Democrats Really DO NOT care about Federal Workers
True colors show. They aren't really worried about Federal Workers not getting paid despite their lies to the cameras. The votes say it all.
Comments
-
@C_M_ where is your outrage at the Democrats being the ones to not pay workers?
-
Today President Trump ended his shut down of a portion of the federal government... by accepting the deal that Democrats had on the table 35 days ago, when the shut down began.
Five weeks of hardship and anxiety for 800,000 federal workers, thousands of other workers who won't get back pay for their lost wages, and for an economy that was already showing some signs of disruption and weakness... for a deal he could have accepted when it was first offered and thereby have avoided the shut down altogether. That's leadership.
In a tweet sent after his surrender to political reality, the president claimed that if he doesn't get "a deal" the next three weeks, it will be "off to the races," a reference, I guess, to a national emergency proclamation and its attendant court battles, or another shut down and its attendant further erosion of the president's and his party's standing with the American people. THAT is leadership.
Oh, and did I mention that yet another Trump confidant was indicted today, further tightening the circle around the president? The indictment says “a senior Trump campaign official was directed to contact STONE about any additional releases and what other damaging information (from Wikileaks).” Who in the campaign could have been senior enough to another "senior" official to direct him or her to contact Stone about additional Wikileaks dirt on Hillary Clinton? Probably wasn't a clerical worker, was it? Or a switchboard operator, or a part-time intern, or any other person in the bowels of the campaign structure. Whoever "directed" that "senior" campaign official to get Stone to get more Clinton dirt from Wikileaks almost had to be somebody we all know. I bet it will turn out to be someone we all know VERY well.
And where did Wikileaks get their dirt on Clinton during the 2016 campaign? Emails. And where did they get the emails? That's right, from Russia! And who or what is it that all those Trump confidants (as well as the president himself) seem to lie about more often than anything or anyone? Russia. Yet as the president and his supporters regularly remind us, there was no collusion! Which just goes to show you that some menageries of coincidences are bigger, bolder, and badder than others.
-
@Bill_Coley are you going to address the actual content of the OP?
-
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley are you going to address the actual content of the OP?Haven't had the time, reformed. Been too busy being a "blind, ignorant, liberal lackey, idiot, bufoon [sic], uneducated, stupid, outrageous, pig-headed, dumb, annoying, and any other number of adjectives...snake." It's that "insanity" thing of mine.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Oh, and did I mention that yet another Trump confidant was indicted today, further tightening the circle around the president? The indictment says “a senior Trump campaign official was directed to contact STONE about any additional releases and what other damaging information (from Wikileaks).” Who in the campaign could have been senior enough to another "senior" official to direct him or her to contact Stone about additional Wikileaks dirt on Hillary Clinton?
...
...The Clinton dirt is still around ... and she and her cohorts continuing their dirty doings.
Wasn't there something in USA about "justice for all" ???And where did Wikileaks get their dirt on Clinton during the 2016 campaign? Emails. And where did they get the emails? That's right, from Russia! And who or what is it that all those Trump confidants (as well as the president himself) seem to lie about more often than anything or anyone? Russia.
Well, one should thank God for Russia bringing to light the dirt which Clinton and her Democrats stand for ... at least now the American people had an opportunity to know. Or do you value the Clinton/Democrats conspiracy (their dirty business in secret) higher than the dirt being revealed no matter by whom??
Yet as the president and his supporters regularly remind us, there was no collusion! Which just goes to show you that some menageries of coincidences are bigger, bolder, and badder than others.
Such as Democrats /Clinton conspiracy against the American people?
-
@Wolfgang said:
The Clinton dirt is still around ... and she and her cohorts continuing their dirty doings.
Something tells me that what you call "dirty doings" is not the same as what I and American law call "dirty doings."
Wasn't there something in USA about "justice for all" ???
Secretary Clinton's conduct and foundation were investigated by the same Justice Department as is investigating President Trump and his 2016 campaign. After more than a year of scrutity, Secretary Clinton and her foundation were not charged. After 21 months of scrutiny, to-date the investigation into President Trump and his campaign has produced 199 criminal charges (including charges against Russian nationals) 37 indictments or guilty pleas, and four prison sentences.
Well, one should thank God for Russia bringing to light the dirt which Clinton and her Democrats stand for ... at least now the American people had an opportunity to know. Or do you value the Clinton/Democrats conspiracy (their dirty business in secret) higher than the dirt being revealed no matter by whom??
Now you recommend that we "thank God for Russia"? In several posts throughout the earlier stages of the investigation (e.g. THIS ONE) you made clear your view that the matter was a "hoax." Granted, the content of many of those posts was nothing other than text copied and pasted from - and links to - other sources (through the years, haven't you and I usually agreed that posters shouldn't rely on the words of other sources to express their personal views?) but the clear meaning of that pasted material was that Russia played no or a very limited role in the American election. Hence, I'm surprised by your belief now that we should "thank God for Russia."
And for what it's worth, in my view, the "Clinton/Democrats conspiracy" as discovered in several investigations, including those of a then-Republican controlled House, was/is almost literally nothing compared to the corruption and illegality already- and still to be discovered, indicted, pleaded, convicted, and sentenced as a result of the Mueller probe.
Such as Democrats /Clinton conspiracy against the American people?
In my view, there simply is no evidence to support your claim of a "conspiracy against the American people." At least, the opinion pieces you have pasted into threads over the years have not provided such evidence.
-
Let's stay on topic @Bill_Coley @Wolfgang
-
@reformed said:
Let's stay on topic @Bill_Coley @WolfgangIs it okay if Wolfgang and I stay as on-topic as you were when you opined that I am a "blind, ignorant, liberal lackey, idiot, bufoon [sic], uneducated, stupid, outrageous, pig-headed, dumb, annoying, and any other number of adjectives...snake"? Or when you declared that I am "the snake, a deceiver, a wolf, false prophet, antagonist, antichrist, and more"?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Let's stay on topic @Bill_Coley @WolfgangIs it okay if Wolfgang and I stay as on-topic as you were when you opined that I am a "blind, ignorant, liberal lackey, idiot, bufoon [sic], uneducated, stupid, outrageous, pig-headed, dumb, annoying, and any other number of adjectives...snake"? Or when you declared that I am "the snake, a deceiver, a wolf, false prophet, antagonist, antichrist, and more"?
You could have requested I stay on topic there. You are right, I should have created a separate thread. But me, the OP, has requested you stay on topic here. I know you are scared of the topic because it exposes the insincerity of Pelosi and Schumer.
-
@reformed said:
You could have requested I stay on topic there.
I shouldn't have to request that you refrain from childish name-calling of posters with whom you disagree.
You are right, I should have created a separate thread.
No. You should have refrained from childish name-calling of posters with whom you disagree.
But me, the OP, has requested you stay on topic here.
So you request I that do what you chose not to do in those other threads, where you engaged in childish name-calling of posters with whom you disagree. I understand and will comply.
I know you are scared of the topic because it exposes the insincerity of Pelosi and Schumer.
I am not scared of the topic anymore than you are afraid of defending the president's decision to end the shutdown by accepting the same offer Democrats offered him before the shutdown began five weeks ago.
I didn't understand why House Democratic leaders called their Republican colleagues' efforts a "stunt" until I researched the issue further than the townhall.com piece did. According to the Washington Examiner, House Republicans proposed that we pay federal workers during the shutdown, BUT to do so INSTEAD of funding the entire federal government. The House was ready to vote on a Democratic proposal to fund the entire government, when GOP members, in what I think is called a "motion to recommit," got a vote on their alternative approach. So the question was, do we pay federal workers by ending the shutdown (by funding the entire federal government) or do we pay federal workers but allow the shutdown to continue (by paying only the workers' wages and salaries)?
Because the GOP plan was called up as a replacement for the Democratic plan - i.e. we'll vote on our plan, but not yours! - Democrats said no, and called it a stunt. They continued to support their own plan, however, which would have paid federal workers AND ended the shutdown. Given that the president yesterday chose to end the shut down, basically on the exact terms defined by the Democrats' plan which GOP members sought to replace, perhaps he also decided the GOP plan was a "stunt."
In any event, if I were in the House and had to decide whether to vote for a plan that would pay federal workers AND reopen the federal government, OR a plan that would pay the workers, but allow the government shutdown to continue, I would choose the former, not the latter. How about you, reformed?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
You could have requested I stay on topic there.
I shouldn't have to request that you refrain from childish name-calling of posters with whom you disagree.
You are right, I should have created a separate thread.
No. You should have refrained from childish name-calling of posters with whom you disagree.
But me, the OP, has requested you stay on topic here.
So you request I that do what you chose not to do in those other threads, where you engaged in childish name-calling of posters with whom you disagree. I understand and will comply.
I know you are scared of the topic because it exposes the insincerity of Pelosi and Schumer.
I am not scared of the topic anymore than you are afraid of defending the president's decision to end the shutdown by accepting the same offer Democrats offered him before the shutdown began five weeks ago.
I didn't understand why House Democratic leaders called their Republican colleagues' efforts a "stunt" until I researched the issue further than the townhall.com piece did. According to the Washington Examiner, House Republicans proposed that we pay federal workers during the shutdown, BUT to do so INSTEAD of funding the entire federal government. The House was ready to vote on a Democratic proposal to fund the entire government, when GOP members, in what I think is called a "motion to recommit," got a vote on their alternative approach. So the question was, do we pay federal workers by ending the shutdown (by funding the entire federal government) or do we pay federal workers but allow the shutdown to continue (by paying only the workers' wages and salaries)?
Because the GOP plan was called up as a replacement for the Democratic plan - i.e. we'll vote on our plan, but not yours! - Democrats said no, and called it a stunt. They continued to support their own plan, however, which would have paid federal workers AND ended the shutdown. Given that the president yesterday chose to end the shut down, basically on the exact terms defined by the Democrats' plan which GOP members sought to replace, perhaps he also decided the GOP plan was a "stunt."
In any event, if I were in the House and had to decide whether to vote for a plan that would pay federal workers AND reopen the federal government, OR a plan that would pay the workers, but allow the government shutdown to continue, I would choose the former, not the latter. How about you, reformed?
If I had been saying the big issue is the 800,000 federal workers I would pay the workers. It is the height of hypocrisy on the Democrats part.
-
@reformed said:
If I had been saying the big issue is the 800,000 federal workers I would pay the workers. It is the height of hypocrisy on the Democrats part.
I didn't ask what position you believe would be consistent with what others might have been saying during the shutdown. I asked what position YOU would take in the situation House members faced on the day the GOP proposal came forward: Would you have supported the bill that paid Federal workers AND reopened the government, or the bill that paid Federal workers, but left the government shutdown? (remember, because of the rule the GOP used with their bill, you must choose one and only one bill to support; a vote on BOTH bills was not permitted)
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
If I had been saying the big issue is the 800,000 federal workers I would pay the workers. It is the height of hypocrisy on the Democrats part.
I didn't ask what position you believe would be consistent with what others might have been saying during the shutdown. I asked what position YOU would take in the situation House members faced on the day the GOP proposal came forward: Would you have supported the bill that paid Federal workers AND reopened the government, or the bill that paid Federal workers, but left the government shutdown? (remember, because of the rule the GOP used with their bill, you must choose one and only one bill to support; a vote on BOTH bills was not permitted)
Since I knew reopening the government without negotiation was not on the table I would have voted on the bill to pay the workers since that is what they kept harping on for weeks.
Of course, let's be honest, this isn't about opening the government, it isn't even about the wall or paying federal workers. It is about sticking it to Donald J. Trump because of their rabid hatred of him. It's ridiculous.
-
@reformed said:
Of course, let's be honest, this isn't about opening the government, it isn't even about the wall or paying federal workers. It is about sticking it to Donald J. Trump because of their rabid hatred of him. It's ridiculous.That is what it looks like from the outside ... Pelosi and comrades are only the next effort to achieve a coup against the elected president; the swamp and its frogs are - unfortunately for the USA people at large - still seemingly well and are continuing on the Clinton-Bush-Obama path of "exceptionalism" and world hegemony with their globalist approach.
I find it almost unbelievable that there are still large numbers of US Americans who are supporting this anti-USA course serving the few super rich at the expense of the many others, including themselves ... but then, I know what main stream media propaganda can do ... -
@reformed said:
Since I knew reopening the government without negotiation was not on the table I would have voted on the bill to pay the workers since that is what they kept harping on for weeks.
Last Friday, the president agreed, without consequential alteration, to the Democrats' proposal first offered five weeks earlier. How did his action not mean that "reopening the government without negotiation," for all intents and purposes, had always been "on the table"?
In addition, had you and I participated in the House votes we're discussing, we ALSO would have known that money for a new wall/barrier/slats/whatever was "off the table" in the Democratic House. So, the question would have been, which outcome did we value more: Paying Federal workers AND reopening the government, or paying Federal workers, but leaving the government shutdown?
We ALL wanted to pay Federal workers. But as to the other part of the outcome, the net effect of your response and the response of most every GOP House member was that keeping the government shut down was more important than getting it reopened. While the net effect of my response and the response of nearly every Democratic House member was that reopening the government was more important than keeping it shutdown.
Until last Friday, the president agreed with you and most every GOP House member: Keeping the government shut down was more important than getting it reopened.The latest polls report a 5-8 point drop in the president's favorability rating since the shutdown began. I think you can expect a similar fate for the GOP's standing with the public if it continues to hold your point of view.
Of course, let's be honest, this isn't about opening the government, it isn't even about the wall or paying federal workers. It is about sticking it to Donald J. Trump because of their rabid hatred of him. It's ridiculous.
Throughout the shutdown the president repeatedly said the shutdown would continue until he got money for his wall. Last Friday he agreed to reopen the government without money for his wall. Did his action mean his stand in this matter wasn't really about building a wall?
During the 2016 campaign, the president told us dozens of times that Mexico would pay for the wall; "100%," he promised. Does the fact that he's asking American taxpayers to pay for the wall mean that his promise was never about Mexico's paying for the wall? Does it mean that the president repeatedly lied to us about payment for the wall?
I don't know who hates whom, but I do know Democrats genuinely don't believe that a border wall such as the one the president wants - the one he promised Mexico would pay for - is an effective, efficient use of money. Democrats want to increase spending on border security, but not on a wall. That's a legitimate policy position, one with which you're free to disagree... even if you "hate" Democrats.
-
@Wolfgang said:
That is what it looks like from the outside ... Pelosi and comrades are only the next effort to achieve a coup against the elected president; the swamp and its frogs are - unfortunately for the USA people at large - still seemingly well and are continuing on the Clinton-Bush-Obama path of "exceptionalism" and world hegemony with their globalist approach.How does your perception of the U.S. "from the outside" explain the fact that when it comes to a southern border wall, a majority of Americans agree with "Pelosi and comrades" and disagree with "the elected president"? In your view, when it comes to the nation's border wall policy, what attention should elected government officials give to the popular will of the nation they serve? Should Congress and the "elected" American president conform national border wall policy to the will of the people, or would that be an action from "the swamp and its frogs"?
As for the "Clinton-Bush-Obama path of "exceptionalism" and world hegemony with their globalist approach," is there ANY action that the American government takes which, when you disapprove of it, you don't conclude that it's part of some "hegemony" and "globalist" agenda?
I find it almost unbelievable that there are still large numbers of US Americans who are supporting this anti-USA course serving the few super rich at the expense of the many others, including themselves ... but then, I know what main stream media propaganda can do ...
It's not clear to me which "anti-USA course" you're referring to here. Are you saying that refusing to build additional southern border wall - a wall that the majority of Americans don't want - is an "anti-USA course"? If not the wall, then what "course" are you referring to?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Since I knew reopening the government without negotiation was not on the table I would have voted on the bill to pay the workers since that is what they kept harping on for weeks.
Last Friday, the president agreed, without consequential alteration, to the Democrats' proposal first offered five weeks earlier. How did his action not mean that "reopening the government without negotiation," for all intents and purposes, had always been "on the table"?
In addition, had you and I participated in the House votes we're discussing, we ALSO would have known that money for a new wall/barrier/slats/whatever was "off the table" in the Democratic House. So, the question would have been, which outcome did we value more: Paying Federal workers AND reopening the government, or paying Federal workers, but leaving the government shutdown?
We ALL wanted to pay Federal workers. But as to the other part of the outcome, the net effect of your response and the response of most every GOP House member was that keeping the government shut down was more important than getting it reopened. While the net effect of my response and the response of nearly every Democratic House member was that reopening the government was more important than keeping it shutdown.
Until last Friday, the president agreed with you and most every GOP House member: Keeping the government shut down was more important than getting it reopened.The latest polls report a 5-8 point drop in the president's favorability rating since the shutdown began. I think you can expect a similar fate for the GOP's standing with the public if it continues to hold your point of view.
Of course, let's be honest, this isn't about opening the government, it isn't even about the wall or paying federal workers. It is about sticking it to Donald J. Trump because of their rabid hatred of him. It's ridiculous.
Throughout the shutdown the president repeatedly said the shutdown would continue until he got money for his wall. Last Friday he agreed to reopen the government without money for his wall. Did his action mean his stand in this matter wasn't really about building a wall?
During the 2016 campaign, the president told us dozens of times that Mexico would pay for the wall; "100%," he promised. Does the fact that he's asking American taxpayers to pay for the wall mean that his promise was never about Mexico's paying for the wall? Does it mean that the president repeatedly lied to us about payment for the wall?
I don't know who hates whom, but I do know Democrats genuinely don't believe that a border wall such as the one the president wants - the one he promised Mexico would pay for - is an effective, efficient use of money. Democrats want to increase spending on border security, but not on a wall. That's a legitimate policy position, one with which you're free to disagree... even if you "hate" Democrats.
That's a bunch of BS and is NOT what the Democrats believe. They have voted to build the wall repeatedly in the past.
The President caved to pressure. He lost. I'm pretty disgusted by it.
-
@reformed said:
That's a bunch of BS and is NOT what the Democrats believe. They have voted to build the wall repeatedly in the past.This is a talking point common among critics of the Democrats' position, but one for which I have never seen support, or even a clear description. To my interpretation of the phrase, what matters is NOT that a member of Congress in the past voted for funding for additional border wall, but whether in the past they voted for funding for a border wall that would have resulted in a consequential addition to the amount of wall we have right now.
In my view, for example, there is no logical necessity for a member who voted to build more wall when we had half the length of wall we have now to support the building of new wall now, when we have twice as much wall as we had when he or she cast that previous vote.
An analogy: A person who three years ago purchased additional life insurance will not necessarily purchase additional life insurance now, because the amount of life insurance he or she owns has changed.
SO, please prove that all these Democrats you claim "voted to build the wall repeatedly in the past" did so 1) to increase consequentially the length of southern border wall (not just to repair or replace then-existing structure), and 2) when we had basically the same length of border wall that we have today. If you can't prove the existence of a significant number of Democrats whose "repeated" border wall votes met those two requirements, I contend that your talking point fails.
The President caved to pressure. He lost. I'm pretty disgusted by it.
I respect your candor.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)