Raider5678

Doesn't it require a simple majority vote or am I missing something? That's what I was referring to early when I said they couldn't get enough votes to vote on it. It's possible I missed something. My state government operates very similar to the U.S. government, but not exactly the same. So there have been a few times where I've had misconceptions on how often different rules/motions are invoked, due to how much I work with the state government over the federal government. +1 for taking that well. As iNow stated, Chapter 3. I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Could you clarify?

Hardly. Virtually every position inside of the House and the Senate are limited in the responsibilities they're given, and the responsibilities they're given all have exceptions/workarounds. For example. The Speaker of the House MUST recognize a representative wishing to speak, regardless of which party it is. He/she is free to give preferential treatment to certain delegates, but when it really comes down to it, it's very little of an advantage.

Yes to both. Also, side note, the speaker of the house is the only speaker in the U.S. Legislative Branch. In terms of who holds the equivalent position in the Senate, that'd be the Vice President. Senate rules allow for bills/legislation passed by the house to be placed directly on the Senate Calendar via a simple vote that any senator may call for before, between, and after any given bill is debated/talked about. Basically whenever they come into session. Yes to both actually. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Senate_legislative_process.htm#3 Think about it. If the majority party leader in the Senate could simply refuse to hear any bill he wanted, he'd be far more powerful then the president because he'd have a veto that nobody could vote on. But he can't. The reason they're not voting on it is because they can't secure enough votes to vote on it.

I didn't say they're offering nothing for anything. I said they're offering nothing for the wall. Which was directly in contrast with what you said when you said they were offering $1.3 billion for a wall(which they weren't.) As for the argument that they might use it for the wall, I think it's ridiculous. Pelosi and Chuck have both openly stated they won't give anything for the wall. Not that they have $1.3 billion that may or may not go to the wall.

No, I mis-spoke. We're a Representative Republic.

There is a significant amount of additional punishment for killing an entire group of people then just one.

He can't do it forever. It's a democracy. They're allowed to say no. So is Trump. Additionally, the fact that they can't get enough votes to allow a vote on a veto indicates to me that even if they did allow a vote, it wouldn't work. So what's the point?

Yes. Last year. We're talking about now. Where, in fact, Democrats are holding the position of $0 for the wall, because they control the house. To clarify my position, I was referring directly to this round of negotiations when I said that.

No, they haven't. They have started from a position of $0 for Trump's wall. So why are you repeatedly claiming they've offered money for the wall? No, that is correct.

Exactly. What's best for America? Giving $5.6 billion for a wall, or having the government shutdown for 2 months, putting hundreds of thousands of people in a position where they have to work without pay or face legal repercussions? Additionally, not addressed to you specifically Zapatos, but the argument that the money could be better spent elsewhere doesn't convince me. There is a crap ton of money that is wasted on projects and corruption by both sides, and if they really want to tell me that they could be spending the money on A,B, and C instead of X, then they should be doing it already. Not waiting until X is being talked about to consider spending more money on A,B, and C. Additionally, if the wall isn't built, and the $5.6 billion isn't given for the wall, the money isn't going to A,B, and C. It's going nowhere. Because we don't have the money in the first place.

Yeah. What I can't understand is that by fighting against the border wall Democrats are shooting a golden opportunity. They allow the wall. Government reopens. We're already spending $18 billion a year on border patrol. Allocate $5.6 billion to begin constructing the wall. If the wall proves to be ineffective, then they can make the Republican party and Trump look like the biggest fools on earth, even to the Republican base. "Hey, remember that time YOUR president built a wall? Yeah. How'd that turn out for you? Huh? We gave you that chance you were always asking for and it failed miserably. Now its your turn to give us a chance." With the Republican party weakened, the Democrats can step in and reverse the funding for the wall and simply let it fall into ruin if it's not economically feasible to support. If the wall does somehow pay for itself in reducing the number of drugs coming across, etc, the Democrats can say they allowed the wall to be built and take partial credit for it. Regardless though, it's too late now. Both parties have beat the crap out of each other, and now they're both hanging off the edge of a cliff. First one to pull themselves up loses. The ultimate game of chicken.

See line two of the post. While that's obviously not the only change, and it's definitely an extremely simplistic view of the situation, that's the gist of it, is it not? Edit: Posted it at about the same time. My bad. Agreed. However, the losses they're creating will be offset somewhat if the population is decreasing. Except for the problem that a population is dynamic, and the number of people in it matters less than the abilities of that population(I.E. mostly older vs mostly younger). We've set ourselves up for a bad case of systems collapse.

The current system(in the United States at least) allows people to live without having to work at all, so the social safety nets are already in place. It seems to me like the biggest change that would need to happen is increasing taxes on corporations that are relying on automation more.

The last time a xenophobic right-wing party rose up in Germany, it didn't go well. Hence the "oh brother". In what way specifically do you think they're not ready to adapt? What serious changes do you see us having to make in order to be able to adapt to an automation centric world? The idea of a slowly declining population kind of depresses me. I've always liked the idea of a rise population, spreading out between different worlds, etc. Except the reality is that as population decreases, we'll eventually use automation to do the jobs that were previously done by people, and a smaller population will be the ones spreading and exploring the solar system.

You've misread it. Take a second look.

Technically all Trump's administration did was reaffirm the existing contractors who were hired by Obama's administration in 2015. But we can't blame Obama for it. It's not like he overlooks every last detail of the government, and he certainly isn't the one spending hundreds of hours pouring over tedious reports for which contractor to hire for different government functions. The idea that we could blame Obama for contractors hired under his administration is ridiculous. But if Trumps administration renews those contracts, he gets the blame for it. I can't help but sense a certain level of bias in this statement.

I mean here on this forum. Otherwise, it's like picking a bad argument from somewhere else and asking picking that apart instead of addressing our arguments.

Where did someone do that?

Heard an interesting theory once(not specifically in line with what the creator said) that mentions it's possible that it really meant that they'd found a much shorter path through the Kessel.

It's possible. Biologically however red noses are rare for reindeer, due to a tendency to stand out in the wilderness, making it easier for predators to see them. If Rudolph had a red nose, he was probably an albino as well. If he was an albino, he was probably spotted the first few years he went foraging for food, and after that probably a lot more then his nose was red......

4: a parallel or closely similar case especially when serving as a precedent or model. I am relating it, agreed. However just because I'm relating it to the topic doesn't automatically mean it's equivalent.

I brought this up earlier. And I got a response: Say what you like, but it was not an off-topic rant as you say. Additionally, since when do we go about on this forum under the pretext that things "are off topic less they were meant as equivalencies."? Since when are we not allowed to bring up different examples without them automatically being considered equivalencies? I brought up examples of insults and discussions that pertained to my experiences because that is what I'm most familiar with, and it was easier for me to use them as examples. That never has meant they were equivalencies, and will not mean that they're the same for the foreseeable future. Saying that because I used an example in this thread must mean that it is equivalent to what you want it to say, is a lousy excuse to take my words out of context. And you're well aware of this. Once again, I have a simple request. Don't take my words out of context, and don't claim I said something I didn't. I never called anyone who gets offended at "stupid woman" ridiculous not smart butthurt oversensitive people. I'm going to stop replying to this line of discussion because this time it genuinely is getting off topic. If you really want to continue this, PM me.

Ah, seems I'll have to go back and bring my psychology studies up to date then. +1 to both of you.