necessary.

Yeah, it does.
Hyperbole doesn't cut it.

You have not shown that hyperbole is being utilized.

iLOL Wrong.
There is no negotiation when Pelosi says she will not approve any money for the barrier/wall when she certainly could say she wants something in exchange for such approval.

So you want our government to spend $5.7B on a wall on top of $5.7B for something the Democrats want? I take it you're not fiscally conservative. Because if you want the Dems to "negotiate" and Trump will not take less than $5.7B for his wall, then you should be willing to give up $5.7B on pet spending for Dem initiatives.

Irrelevant, or are you of the opinion that things are static and can not change?

Very relevant. He should at least spend the money he's been given before asking more for a vague proposition. Since he has not, Congress owes him not a single nickel more. Blame Trump for failing to follow through on his own budget.

iLOL An unsupportable claim.

Unsupportable? Only 60% of the money in the most recent budget for border security has been awarded in contracts.

https://qz.com/1516960/trump-speech-tonight-he-hasnt-spent-border-wall-money-he-already-has/

 

[Excon]

Sorry Excon, I don't see equal culpability here. It's just not there.

You do not see it because you chose to be biased, bu tit is there.

Can the Dems cooperate? Of course they can. They can negotiate to obtain something they want but they wont because they are opposed to anything Trump. Their position is absurdity and they are responsible for that non-cooperation. Just like the President is responsible for his.

 

[Perotista]

Congress isn't supposed to cooperate with the President. That's not how the framers designed it. If anything it's supposed to be the other 'way round. The President is supposed to do what Congress tells him.
That's why they legislate and he executes.

It hasn't worked that way for a very long time. Members in congress of the same party of the president are more part of the administration than the institution of congress. Over the years congress has ceded quite a lot of their constitutional powers to different administrations and government agencies. Congress is a shell of itself when compared to 50-60 years ago. Speakers like Sam Rayburn, Carl Albert, Mike McCormick who wouldn't take any guff from even presidents of their own party when it came to congressional power and rights are long gone.

Members of congress of the same party as the president now think it is their job to give the president everything he wants. There is no more checks and balance because of this. That is unless we have divided government. Republicans in congress who are doing Trump's bidding is no different than democrats in congress who did Obama's. No difference than republicans in congress who did G.W. Bush's or Democrats in congress who did Bill Clinton's bidding and on back.

I suppose you could list this under partisan party politics.

 

[Excon]

So? You're talking about someone who has spent years suing people to get his way. You are not talking about a normal politician who might follow such "norms". Toss that out right away then.

Are you suggesting all his deals were the result of litigation? I hope not.
Disputes being litigated is not the same as cooperating in deals.
You have no valid point here.

See above.

Already did, you had no valid point.

Seems you haven't a clue what "hyperbole" is. I pointed out the definition of extortion, and it fits perfectly with what Trump is doing. No "hyperbole" necessary.

Wrong a usual. "Extortion covers that which is actual extortion, not that which is part and parcel of negotiations." It was hyperbole.

hyperbole

obvious and intentional exaggeration.​

You have not shown that hyperbole is being utilized.

:lamo Your exaggeration is apparent.

So you want our government to spend $5.7B on a wall on top of $5.7B for something the Democrats want? I take it you're not fiscally conservative. Because if you want the Dems to "negotiate" and Trump will not take less than $5.7B for his wall, then you should be willing to give up $5.7B on pet spending for Dem initiatives.

Why are you arguing fiction? Did I say that is what I want? Or did I perhaps say they are all responsible for failing to cooperate?

Very relevant. He should at least spend the money he's been given before asking more for a vague proposition. Since he has not, Congress owes him not a single nickel more. Blame Trump for failing to follow through on his own budget.

Why are you engaing in discussion when you have no clue as to what you speak?
The wall is under construction and has been for a while.

​

Unsupportable? Only 60% of the money in the most recent budget for border security has been awarded in contracts.

[[What happened to the border wall money Congress already gave Trump?] ]

I see.
To you, only 60% equates as "not even begun to really spend". Doh!
Yeah, unsupportable bs you clearly spewed, though given your propensity to exaggerate I can see why you chose the wording you did.

 

[Airyaman]

Are you suggesting all his deals were the result of litigation? I hope not.
Disputes being litigated is not the same as cooperating in deals.
You have no valid point here.


Already did, you had no valid point.



Wrong a usual. "Extortion covers that which is actual extortion, not that which is part and parcel of negotiations." It was hyperbole.

hyperbole

obvious and intentional exaggeration.​

:lamo Your exaggeration is apparent.


Why are you arguing fiction? Did I say that is what I want? Or did I perhaps say they are all responsible for failing to cooperate?


Why are you engaing in discussion when you have no clue as to what you speak?
The wall is under construction and has been for a while.

​

I see.
To you, only 60% equates as "not even begun to really spend". Doh!
Yeah, unsupportable bs you clearly spewed, though given your propensity to exaggerate I can see why you chose the wording you did.

Nothing worth responding to the above except the last point (trash before that).

Did you bother to see what the 60% was?

Come back when you figure it out.

 

[Excon]

Nothing worth responding to the above except the last point (trash before that).

Did you bother to see what the 60% was?

Come back when you figure it out.

Stop with the absurdity.
You spewed bs.

Nearly 60% of those funds have been promised in contract awards made through the Army Corps of Engineers via Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said. That includes 35 of 40 miles of replacement wall funded by the fiscal 2017 budget and $700 million of the $1.2 billion funded in the 2018 budget, she said.

In other words, the DHS has committed about 60% of the money for physical barriers via new contracts, while 40% of the money remains uncommitted. In fact, the government shutdown over the wall is stopping the agency from committing more money to build it. “An additional approximately $300 million is ready to award as soon as the government reopens” the DHS spokesperson said.​

 

[Airyaman]

Stop with the absurdity.
You spewed bs.

Nearly 60% of those funds have been promised in contract awards made through the Army Corps of Engineers via Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said. That includes 35 of 40 miles of replacement wall funded by the fiscal 2017 budget and $700 million of the $1.2 billion funded in the 2018 budget, she said.

In other words, the DHS has committed about 60% of the money for physical barriers via new contracts, while 40% of the money remains uncommitted. In fact, the government shutdown over the wall is stopping the agency from committing more money to build it. “An additional approximately $300 million is ready to award as soon as the government reopens” the DHS spokesperson said.​

Thanks!

:lamo

 

[Excon]

Thanks!

:lamo

As that proves what you said was purely bs, you are most certainly welcome.
Here, let me provide that bs for all to see again.

Here is the exchange.
Clearly you ridiculously think that almost 60% having been spent spent somehow equates to "has not even begun to really spend". :lamo

Trump has not even begun to really spend the $1B he was already given. Why not?

iLOL An unsupportable claim.

Unsupportable? Only 60% of the money in the most recent budget for border security has been awarded in contracts.

https://qz.com/1516960/trump-speech-tonight-he-hasnt-spent-border-wall-money-he-already-has/

I see.
To you, only 60% equates as "not even begun to really spend". Doh!
Yeah, unsupportable bs you clearly spewed, though given your propensity to exaggerate I can see why you chose the wording you did.

Just how do you think that 60% having being spent is equivalent to your exaggerated bs of "has not even begun to really spend"?
.

 

[GDViking]

Trump holding 800,000 federal employees hostage until he gets what he wants is not something we "cooperate" with.

He's not offering the House anything other than stopping the shutdown that he started just to extort money.

He is a terrorist. Boasting about how much suffering he is willing to cause if he doesn't get what he wants. And he wants money he promised that taxpayers would not have to pay.

When you pay a ransom demand to a kidnapper that is not "cooperating".

Exactly!!!

There is no excuse for this action, there is no crisis other than in the demented .Ind of a senile old con artist that is aware that this wall is the last thing other than an indictment that will ever have a chance of having his name on again.

 

[Airyaman]

As that proves what you said was purely bs, you are most certainly welcome.
Here, let me provide that bs for all to see again.

Here is the exchange.
Clearly you ridiculously think that almost 60% having been spent spent somehow equates to "has not even begun to really spend". :lamo

​

Just how do you think that 60% having being spent is equivalent to your exaggerated bs of "has not even begun to really spend"?
.

Do you understand what "spend" means?

When I spend money, it is spent.

If I go forth with a telling a contractor to move forward, I have not yet spent any money until the bill comes due. That 60% is not spent money, it is what the government has approved in contracts.

You suck horribly at this.

 

[Excon]

You suck horribly at this.

You are projecting.

Do you understand what "spend" means?

When I spend money, it is spent.

If I go forth with a telling a contractor to move forward, I have not yet spent any money until the bill comes due. That 60% is not spent money, it is what the government has approved in contracts.

JFC! Your arguments are dumb.
You pointed to "40% of the money remains uncommitted" as somehow supporting what you claim, but it doesn't.
Now you are trying to claim that the 60% committed doesn't equate as spent.
Just stop, your commentary is just becoming more and more foolish.


Awarded contracts is for all intent and purpose spent money.

Uncommitted funds equates as unspent.