US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread

[avromie7]

When have you ever wanted a real discussion. 

It is Friday so just for you. When you control everything you are expected to get things done especially when your top guy claims his biggest asset is deal making.

I always want a real discussion.

While there is plenty of truth to your statement, when you are trying to negotiate with someone who's main objective is to stop you, and is unwilling to negotiate but rather has insanely unrealistic demands (clean DACA bill) and when you finally start getting somewhere in negotiations, they find something minor to completely undermine all the negotiations (nitpicking on the shithole comment and using it as an excuse to stop negotiating) you really can't blame them for not getting it done.

[aygart]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/19/donald-trump-accomplishments-216481

[aygart]

When have you ever wanted a real discussion. 

It is Friday so just for you. When you control everything you are expected to get things done especially when your top guy claims his biggest asset is deal making.

But they don't control everything. They have Dems who are filibustering over illegal immigration.

I guess you also need to read up on Senate rules.

[aygart]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/transparency-for-fusion-and-the-fbi-1516319613

[ChaimMoskowitz]

But they don't control everything. They have Dems who are filibustering over illegal immigration.

I guess you also need to read up on Senate rules.

Stop being ignorant. They control both houses and the presidency. That's what is meant by controlling everything.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Trump invites Schumer to the WH. This is what you do when you claim you are the deal maker and in total control of both houses and the presidency.

[Yammer]

When have you ever wanted a real discussion. 

It is Friday so just for you. When you control everything you are expected to get things done especially when your top guy claims his biggest asset is deal making.

Is that what the media said when the Rs shutdown the govt?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Is that what the media said when the Rs shutdown the govt?

Would have to check but I don't think they controlled everything and I don't care what the media said.

[Yammer]

Would have to check but I don't think they controlled everything and I don't care what the media said.

I see it this way.if you ask for something crazy in return for voting for the budget it's on you.

That's not to say that it's not good for politics to shut down the govt. Ted Cruz's rise to national Fame was just that

[aygart]

Stop being ignorant. They control both houses and the presidency. That's what is meant by controlling everything.

If they need more than a majority and the Dems are holding it up over side issues then they are not in control of the senate. It is a stupid statement and nothing more than posturing. It has nothing to do with reality. I can understand a politician saying that, but a reporter is not supposed to be doing political posturing for one side. I expect it from Schumer but not shouldn't from

the unbiased reporter for the fair and balanced FNN

[aygart]

Trump invites Schumer to the WH. This is what you do when you claim you are the deal maker and in total control of both houses and the presidency.

https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/954409353615986689

[Yammer]

If they need more than a majority and the Dems are holding it up over side issues then they are not in control of the senate. It is a stupid statement and nothing more than posturing. It has nothing to do with reality. I can understand a politician saying that, but a reporter is not supposed to be doing political posturing for one side. I expect it from Schumer but not shouldn't from

Then you saying that the Rs shutdown the govt in 2013, correct?

[aygart]

Then you saying that the Rs shutdown the govt in 2013, correct?

I don't recall what it was that they were holding it up over, but it is definitely possible.

[Yammer]

I don't recall what it was that they were holding it up over, but it is definitely possible.

Obamacare

"House Republicans insist any new spending bill include provisions to either defund, derail or otherwise chip away at Obamacare. Senate Democrats are just as insistent that it doesn't"

[aygart]

Obamacare

"House Republicans insist any new spending bill include provisions to either defund, derail or otherwise chip away at Obamacare. Senate Democrats are just as insistent that it doesn't"

then yes.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

If they need more than a majority and the Dems are holding it up over side issues then they are not in control of the senate. It is a stupid statement and nothing more than posturing. It has nothing to do with reality. I can understand a politician saying that, but a reporter is not supposed to be doing political posturing for one side. I expect it from Schumer but not shouldn't from

KAC puts a better spin on it than you. Three R's senators are on record as being against it which does not even give them 50 votes. Maybe you need to retake Math 101. 

[aygart]

KAC puts a better spin on it than you. Three R's senators are on record as being against it which does not even give them 50 votes. Maybe you need to retake Math 101. 

I'm not trying to spin.

It is easy to say you are against when it doesn't make a difference. Had they only needed 50 they would take out CHIP and it would pass.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

I'm not trying to spin.

It is easy to say you are against when it doesn't make a difference. Had they only needed 50 they would take out CHIP and it would pass.

Lets deal in facts. They don't have 50 votes!!!

[ChaimMoskowitz]

I wonder if President is worried about his big party being canceled if there is a shutdown?

[avromie7]

I'm not trying to spin.

It is easy to say you are against when it doesn't make a difference. Had they only needed 50 they would take out CHIP and it would pass.

I don't think it would pass by just taking out CHIP, but they'd be able to make whatever changes necessary to get it to pass. Rand Paul would not vote for it as is, he wants budget cuts but the R's refuse to cut military spending and instead want increased spending, and the D's refuse to cut everything else, and instead want to increase everything else so they usually compromise to increase BOTH instead of compromising to cut both because it's the easier way out.