I just happened to see a travel schedule for a certain Executive Branch agency that has been funded, in which there’s a legitimate conference on important topics that is occurring… preceded by a golf scramble. I believe most of the participants at the conference would be government personnel.
Should I hold my breath for the golf day to be cancelled? I think not. Especially with this occupant of the Oval Office.
What counts for me is that the ones that can change their mind are changing it now, but to disapprove of Trump, enough to conclude that the ones expecting that the minds will change to support Trump are ignoring evidence that Trump is not winning hearts and minds on this shutdown.
The Speaker of the House doesn’t have that power, if that’s what you’re asking.
No I was actually making a joke.
You think Republicans can see a joke? They elected one.
I agree.
A reasonable plan: Deal plainly and with integrity, and accept the support of anyone who wants to do the same. The others can fend for themselves.
True. As you undoubtedly know, Obama is giving this issue his attention (along with Eric Holder). Though of course it’s a difficult problem to solve, improvement is not impossible.
So you think when Secret Service or Coast Guard or TSA or others working without pay roll up to the gas station with empty tanks, the gas station owners will accept the assurance “you’ll receive payment, just not right now” and let them fill up?
Will grocery stores and pharmacies provide needed food and medicine on those terms, do you think? Will landlords who have their own mortgage payments to make? How would they be able to do that without losing the properties (let alone their credit ratings)?
How does that all work? Can you offer some evidence that your implication that this is no big deal is correct?
(my emphasis)
I think it’s kind of like how Mexico is still, somehow, going to inderectly yet pointedly pay for the fucking wall.
In other words, it all makes sense if your capacity to embrace delusion is strong enough…
So now we’re down to “citing” our own posts? Poor form.
HurricaneDitka, a note on English usage: One does not usually refer to one “shifting” positions when the new position is the same as the old one. In her first letter, Pelosi said that she didn’t think that an unfunded agency would be able to offer adequate security. In her later statement, she said that she didn’t think that an unfunded agency would be able to offer adequate security. This is not what we refer to as a “shift”.
I’d be interested in reading a thread discussing strong versus weak unitary executive theory if you’d be so kind as to start one with your own position. TIA.
It wasn’t her position that the headline referred to as “shifting” but her reasoning. And it did.
After reading those excerpts, is there anything about your post you’d like to “shift”?
Would you please cite your source? I’m not doubting anything, but I would like to read the entire article.
“We get both kinds of opinion at this White House. Rants from nasty right-wing bitches whose pussy we’d like to grab, and rants from nasty right-wing boy toys who’d like to help us grab some o’ that pussy. Both kinds of advice.”
Once upon a time it wasn’t entirely unreasonable to think some of the posts from you two were not entirely unreasonable. What happened? Dawning realization that your boy is an incompetent criminal is causing cognitive breakdown?
Well, I suppose I could repeat an argument or explanation I’ve provided that a poster hasn’t responded to and may have overlooked, or I could just point to it.
Not sure why one would be better or worse ‘form’ than the other.
That must seriously hurt the feelings of the Fox and Friends couch potatoes. 
I at least expected it to make a case that Pelosi had switched positions. All they did was quote what she said and take it as given that it was a different position.
But it isn’t. If they can’t pay them, then they can’t afford to do the job under the current budge. Those are the same position. They could have at least tried to argue it was different.
I’m a little bit confused what you think there is to negotiate. Neither republicans nor democrats want the government shut down, the senate passed a bill to open the government 100-0 in the last session, the house passed that same bill, and now for some reason, the senate won’t even consider it. There’s not really anything to negotiate - republicans can end the shutdown whenever they want. As soon as they want to, they can get back to good-faith governance, i.e. if they want policy, they can either convince the democrats it’s a good idea, or negotiate for something that the democrats want without holding the government hostage over it. Y’know, the way these things are supposed to work.
In reality, any “negotiation” over the shutdown comes down to “give us the wall or we keep torturing the hostage”. That’s not negotiation, and the good news is that, for once, the American people aren’t falling for it.
In retrospect I don’t think I can add anything to these three posts. “A greek tragedy in three posts”? On the whole, this thread really is kind of depressing to read, because even here, on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, the conservative posts are just… so bad.
That’s fine. What wasn’t fine was your saying, “Lovely demographic for the dims to covet so highly.”
Do you have a problem with that demographic, or don’t you? And if so, what’s your problem?