Sad reality of the shutdown

[Chinook]

the republicans shouldn't do this?

I didn't say that. Doing the right thing isn't exclusive to party. The question was directly about the Democrats.

[Pavlov]

The melting down of Chumpy and Lappy

It's okay, DMNPC. You want to not be relevant and never say anything relevant.

So be it.

[Blake]

I think they need to be on the ground trying to organize the unemployed people. They can totally do things like promote places that are hiring temporary employees. At least some of the departments that are in furlough have union representation. Connecting with them either to call town-hall meetings. If there are foundations that can help either by giving food (in cases where that helps) or ride-sharing, whatever. Some banks have been offering to make payments for furloughed employees. Politicians doing whatever they can to call attention to these banks and pressure others to follow suit would be helpful. Some employees don't even know they can apply for unemployment. They can -- I knew folks who did it last shutdown and they got their checks (though they had to pay it back once their reimbursements came through).

That's sort of shatter-shot. The point is that there's actually a lot politicians can do if they treat this as a crisis rather than a leverage tool. Using their platform to promote solutions, temporary as they would be, would go a long way to establishing they're on the people's side. It's one thing not to turn over the government to Trump. It's another to act as if there's nothing they can do for the people hurt by the shut down.

Plenty of agencies are already stepping up to help the furloughed Federal employees.

That's not what I really meant. I meant what do you think the Dems should do regarding Trump's wall? Give in or stand up to him?

[Blake]

That was AaronY who pegged you with that. You cannot even carry your own state

Lol Everyone knows it's really derpspeak. You included.

[Blake]

Then it's good that I am. You still a homemaker?

Lol "homemaker"

Poor dmc going personal. He should stay on topic, tbh.

[Chinook]

Plenty of agencies are already stepping up to help the furloughed Federal employees.

That's not what I really meant. I meant what do you think the Dems should do regarding Trump's wall? Give in or stand up to him?

I think it's all one. The better job they do at mitigating the damage the shut-down is doing, the less it makes sense to give in. Holding out just for the sake of it isn't really going to work. They're just going to end up at the table giving up at least some of what Trump wants. It's past the time where they can look noble by saving a billion or two. But holding out as part of a comprehensive plan where they do a lot of what I said to build good will? Makes sense. Show me you're trying to find a solution, and I'll believe you when you talk about red lines and precedents.

I don't think the dems should have to give in, but I also don't think this was a good battle to pick.

[Blake]

I think it's all one. The better job they do at mitigating the damage the shut-down is doing, the less it makes sense to give in. Holding out just for the sake of it isn't really going to work. They're just going to end up at the table giving up at least some of what Trump wants. It's past the time where they can look noble by saving a billion or two. But holding out as part of a comprehensive plan where they do a lot of what I said to build good will? Makes sense. Show me you're trying to find a solution, and I'll believe you when you talk about red lines and precedents.

I don't think the dems should have to give in, but I also don't think this was a good battle to pick.

Well they're getting some assistance right now and it also looks like back pay is in the works so yeah, I'd agree, it doesn't really make sense at the moment to give in to Trump's demands.

But they didn't pick the battle. Trump shoved the battle in their face.

[DMC]

This is not an example consistent with your usage of "need to."

Your quote: If the dems want to have a chance in 2020 they need to learn the art of compromise...

Alternate quote, without changing the meaning: If the dems want to have a chance in 2020 they should learn the art of compromise...

The appropriate parallel would be changing "You need to use flour to make bread" to "You should use flour to make bread." Which works fine. You cannot always replace "should" with "need to," so they're not perfect synonyms in every example. But you can almost always replace "need to" with "should." And you definitely can when one of them is used the way you used it.



That does often happen, but not in this instance. Anyway, I didn't enter the debate until semantics were already brought up.

In my original post, I made the term "need" contingent upon the wants of the party I am not even part of. I do not agree with your use of the word "should". I think it's sloppy. Something that is contingent isn't a "should" it's a "need", as should implies "ought to" while need implies "must". Your example would be true if I was giving advice.. "If you want to get your license, you should study" but I wasn't "If a person wants to pass their exam, they need to study" is more of an observation, not advice. "Ought to" is usually advice. It implies "I wish you would" but I don't have any such wishes for the democratic party.

Either way, Chump intentionally disregarded the fact that the term was contingent upon the wants of the democratic party and instead tried to spin it to represent a contradiction where one simply did not exist. He seems to hate it when someone won't play his yes or no game so he has to select for you.

[Blake]

In my original post, I made the term "need" contingent upon the wants of the party I am not even part of. I do not agree with your use of the word "should". I think it's sloppy. Something that is contingent isn't a "should" it's a "need", as should implies "ought to" while need implies "must". Your example would be true if I was giving advice.. "If you want to get your license, you should study" but I wasn't "If a person wants to pass their exam, they need to study" is more of an observation, not advice. "Ought to" is usually advice.

Either way, Chump intentionally disregarded the fact that the term was contingent upon the wants of the democratic party and instead tried to spin it to represent a contradiction where one simply did not exist. He seems to hate it when someone won't play his yes or no game so he has to select for you.

hoping a wall of pseudo intellectual text will salvage your fail.

[DMC]

hoping a wall of pseudo intellectual text will salvage your fail.

Like you understood a word of it. Go lick your 7 year wounds

[DMC]

It's okay, DMNPC. You want to not be relevant and never say anything relevant.

So be it.

relevant.. like congress reads ST before voting.

[DMC]

Lol "homemaker"

Poor dmc going personal. He should stay on topic, tbh.

So you are a home maker?

[Chinook]

Well they're getting some assistance right now and it also looks like back pay is in the works so yeah, I'd agree, it doesn't really make sense at the moment to give in to Trump's demands.

Some employees aren't getting back pay. Folks who were already on end-of-year furlough just weren't recalled, so they aren't getting compensated for lost hours. But those employees were fully expecting to be working by this point and may need that money. I'm also not sure how much is being done for contractors or temp employees who were hired in October or November but who haven't been able to go through onboarding and start work because of the shut-down. I'm skeptical that enough is being done now, and if there's the help available, they aren't getting the word out well enough. All the folks going on MSNBC should be constantly plugging those programs, and they should be getting with union reps to get the word out to the employee base. I know a lot of folks who work for the federal government in Austin, and most have very little information.

But they didn't pick the battle. Trump shoved the battle in their face.

Yes, they picked this battle. That doesn't make them the bad guys or whatever, but they did choose to fight this rather than just acquiescing to Trump.

[Blake]

Like you understood a word of it. Go lick your 7 year wounds

"Need" is synonymous with "should" in your post. You can take as many personal shots as you want, post as many walls of text as you want, but it won't change it.

You should/need to just own it.

[Pavlov]

relevant.. like congress reads ST before voting.

Exactly. You strive to be an NPC in every possible way on this board like someone is tracking you and keeping score. Are you going to be punished if you have an actual take?

[Blake]

So you are a home maker?

My .

[Blake]

Some employees aren't getting back pay. Folks who were already on end-of-year furlough just weren't recalled, so they aren't getting compensated for lost hours. But those employees were fully expecting to be working by this point and may need that money. I'm also not sure how much is being done for contractors or temp employees who were hired in October or November but who haven't been able to go through onboarding and start work because of the shut-down. I'm skeptical that enough is being done now, and if there's the help available, they aren't getting the word out well enough. All the folks going on MSNBC should be constantly plugging those programs, and they should be getting with union reps to get the word out to the employee base. I know a lot of folks who work for the federal government in Austin, and most have very little information.

Who exactly isn't getting back pay?

Yes, they picked this battle. That doesn't make them the bad guys or whatever, but they did choose to fight this rather than just acquiescing to Trump.

You have this thing with jumbling up semantics.

They picked not to have their lunch money taken from the school bully

[DMC]

"Need" is synonymous with "should" in your post. You can take as many personal shots as you want, post as many walls of text as you want, but it won't change it.

You should/need to just own it.

ad nauseum lapdog argument fails at the onset .. details at 10

[DMC]

Exactly. You strive to be an NPC in every possible way on this board like someone is tracking you and keeping score. Are you going to be punished if you have an actual take?

You seem to want to know everyone's stance on everything instead of addressing the point. To you, the topic never matters, just the ability to get someone to adopt a stance you can later parody. You fail every time with me and it burns your ass.

[DMC]

My .

Coming from you it doesn't sound so confining, knowing your history.

[Blake]

ad nauseum lapdog argument fails at the onset .. details at 10

Right, that's why you're still posting walls of text in defense mode.

It's a battle you shouldn't have picked.

[Chinook]

Who exactly isn't getting back pay?

I just listed people. Essentially, you have to be a full-time or seasonal employee in work status to qualify. If you were already on furlough (or were a contractor), you just didn't get called back yet. Once the shutdown lifts, those folks will get call-backs from their managers to change their status. THEN, if there's a second shutdown, they'd get back pay for whatever subsequent time they'd miss.

They picked not to have their lunch money taken from the school bully

It's not a semantic thing. Choosing which situations in which to fight back is what the phrase "picking your battles" means.

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/pick+your+battles

You're always "justified" to defend yourself against a bully, but there are definitely times when doing so is more or less advantageous than normal. Maybe speaking up when you're near adults is a good battle and choosing to throw hands behind the gym when no one is there but you two and the bully's entourage is a bad time.

[DMC]

I just listed people. Essentially, you have to be a full-time or seasonal employee in work status to qualify. If you were already on furlough (or were a contractor), you just didn't get called back yet. Once the shutdown lifts, those folks will get call-backs from their managers to change their status. THEN, if there's a second shutdown, they'd get back pay for whatever subsequent time they'd miss.



It's not a semantic thing. Choosing which situations in which to fight back is what the phrase "picking your battles" means.

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/pick+your+battles

You're always "justified" to defend yourself against a bully, but there are definitely times when doing so is more or less advantageous than normal. Maybe speaking up when you're near adults is a good battle and choosing to throw hands behind the gym when no one is there but you two and the bully's entourage is a bad time.

aka you have only so many silver bullets. How do you want to use them? Every noise in the night isn't a monster.

[Th'Pusher]

Again with this need to educate me. I took government in high school too. I know how the separation of powers works. What I'm saying is that prolonged political fights hurts both sides, so constantly acting like this is only going to hurt Trump because he started it is foolish.

This is kind of funny coming from the guy who didn’t remember the last time there was a government shutdown. This shutdown isn’t changing anyone’s vote.

[Chinook]

This is kind of funny coming from the guy who didn’t remember the last time there was a government. This shutdown isn’t changing anyone’s vote.

First off, I didn't say I didn't remember the last shutdown. I said I didn't remember why it was shut down. That highlights my point (that people really don't care about why; they only care about what), not refutes it. No one's vote's going to change? Maybe. But folks don't have to start liking Trump to hurt Democrats. They just have to not show up as enthusiastically in 2020. Or they just have to rebel again in the primary and split the party between the establishment candidate they're probably going to try to run and the the more radical alternative.