NationStates

Corrian wrote:

Par Chic wrote:
So you support fascists?

Oh boy, you're one of those people.

For the record violence in political discourse IS NOT the only defining feature of fascism and the fetishization of violence is but one humble aspect. "Antifa is fascist" arguments are just silly.

Corrian wrote:

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:I mean, if you really wanted to stop fascists with violence, just line them up against the wall and shoot them. Getting them even angrier is stupid.

And lining them up against a wall and shooting them won't make them angrier how?

If they're dead, they can't be angry.

Unithonia wrote:This is ridiculous on the side of the Democrats. It's obvious that:
A: Border Security is in no way a proper issue to them, or even something that they care about
B: They want to block everything the president does. Hopefully the voters see this and decide not to vote for the hive-minds on the left.

WRONG.

A racist border wall is a 13th century solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Border security agents have said they need more people and better technology to secure the border.

The so-called "caravans" of people fleeing murder, rape, and violence are being forced to because of policies implemented by the United States that de-stabilized their countries and created the situations they're now fleeing.

The Democrats are trying to stop a would-be Hitler from fucking up this country.

For anyone that supports a wall go ask China how well it worked out in repelling invasion by the Mongols

San Lumen wrote:For anyone that supports a wall go ask China how well it worked out in repelling invasion by the Mongols

On the bright side it’s now one of the Seven Wonders of the World.

San Lumen wrote:For anyone that supports a wall go ask China how well it worked out in repelling invasion by the Mongols

The Mongols were impossible to beat. They went to Russia once, kicked the Russians asses during winter, stopped for a short break, and left because they were bored. It wasn't even a fight.

Xmara wrote:

San Lumen wrote:For anyone that supports a wall go ask China how well it worked out in repelling invasion by the Mongols

On the bright side it’s now one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.

The great wall of China may look far more impressive, but remember how many people died making it.

The South Falls wrote:If they're dead, they can't be angry.

I just realized we forgot about the Nazi zombies.

Valrifell wrote:For the record violence in political discourse IS NOT the only defining feature of fascism and the fetishization of violence is but one humble aspect. "Antifa is fascist" arguments are just silly.

They do have around North Korean flags sometimes.

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:

San Lumen wrote:For anyone that supports a wall go ask China how well it worked out in repelling invasion by the Mongols

The Mongols were impossible to beat. They went to Russia once, kicked the Russians asses during winter, stopped for a short break, and left because they were bored. It wasn't even a fight.

Xmara wrote:
On the bright side it’s now one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.

The great wall of China may look far more impressive, but remember how many people died making it.

The South Falls wrote:If they're dead, they can't be angry.

I just realized we forgot about the Nazi zombies.

True but it is proof walls dont work and there are these magical things called planes, shovels and ladders.

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:

San Lumen wrote:For anyone that supports a wall go ask China how well it worked out in repelling invasion by the Mongols

The Mongols were impossible to beat. They went to Russia once, kicked the Russians asses during winter, stopped for a short break, and left because they were bored. It wasn't even a fight.

Xmara wrote:
On the bright side it’s now one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.

The great wall of China may look far more impressive, but remember how many people died making it.

The South Falls wrote:If they're dead, they can't be angry.

I just realized we forgot about the Nazi zombies.

Valrifell wrote:For the record violence in political discourse IS NOT the only defining feature of fascism and the fetishization of violence is but one humble aspect. "Antifa is fascist" arguments are just silly.

They do have around North Korean flags sometimes.

Nombies? Noooo!

San Lumen wrote:True but it is proof walls dont work and there are these magical things called planes, shovels and ladders.

Yeah, the landmines work so much better, even if you can shoot people. They are extremely cost effective, although there are some later consequences.

Look at Trump "compromising"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpos ... 5a7b656908
He offered three years of "protection" for some immigrants in turn for that $5.7 billion.

Valrifell wrote:

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
Buncha status quo lovers..

Oh sure, the first round of purges might be fun, but when I start not liking Therm's authoritarian nature the second round will be far less fun.

I don't believe Therm to be that fucked in the head.

Authoritarianism doesn't mean he'll execute anybody who disagrees with him and rule as some sort of god-dictator.

Neutraligon wrote:Look at Trump "compromising"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpos ... 5a7b656908
He offered three years of "protection" for some immigrants in turn for that $5.7 billion.

but that went straight to the shredder since I read on msn that Pelosi said it was a non starter. I'm starting to wonder as a Essential DHS employee whos gonna take there head out of their asses first and say you know what I can live with that compromise. But this quote surmises how things are in DC right now

"What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?"

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Oh sure, the first round of purges might be fun, but when I start not liking Therm's authoritarian nature the second round will be far less fun.

I don't believe Therm to be that fucked in the head.

Authoritarianism doesn't mean he'll execute anybody who disagrees with him and rule as some sort of god-dictator.

Then what is even the point.

Valrifell wrote:

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
I don't believe Therm to be that fucked in the head.

Authoritarianism doesn't mean he'll execute anybody who disagrees with him and rule as some sort of god-dictator.

Then what is even the point.

the point could be more like 1984 or Logans Run or even Brave New World

Gig em Aggies wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:Look at Trump "compromising"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpos ... 5a7b656908
He offered three years of "protection" for some immigrants in turn for that $5.7 billion.

but that went straight to the shredder since I read on msn that Pelosi said it was a non starter. I'm starting to wonder as a Essential DHS employee whos gonna take there head out of their asses first and say you know what I can live with that compromise. But this quote surmises how things are in DC right now

"What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?"

Three reasons I think. One is something people have sad before on the topic, you do not give in to someone who throws a temper tantrum and shuts down the government to get his pet project. If the government opens then they can talk about this sort of thing, not before. Second, this only provides temporary relief and no path to citizenship while the funding for the wall is a permanent thing with permanent results. Want funding for the wall provide something more permanent than 3 years. Third, this is simply a promise from Trump for 3 years of protection...and I do not trust Trump to uphold his side of the bargain, particularly since there is nothing to prevent him from changing it in the future. This is especially true since DACA has been ruled likely to be unconstitutional.

Neutraligon wrote:

Gig em Aggies wrote:but that went straight to the shredder since I read on msn that Pelosi said it was a non starter. I'm starting to wonder as a Essential DHS employee whos gonna take there head out of their asses first and say you know what I can live with that compromise. But this quote surmises how things are in DC right now

"What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?"

Three reasons I think. One is something people have sad before on the topic, you do not give in to someone who throws a temper tantrum and shuts down the government to get his pet project. If the government opens then they can talk about this sort of thing, not before. Second, this only provides temporary relief and no path to citizenship while the funding for the wall is a permanent thing with permanent results. Want funding for the wall provide something more permanent than 3 years. Third, this is simply a promise from Trump for 3 years of protection...and I do not trust Trump to uphold his side of the bargain, particularly since there is nothing to prevent him from changing it in the future. This is especially true since DACA has been ruled likely to be unconstitutional.

I wasn't particularly talking about the compromise they just made I meaning any compromise they com up with.

Gig em Aggies wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:Three reasons I think. One is something people have sad before on the topic, you do not give in to someone who throws a temper tantrum and shuts down the government to get his pet project. If the government opens then they can talk about this sort of thing, not before. Second, this only provides temporary relief and no path to citizenship while the funding for the wall is a permanent thing with permanent results. Want funding for the wall provide something more permanent than 3 years. Third, this is simply a promise from Trump for 3 years of protection...and I do not trust Trump to uphold his side of the bargain, particularly since there is nothing to prevent him from changing it in the future. This is especially true since DACA has been ruled likely to be unconstitutional.

I wasn't particularly talking about the compromise they just made I meaning any compromise they com up with.

For any compromise they make reason 3 still holds. It would need be be something with the force of law behind it, and not something that has been judged as likely constitutional.

A man slashes your car tire and then demands you buy him a Rolex.

You refuse and then he offers to “temporarily” patch your tire if you buy him a Rolex.

Trump thinks this is what it means to “compromise”

I'd say that sums it up pretty well.

Vassenor wrote:

A man slashes your car tire and then demands you buy him a Rolex.

You refuse and then he offers to “temporarily” patch your tire if you buy him a Rolex.

Trump thinks this is what it means to “compromise”

I'd say that sums it up pretty well.

If I where Trump (and if I was planning on trying to get reelected) this is what I would ask for.Instead of funding for a wall I would ask for funding to beef up border security and hire more border security agents. I would also ask for money to be set aside to study the issue to determine the most cost effective way to secure the border. This would have a few advantages to him since "amnesty" would not be included, and if the dems cave on the issue and include it as part of the thing to open the government the precedent is set that the president can shut down the government to force through certain things.

Neutraligon wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
I'd say that sums it up pretty well.

If I where Trump (and if I was planning on trying to get reelected) this is what I would ask for.Instead of funding for a wall I would ask for funding to beef up border security and hire more border security agents. I would also ask for money to be set aside to study the issue to determine the most cost effective way to secure the border. This would have a few advantages to him since "amnesty" would not be included, and if the dems cave on the issue and include it as part of the thing to open the government the precedent is set that the president can shut down the government to force through certain things.

And as we've seen since day one the Dems are willing to fund personnel for the border.

Vassenor wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:If I where Trump (and if I was planning on trying to get reelected) this is what I would ask for.Instead of funding for a wall I would ask for funding to beef up border security and hire more border security agents. I would also ask for money to be set aside to study the issue to determine the most cost effective way to secure the border. This would have a few advantages to him since "amnesty" would not be included, and if the dems cave on the issue and include it as part of the thing to open the government the precedent is set that the president can shut down the government to force through certain things.

And as we've seen since day one the Dems are willing to fund personnel for the border.

Correct this is mainly about a few things, setting the precedent that presidents can shut down the government like this, making myself seem like a reasonable negotiater while not really being one, and making myself seem like the reasonable person by being the one to recommend studying the situation rather then what is currently going on.

Neutraligon wrote:If I where Trump (and if I was planning on trying to get reelected) this is what I would ask for.Instead of funding for a wall I would ask for funding to beef up border security and hire more border security agents. I would also ask for money to be set aside to study the issue to determine the most cost effective way to secure the border. This would have a few advantages to him since "amnesty" would not be included, and if the dems cave on the issue and include it as part of the thing to open the government the precedent is set that the president can shut down the government to force through certain things.

The issue is that Trump appears to genuinely believe that 'real America' are the people who show up at his rallies. Those rallies are where he gets his energy from and where he gets his legitimacy and purpose from (in his mind). And at those rallies, people don't chant 'increase funding for border security by 17.8%'. They chant 'build the wall'. It's short, it's catchy, it's easy to understand. It's not politician-speak.

Trump needs one of two things here. He needs a wall, so he can tell people at his rallies that he did it. Or he needs to look like he's fought like a lion against the establishment to build that wall, and it looks like he'll need another four years to finally beat them and get it done.

No compromise will get those crowds excited.

But then, neither will a delay in tax refunds if the IRS doesn't get back to full capacity in time for tax day...

Vassenor wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:If I where Trump (and if I was planning on trying to get reelected) this is what I would ask for.Instead of funding for a wall I would ask for funding to beef up border security and hire more border security agents. I would also ask for money to be set aside to study the issue to determine the most cost effective way to secure the border. This would have a few advantages to him since "amnesty" would not be included, and if the dems cave on the issue and include it as part of the thing to open the government the precedent is set that the president can shut down the government to force through certain things.

And as we've seen since day one the Dems are willing to fund personnel for the border.

I don't think either side is actually to blame here. I just think that both have campaigned on opposite issues, it's come to the point where they must engage in a standoff and the question is who blinks first. Neither the man who low-income americans voted for last time around or the party they usually vote for seems to care a lot about them though.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
And as we've seen since day one the Dems are willing to fund personnel for the border.

I don't think either side is actually to blame here. I just think that both have campaigned on opposite issues, it's come to the point where they must engage in a standoff and the question is who blinks first. Neither the man who low-income americans voted for last time around or the party they usually vote for seems to care a lot about them though.

Ah, yes. I do remember how absolutely no bill was passed with bipartisan support and then vetoed by the president which in turn didn't cause the senate majority leader to turn around and block any bill from entering the senate floor that wouldn't get the express approval of the president because he's up for reelection.

Tell me again how it's not the fault of one side in particular?
Let me be clear, compromise at this point is in the hands of both controlling parties and both can and should be blamed for parts in this situation, but let's not forget who explicitly stated that he would take blame and "the mantle" in its entirety for causing the government to shut down.

Lockdownn wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:I don't think either side is actually to blame here. I just think that both have campaigned on opposite issues, it's come to the point where they must engage in a standoff and the question is who blinks first. Neither the man who low-income americans voted for last time around or the party they usually vote for seems to care a lot about them though.

Ah, yes. I do remember how absolutely no bill was passed with bipartisan support and then vetoed by the president which in turn didn't cause the senate majority leader to turn around and block any bill from entering the senate floor that wouldn't get the express approval of the president because he's up for reelection.

Tell me again how it's not the fault of one side in particular?
Let me be clear, compromise at this point is in the hands of both controlling parties and both can and should be blamed for parts in this situation, but let's not forget who explicitly stated that he would take blame and "the mantle" in its entirety for causing the government to shut down.

So he alone should end it.