Then, as Greece some years back sadly showed, us, it becomes a VERY bad thing.
You have a misunderstanding of Greece's problem from a few years back if you think it was "socialism", in particular.
They have a massive problem with tax evasion, combined with large debt loads, and were stuck in the Eurozone in a way that didn't give them the kinds of government controls over monetary policy that exist outside of the eurozone that allow countries to better deal with debt loads in a functional way.
That is more-or-less distinct from any socialist policies they might have had as a country.
(plenty of other socialist - by our standard - countries in the Eurozone that managed to not run into the same crisis)
Bunnyboy, what do you think about the video I posted from VICE. If you play it and scroll over to the 4:00 minute mark it says something about Dr. Carl June using the HIV virus in his research with leukemia and blood cancer and getting 90 percent remmission in some cases.
It sounds like they're saying that you have to use different viruses in association with this treatment to attack different types of cancer. So you just don't take a pill or get a shot and go home. If I'm understanding this correctly, do you know which viruses they are using in the American studies?
Also, what they are saying is that if you treat certain cancers with a more classic approach and the cancer goes away, the cuban treatment helps prevent the cancer from returning.
(No fda, thats funny.)
None of the stuff I know about uses viruses, maybe thats just a delivery mechanism?
Old way was surgery (cut out everything, including good stuff, hope you got it all) or chemo (burn away all fast growing cells, includes good stuff like hair/stomach cells).
New way is target just cancer cells, either by stuff that binds to specific mutations, or cutting off the blood supply to the tumor, or blocking cell division signals.
Next gen is making the immune system attack the cancer cells, and it has a memory so it will keep attacking if it returns. Since cancer cells are your own cells it will usually not remove them. The cuba idea is train the immune system to remove the cell growth signals (EGF) that are floating around so the cancer stops growing, but the good cells need those signals too. Other drugs trigger the cancer cell death signals so the body clears it out normally, or attach a tag to the cancer cells that the immune system already recognizes so it attacks the whole thing.
My dad had an experimental treatment for the recent resurgence of a brain tumor, and that involved injecting some kind of antibodies directly into the tumor over the course of 72 hours, or so. (basically they drilled 3 holes in his head and piped the stuff in via IV)
In my dad's case, it was a last-ditch, since surgery wasn't an option for a repeat tumor (after so much was removed the first time, and his scalp and skull wouldn't heal correctly due to radiation damage), and radiation wasn't an option (since he received the maximum lifetime dose the first time around in the late-90's).
I had the impression some kind of antibody related test treatments were out there for other types of cancer, as well, but I haven't read too deeply into it.
As Margaret Thatcher once said, "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Then, as Greece some years back sadly showed, us, it becomes a VERY bad thing.
And Bolivia showed that a hands-off government is also a VERY bad thing. No one is suggesting we go to either extreme.
My dad had an experimental treatment for the recent resurgence of a brain tumor, and that involved injecting some kind of antibodies directly into the tumor over the course of 72 hours, or so. (basically they drilled 3 holes in his head and piped the stuff in via IV
I had the impression some kind of antibody related test treatments were out there for other types of cancer, as well, but I haven't read too deeply into it.
Good chance that was Avastin which is what my wifes work makes. It binds to specific sites on cells to stop them from forming new blood vessels, so the cells can't grow as fast, making the tumor shrink overall. It works well for a wide range of cancer types so they are always finding new uses or combos with other drugs. The bad part is wounds also need new blood vessels to heal. Since antibodies are really small they can get into places other drugs can't like the eye and I have seen way too many gross picts of that...
As Margaret Thatcher once said, "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Then, as Greece some years back sadly showed, us, it becomes a VERY bad thing.
And Bolivia showed that a hands-off government is also a VERY bad thing. No one is suggesting we go to either extreme.
Neither am I. The whole political spectrum/two party system thing works like another check and balance (like we all learned about in Schoolhouse Rock's Three Ring Gov't) on each other. When one side either gets too radical or too comfortable in power the voters can move the pendlum over towards the other side and vice versa.
Neither am I. The whole political spectrum/two party system thing works like another check and balance (like we all learned about in Schoolhouse Rock's Three Ring Gov't) on each other. When one side either gets too radical or too comfortable in power the voters can move the pendlum over towards the other side and vice versa.
Then why equate any form of socialist type programs with a full blown socialist government? We do have to have some government provided services. You yourself have stated you're on disability, correct? A government provided assistance system that is socialistic in nature. It doesn't mean we're going to abandon capitalism anytime soon.
My dad had an experimental treatment for the recent resurgence of a brain tumor, and that involved injecting some kind of antibodies directly into the tumor over the course of 72 hours, or so. (basically they drilled 3 holes in his head and piped the stuff in via IV
I had the impression some kind of antibody related test treatments were out there for other types of cancer, as well, but I haven't read too deeply into it.
Good chance that was Avastin which is what my wifes work makes. It binds to specific sites on cells to stop them from forming new blood vessels, so the cells can't grow as fast, making the tumor shrink overall. It works well for a wide range of cancer types so they are always finding new uses or combos with other drugs. The bad part is wounds also need new blood vessels to heal. Since antibodies are really small they can get into places other drugs can't like the eye and I have seen way too many gross picts of that...
He was on Avastin. Had to discontinue it after a fall and a subdural hematoma, though.
I don't think that was the same stuff they did the 72-hour direct-injection with, since the Avastin was something like 30 minutes with an IV, once per month, or so.
Neither am I. The whole political spectrum/two party system thing works like another check and balance (like we all learned about in Schoolhouse Rock's Three Ring Gov't) on each other. When one side either gets too radical or too comfortable in power the voters can move the pendlum over towards the other side and vice versa.
Then why equate any form of socialist type programs with a full blown socialist government? We do have to have some government provided services. You yourself have stated you're on disability, correct? A government provided assistance system that is socialistic in nature. It doesn't mean we're going to abandon capitalism anytime soon.
Yes I do agree with all that...I was just simply pointing out what can go wrong if socialism goes too far. Just to make it fair and balanced, the best of example in history that I can think of in terms of what can go wrong on the opposite extreme is around the turn of the 20th century or so when you had these big monopolies (which drove away any fair competition) as well as some jobs in those days where you were paid in "script" which was only good at the company store as well as possibly having to live in a "company town".
So yeah, isn't just the three branches of gov't where checks and balances are important. It's the two party system as well as the captialist vs socialist spectrum where checks and balances on each other are just as if not imporant.
And also why I can't stand (for lack of better term) the "absoultist falacy"...you know the classic "You/they never..." or "You/they always..." or "Everybody/nobody likes/wants/etc".
That is one thing both me and Trump very much have in common on a personal level...neither of us ever smokes or drinks adult beverages...but both Trump and myself very much have a junk food vice.
That is one thing both me and Trump very much have in common on a personal level...neither of us ever smokes or drinks adult beverages...but both Trump and myself very much have a junk food vice.
He's been photographed drinking alcohol over the years, and numerous people have claimed he was regularly snorting adderall on the set of The Apprentice.
Like many things Trump, he can say whatever he wants but them's just alternate facts.
out what can go wrong if socialism goes too far. Just to make it fair and balanced, the best of example in history that I can think of in terms of what can go wrong on the opposite extreme is around the turn of the 20th century or so when you had these big monopolies (which drove away any fair competition) as well as some jobs in those days where you were paid in "script" which was only good at the company store as well as possibly having to live in a "company town".
I won't respond to your little zinger in kind, but as bad as that is, it can also be much worse. Look into Upton Sinclair's The Jungle for an example.
I have more to say but I'm already feeling off topic.
I'm not saying Trump ever worked for Russia (he has denied this), but it's undeniably that he has helped Russia in so many ways, such as ordering the withdrawal of troops from Syria, looking the other way regarding Crimea, etc.
out what can go wrong if socialism goes too far. Just to make it fair and balanced, the best of example in history that I can think of in terms of what can go wrong on the opposite extreme is around the turn of the 20th century or so when you had these big monopolies (which drove away any fair competition) as well as some jobs in those days where you were paid in "script" which was only good at the company store as well as possibly having to live in a "company town".
I won't respond to your little zinger in kind, but as bad as that is, it can also be much worse. Look into Upton Sinclair's The Jungle for an example.
I have more to say but I'm already feeling off topic.
Meh, go ahead. That's still in the arena of on topic.
The problem with capitalism is, eventually you run out of other peoples' blood. (Ditto warmongering, as we're on costs of military as I was quoted, in contrast to costs of socialism)
Some more recent examples, in case people think The Jungle is too old and that would never! happen now...
• Amazon keeping ambulances on standby for running warehouse employees to the point of literal collapse
Now, why would this happen? Obviously, it's profitable.
The result is higher incidence of diabetes and other diseases among the target market. This is generational destruction in the name of selling shitty meat and chips.
That's capitalism.
I don't have a problem with people making money by their own good ideas, busting their ass, or even the stock market or inheritance. I do have a problem with Margaret Thatcher and Friends deliberately misrepresenting marginal tax rates, and wreaking havoc by gutting public education/ transportation /other services.
For those who are against the wall, what would you do to protect the borders better?
I see a lot of people who are against it but yet have posted how to protect the border better.
Modernize border patrol with drones, sensors, etc. Make it less AIDS to actually move to the US legally. Establish a fast-track to deporting illegals who remain after there become easier methods to legally immigrating to the USA.
We are fucked if people can’t let go of their ego. It’s on both sides now( why the fuck is there only two sides?). Do I have a solution to this? Yeah, I think I do. It’s probably not the “correct solution”, depending on who you are. So I just leave it as..... “we are fucked if people can’t let go of their ego”.
All of them are opportunists for the shut down including the media. The fact anyone is taking one of their sides over the other shows some pretty lame bias. There's blame enough to go around on them all.
All of them are opportunists for the shut down including the media. The fact anyone is taking one of their sides over the other shows some pretty lame bias. There's blame enough to go around on them all.
You have a situation where the senate majority leader is refusing to even vote on bills passed by the house, when those bills are essentially the same as earlier bills passed by that same senate with what would have been a veto-proof majority.
THE PRESIDENT: You know what I'll say: Yes, if we don't get what we want, one way or the other -- whether it's through you, through a military, through anything you want to call -- I will shut down the government. Absolutely.
SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: Okay. Fair enough. We disagree.
THE PRESIDENT: And I am proud -- and I'll tell you what --
SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: We disagree.
THE PRESIDENT: I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck, because the people of this country don't want criminals and people that have lots of problems and drugs pouring into our country. So I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I'm not going to blame you for it. The last time you shut it down, it didn't work. I will take the mantle of shutting down.
==============================
January 8, 2019:
THE PRESIDENT: The federal government remains shut down for one reason and one reason only: because Democrats will not fund border security.
My administration is doing everything in our power to help those impacted by the situation. But the only solution is for Democrats to pass a spending bill that defends our borders and re-opens the government.
All of them are opportunists for the shut down including the media. The fact anyone is taking one of their sides over the other shows some pretty lame bias. There's blame enough to go around on them all.
You have a situation where the senate majority leader is refusing to even vote on bills passed by the house, when those bills are essentially the same as earlier bills passed by that same senate with what would have been a veto-proof majority.
It is hard to spin that as the democrats fault.
Not even essentially the same, the exact same. The Senate passed a bill 100-0 a month ago, and when the SAME EXACT BILL was brought back to him he claims it’s an insult to even consider.
All of them are opportunists for the shut down including the media. The fact anyone is taking one of their sides over the other shows some pretty lame bias. There's blame enough to go around on them all.
You have a situation where the senate majority leader is refusing to even vote on bills passed by the house, when those bills are essentially the same as earlier bills passed by that same senate with what would have been a veto-proof majority.
It is hard to spin that as the democrats fault.
In that narrow context, no, you can't spin it as their fault. Going with broad strokes though, both sides have been complicit in telling the other they can't have what they want. Trump takes a mental vacation, Dems go on vacation or start playing attention games to the camera among other things. McConnell sucks, but I can't really blame the guy he's stuck between dealing with the house and Trump. Sure he could vote on the stuff, then Trump will just destroy it anyway which of course the media and the left will peg the entire party for it instead of just Trump being Trump. It's a no win situation and he's decided instead of playing a no win game, he'll just play dead I guess which isn't much better anyway. I'm thinking he doesn't want the party to look divided, or perhaps fears the executive going into true unhinged mode that'll really foul up the elections in another 2 years. Trump if anything is vindictive.
All of them are opportunists for the shut down including the media. The fact anyone is taking one of their sides over the other shows some pretty lame bias. There's blame enough to go around on them all.
You have a situation where the senate majority leader is refusing to even vote on bills passed by the house, when those bills are essentially the same as earlier bills passed by that same senate with what would have been a veto-proof majority.
It is hard to spin that as the democrats fault.
In that narrow context, no, you can't spin it as their fault. Going with broad strokes though, both sides have been complicit in telling the other they can't have what they want. Trump takes a mental vacation, Dems go on vacation or start playing attention games to the camera among other things. McConnell sucks, but I can't really blame the guy he's stuck between dealing with the house and Trump. Sure he could vote on the stuff, then Trump will just destroy it anyway which of course the media and the left will peg the entire party for it instead of just Trump being Trump. It's a no win situation and he's decided instead of playing a no win game, he'll just play dead I guess which isn't much better anyway. I'm thinking he doesn't want the party to look divided, or perhaps fears the executive going into true unhinged mode that'll really foul up the elections in another 2 years. Trump if anything is vindictive.
Mitch’s Senate only needs 67 votes to override a veto on a bill they just passed with 100 votes. He refuses to even put it back for a vote. He has abdicated his responsibility by ceding his chamber to the Executive branch.
Comments
You have a misunderstanding of Greece's problem from a few years back if you think it was "socialism", in particular.
They have a massive problem with tax evasion, combined with large debt loads, and were stuck in the Eurozone in a way that didn't give them the kinds of government controls over monetary policy that exist outside of the eurozone that allow countries to better deal with debt loads in a functional way.
That is more-or-less distinct from any socialist policies they might have had as a country.
(plenty of other socialist - by our standard - countries in the Eurozone that managed to not run into the same crisis)
Thank doesnt fit the talking point, so FAKE news!
Sry, my fault. Will tone it down.
Bunnyboy, what do you think about the video I posted from VICE. If you play it and scroll over to the 4:00 minute mark it says something about Dr. Carl June using the HIV virus in his research with leukemia and blood cancer and getting 90 percent remmission in some cases.
It sounds like they're saying that you have to use different viruses in association with this treatment to attack different types of cancer. So you just don't take a pill or get a shot and go home. If I'm understanding this correctly, do you know which viruses they are using in the American studies?
Also, what they are saying is that if you treat certain cancers with a more classic approach and the cancer goes away, the cuban treatment helps prevent the cancer from returning.
(No fda, thats funny.)
None of the stuff I know about uses viruses, maybe thats just a delivery mechanism?
Old way was surgery (cut out everything, including good stuff, hope you got it all) or chemo (burn away all fast growing cells, includes good stuff like hair/stomach cells).
New way is target just cancer cells, either by stuff that binds to specific mutations, or cutting off the blood supply to the tumor, or blocking cell division signals.
Next gen is making the immune system attack the cancer cells, and it has a memory so it will keep attacking if it returns. Since cancer cells are your own cells it will usually not remove them. The cuba idea is train the immune system to remove the cell growth signals (EGF) that are floating around so the cancer stops growing, but the good cells need those signals too. Other drugs trigger the cancer cell death signals so the body clears it out normally, or attach a tag to the cancer cells that the immune system already recognizes so it attacks the whole thing.
My dad had an experimental treatment for the recent resurgence of a brain tumor, and that involved injecting some kind of antibodies directly into the tumor over the course of 72 hours, or so. (basically they drilled 3 holes in his head and piped the stuff in via IV)
In my dad's case, it was a last-ditch, since surgery wasn't an option for a repeat tumor (after so much was removed the first time, and his scalp and skull wouldn't heal correctly due to radiation damage), and radiation wasn't an option (since he received the maximum lifetime dose the first time around in the late-90's).
I had the impression some kind of antibody related test treatments were out there for other types of cancer, as well, but I haven't read too deeply into it.
As Margaret Thatcher once said, "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Then, as Greece some years back sadly showed, us, it becomes a VERY bad thing.
And Bolivia showed that a hands-off government is also a VERY bad thing. No one is suggesting we go to either extreme.
My dad had an experimental treatment for the recent resurgence of a brain tumor, and that involved injecting some kind of antibodies directly into the tumor over the course of 72 hours, or so. (basically they drilled 3 holes in his head and piped the stuff in via IV
I had the impression some kind of antibody related test treatments were out there for other types of cancer, as well, but I haven't read too deeply into it.
Good chance that was Avastin which is what my wifes work makes. It binds to specific sites on cells to stop them from forming new blood vessels, so the cells can't grow as fast, making the tumor shrink overall. It works well for a wide range of cancer types so they are always finding new uses or combos with other drugs. The bad part is wounds also need new blood vessels to heal. Since antibodies are really small they can get into places other drugs can't like the eye and I have seen way too many gross picts of that...
If you can find the whole paper, this might have too many words nobody understands https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878875011006917
As Margaret Thatcher once said, "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Then, as Greece some years back sadly showed, us, it becomes a VERY bad thing.
And Bolivia showed that a hands-off government is also a VERY bad thing. No one is suggesting we go to either extreme.
Neither am I. The whole political spectrum/two party system thing works like another check and balance (like we all learned about in Schoolhouse Rock's Three Ring Gov't) on each other. When one side either gets too radical or too comfortable in power the voters can move the pendlum over towards the other side and vice versa.
Neither am I. The whole political spectrum/two party system thing works like another check and balance (like we all learned about in Schoolhouse Rock's Three Ring Gov't) on each other. When one side either gets too radical or too comfortable in power the voters can move the pendlum over towards the other side and vice versa.
Then why equate any form of socialist type programs with a full blown socialist government? We do have to have some government provided services. You yourself have stated you're on disability, correct? A government provided assistance system that is socialistic in nature. It doesn't mean we're going to abandon capitalism anytime soon.
My dad had an experimental treatment for the recent resurgence of a brain tumor, and that involved injecting some kind of antibodies directly into the tumor over the course of 72 hours, or so. (basically they drilled 3 holes in his head and piped the stuff in via IV
I had the impression some kind of antibody related test treatments were out there for other types of cancer, as well, but I haven't read too deeply into it.
Good chance that was Avastin which is what my wifes work makes. It binds to specific sites on cells to stop them from forming new blood vessels, so the cells can't grow as fast, making the tumor shrink overall. It works well for a wide range of cancer types so they are always finding new uses or combos with other drugs. The bad part is wounds also need new blood vessels to heal. Since antibodies are really small they can get into places other drugs can't like the eye and I have seen way too many gross picts of that...
If you can find the whole paper, this might have too many words nobody understands https://www.sciencedirect.com/sci...
He was on Avastin. Had to discontinue it after a fall and a subdural hematoma, though.
I don't think that was the same stuff they did the 72-hour direct-injection with, since the Avastin was something like 30 minutes with an IV, once per month, or so.
Neither am I. The whole political spectrum/two party system thing works like another check and balance (like we all learned about in Schoolhouse Rock's Three Ring Gov't) on each other. When one side either gets too radical or too comfortable in power the voters can move the pendlum over towards the other side and vice versa.
Then why equate any form of socialist type programs with a full blown socialist government? We do have to have some government provided services. You yourself have stated you're on disability, correct? A government provided assistance system that is socialistic in nature. It doesn't mean we're going to abandon capitalism anytime soon.
Yes I do agree with all that...I was just simply pointing out what can go wrong if socialism goes too far. Just to make it fair and balanced, the best of example in history that I can think of in terms of what can go wrong on the opposite extreme is around the turn of the 20th century or so when you had these big monopolies (which drove away any fair competition) as well as some jobs in those days where you were paid in "script" which was only good at the company store as well as possibly having to live in a "company town".
So yeah, isn't just the three branches of gov't where checks and balances are important. It's the two party system as well as the captialist vs socialist spectrum where checks and balances on each other are just as if not imporant.
And also why I can't stand (for lack of better term) the "absoultist falacy"...you know the classic "You/they never..." or "You/they always..." or "Everybody/nobody likes/wants/etc".
https://www.vox.com/2019/1/15/18183480/trump-hamberders-clemson-football ps 2 points for Burger King!
That is one thing both me and Trump very much have in common on a personal level...neither of us ever smokes or drinks adult beverages...but both Trump and myself very much have a junk food vice.
He's been photographed drinking alcohol over the years, and numerous people have claimed he was regularly snorting adderall on the set of The Apprentice.
Like many things Trump, he can say whatever he wants but them's just alternate facts.
out what can go wrong if socialism goes too far. Just to make it fair and balanced, the best of example in history that I can think of in terms of what can go wrong on the opposite extreme is around the turn of the 20th century or so when you had these big monopolies (which drove away any fair competition) as well as some jobs in those days where you were paid in "script" which was only good at the company store as well as possibly having to live in a "company town".
I won't respond to your little zinger in kind, but as bad as that is, it can also be much worse. Look into Upton Sinclair's The Jungle for an example.
I have more to say but I'm already feeling off topic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/01/trump-russia-putin-burden/580477/
I'm not saying Trump ever worked for Russia (he has denied this), but it's undeniably that he has helped Russia in so many ways, such as ordering the withdrawal of troops from Syria, looking the other way regarding Crimea, etc.
Seriously though, There are multiple reason why he could be a russian asset.
It should have been painfully obvious when he looked like Putin's prison wife At that first meeting.
"He said he didnt do it, so he didnt do it!" Is the best excuse ever.
out what can go wrong if socialism goes too far. Just to make it fair and balanced, the best of example in history that I can think of in terms of what can go wrong on the opposite extreme is around the turn of the 20th century or so when you had these big monopolies (which drove away any fair competition) as well as some jobs in those days where you were paid in "script" which was only good at the company store as well as possibly having to live in a "company town".
I won't respond to your little zinger in kind, but as bad as that is, it can also be much worse. Look into Upton Sinclair's The Jungle for an example.
I have more to say but I'm already feeling off topic.
Meh, go ahead. That's still in the arena of on topic.
Some more recent examples, in case people think The Jungle is too old and that would never! happen now...
• Amazon keeping ambulances on standby for running warehouse employees to the point of literal collapse
• Foxconn suicides
• Here is a study that I saw just today, titled Increasing disparities in unhealthy food advertising targeted to Hispanic and Black youth.
Now, why would this happen? Obviously, it's profitable.
The result is higher incidence of diabetes and other diseases among the target market. This is generational destruction in the name of selling shitty meat and chips.
That's capitalism.
I don't have a problem with people making money by their own good ideas, busting their ass, or even the stock market or inheritance. I do have a problem with Margaret Thatcher and Friends deliberately misrepresenting marginal tax rates, and wreaking havoc by gutting public education/ transportation /other services.
For those who are against the wall, what would you do to protect the borders better?
I see a lot of people who are against it but yet have posted how to protect the border better.
Modernize border patrol with drones, sensors, etc. Make it less AIDS to actually move to the US legally. Establish a fast-track to deporting illegals who remain after there become easier methods to legally immigrating to the USA.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/1...
We are fucked if people can’t let go of their ego. It’s on both sides now( why the fuck is there only two sides?). Do I have a solution to this? Yeah, I think I do. It’s probably not the “correct solution”, depending on who you are. So I just leave it as..... “we are fucked if people can’t let go of their ego”.
There was a bi partisan bill, that trump shot down because of Hannity and Ann coulter.
Now McConnell wont even bring things approved by house to senate floor.
Demanding 5.7 billion or no deal isnt negotiating. This shutdown is 100% owned by Trump and the Republicans.
McConnell doesnt want to bring anything to the president because he knows Trump doesnt realize that a veto is bad optics for his Party.
This whole thing is so ridiculous.
I wouldn't be surprised if him finally getting sufficiently bored is what leads to the end of the shutdown
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/425562-coulter-trump-dead-in-the-water-if-he-caves-on-wall?amp
Demanding 5.7 billion or no deal isnt negotiating. This shutdown is 100% owned by Trump and the Republicans.
Yeah. I love how Fox News says "Dems are the real shutdown opportunists". Hey, I know an easy way to put a stop to that little game!
All of them are opportunists for the shut down including the media. The fact anyone is taking one of their sides over the other shows some pretty lame bias. There's blame enough to go around on them all.
You have a situation where the senate majority leader is refusing to even vote on bills passed by the house, when those bills are essentially the same as earlier bills passed by that same senate with what would have been a veto-proof majority.
It is hard to spin that as the democrats fault.
THE PRESIDENT: You know what I'll say: Yes, if we don't get what we want, one way or the other -- whether it's through you, through a military, through anything you want to call -- I will shut down the government. Absolutely.
SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: Okay. Fair enough. We disagree.
THE PRESIDENT: And I am proud -- and I'll tell you what --
SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: We disagree.
THE PRESIDENT: I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck, because the people of this country don't want criminals and people that have lots of problems and drugs pouring into our country. So I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I'm not going to blame you for it. The last time you shut it down, it didn't work. I will take the mantle of shutting down.
==============================
January 8, 2019:
THE PRESIDENT: The federal government remains shut down for one reason and one reason only: because Democrats will not fund border security.
My administration is doing everything in our power to help those impacted by the situation. But the only solution is for Democrats to pass a spending bill that defends our borders and re-opens the government.
==============================
All of them are opportunists for the shut down including the media. The fact anyone is taking one of their sides over the other shows some pretty lame bias. There's blame enough to go around on them all.
You have a situation where the senate majority leader is refusing to even vote on bills passed by the house, when those bills are essentially the same as earlier bills passed by that same senate with what would have been a veto-proof majority.
It is hard to spin that as the democrats fault.
Not even essentially the same, the exact same. The Senate passed a bill 100-0 a month ago, and when the SAME EXACT BILL was brought back to him he claims it’s an insult to even consider.
All of them are opportunists for the shut down including the media. The fact anyone is taking one of their sides over the other shows some pretty lame bias. There's blame enough to go around on them all.
You have a situation where the senate majority leader is refusing to even vote on bills passed by the house, when those bills are essentially the same as earlier bills passed by that same senate with what would have been a veto-proof majority.
It is hard to spin that as the democrats fault.
In that narrow context, no, you can't spin it as their fault. Going with broad strokes though, both sides have been complicit in telling the other they can't have what they want. Trump takes a mental vacation, Dems go on vacation or start playing attention games to the camera among other things. McConnell sucks, but I can't really blame the guy he's stuck between dealing with the house and Trump. Sure he could vote on the stuff, then Trump will just destroy it anyway which of course the media and the left will peg the entire party for it instead of just Trump being Trump. It's a no win situation and he's decided instead of playing a no win game, he'll just play dead I guess which isn't much better anyway. I'm thinking he doesn't want the party to look divided, or perhaps fears the executive going into true unhinged mode that'll really foul up the elections in another 2 years. Trump if anything is vindictive.
All of them are opportunists for the shut down including the media. The fact anyone is taking one of their sides over the other shows some pretty lame bias. There's blame enough to go around on them all.
You have a situation where the senate majority leader is refusing to even vote on bills passed by the house, when those bills are essentially the same as earlier bills passed by that same senate with what would have been a veto-proof majority.
It is hard to spin that as the democrats fault.
In that narrow context, no, you can't spin it as their fault. Going with broad strokes though, both sides have been complicit in telling the other they can't have what they want. Trump takes a mental vacation, Dems go on vacation or start playing attention games to the camera among other things. McConnell sucks, but I can't really blame the guy he's stuck between dealing with the house and Trump. Sure he could vote on the stuff, then Trump will just destroy it anyway which of course the media and the left will peg the entire party for it instead of just Trump being Trump. It's a no win situation and he's decided instead of playing a no win game, he'll just play dead I guess which isn't much better anyway. I'm thinking he doesn't want the party to look divided, or perhaps fears the executive going into true unhinged mode that'll really foul up the elections in another 2 years. Trump if anything is vindictive.
Mitch’s Senate only needs 67 votes to override a veto on a bill they just passed with 100 votes. He refuses to even put it back for a vote. He has abdicated his responsibility by ceding his chamber to the Executive branch.