I thought “blaming” and “taking shots at” made it clear. I happen to largely agree with Mulvaney’s accusation of how Obama handled the 2013 shutdown, and if a cloture vote on the bill fails, I’ll think those that voted against cloture, who would probably be mostly Senate Dems, deserve the blame, or at least much of the blame.
You probably disagree with all of the above, but it’s not like I was trying to slide a fast one past you while you weren’t looking. It wasn’t some click-baitey description of the link or anything like that. I was clear and upfront about the contents. If your thought was along the lines of “ugh, Mulvaney, that guy never says anything worthwhile” you were well-informed enough by my description to know that you probably didn’t want to click on the link.
And I made it far clearer than mild implications (at best). I was well-informed long before your description, which is why I felt the need to make sure it was clear to those who might not have been so well-informed and been misled. Rest assured that I will continue to do so if I feel it is necessary.
No, I didn’t click on that link. I trust absolutely nothing that any member of the Trump administration and its mouthpieces say, nor do I see the need to waste my time on watching them say what I knew they were going to say, anyway. (That has been an overwhelming regularity when I actually have watched them, btw.)
This is both a personal attack and harassment, both of which are prohibited. Do not do this again or warnings will follow.
What happens in the Pit, should stay in the Pit. If you want to pit someone, that is allowed. Referencing Pit activity as a shot at another poster is not.
56% say it is more important to avoid a shutdown, and 34% say it is more important to continue DACA.
BUT… if there is a shutdown, 21% would blame Trump, 26% would blame congressional Republicans, and 31% would blame Dems.
When asked how the government should deal with people already living in the US illegally, only 14% say deport them all. Just over 8 in ten say some should be allowed to become legal residents. (This surprises me, I thought the hardcore anti-immigrant number would be significantly more.)
Support for a wall is eroding, down to 35%, from a high of 52% in September 2015.
Back on the hardcore 14% of anti-immigrant Americans, I can’t help but think that at least half of the House Republican caucus has adopted a position held by just one in eight Americans. Sure seems like Republicans are decent at winning elections, but boy, they can be really out of touch with Americans.
Perhaps the viewpoint is that Republicans are sentient beings who are qualified to have differing opinions, while Democrats are a lower life-form whose only function is to do what Trump tells them or be whipped.
But unless this is the view Saint Cad espouses, then I don’t think OP is entirely ingenuous.
I’d even go so far as to say that Republican Senators, and perhaps even their SDMB supporters, are not entirely non-hypocritical.
For those following at home without a scorecard, my understanding is that Mr. Ditka’s opinion of Mr. McVeigh’s murder of 168 people is that it was “not an entirely unreasonable reaction.” (There’s already another thread if you need to debate whether this mass murder was more or less not unreasonable than the Antifa terrorist who threw a stone toward a Nazi.)
I’m not competent to parse the semantic difference between “reasonable” and “not unreasonable” — I’m still confused whether "entitled means entitled or its opposite. (I do wonder if this advanced morphological form can be used to help conform with Board rules, e.g. “XXXX’s values appear to be not entirely humane.”)
Can someone answer me this, I haven’t heard anyone talk about it, but both of the bargaining chips for the republicans (CHIP and DACA) were recently allowed to expire by congress and/or by executive order. So, why does anyone think this wasn’t planned to use these as a bargaining chip in future negotiations so the democrats will fight to get back to status quo but the republicans stand to actually gain something? I mean, Trump could just reverse his executive order on DACA, right? This really doesn’t depend on congress. It’s just so disingenuous of Republicans and so naïve of the Democrats.
CHIP needs to be funded, and Trump would eat his own left nut before he reversed anything, let alone (perish the thought!) DACA.
Because they’re either habitually uninformed or Republicans.
How naive? They’ve voted for punts twice now in good faith and, like Lucy, the Republicans have removed the DACA ball. You know the old saying about the definition of insanity.