oldmanfan

More childish insults. Do I think the public holds the president accountable? Yes. I am independent, hate things about both sides. But to say the left is getting their ass kicked since 2015 when they just had a huge victory in the House election is just stupid.

I just said the exact same thing above, so why you are arguing makes no sense. The president said he'd be proud to shut the government down. He owns it. The constitutional process is not being followed. That is the problem.

I am not going to respond to your childish rhetoric anymore. You want to have an adult conversation, act like an adult.

And the president put himself in his position on live TV and he has to figure a way out.

Right now the president has sole power in that if he accepted the House bill that he said he would in December, and then reneged, this would be over. I am saying that the constitutional process should be followed. The House sent the same bill to the Senate that they passed overwhelmingly in December (yes, by voice vote). The Senate should do its constitutional job and vote on it. Assuming a similar result as in December (because if they then went back on it that would be the height of hypocrisy) then it goes to the president. If he wants to veto, he should. That is his constitutional right and duty. Then the Congress can vote to override or not. And if the citizens don't like the results of that they can respond with their votes in 2020. Let government operate the way it is supposed to operate an stop playing games. If you set a precedent where a president can simply stop government because he doesn't like an appropriation we will have chaos.

I agree the Dems in the House are going to start feeling the heat as well. Pelosi should never have said no funding for any wall, as her own folks have voted in the past for barriers along the border. That was stupid of her to say, especially the part about it being immoral. Her position is that if you do that then you are basically saying that any Chief Executive should just shut down government if he or she doesn't get their at on a budgetary issue. I agree with her on that. It would be a horrible precedent. And she doesn't have sole power, as it would depend on the House and Senate agreeing with that bill. Unlike the President, who has sole power. Nice try though.

If Trump says he will sign the bill sent from the House to the Senate today government opens today. That simple.

Trump is the only person who can reopen government. All he has to do is agree to sign the bill the House sent to the senate, the one that the Senate agreed to by a vote of 100-0 in December. If he says he'd sign it McConnell would bring it to the floor right now. Don't be disingenouous. Several others here make good points and are worth having a discussion with. You, on the other hand, bring up bizarre references to transsexuals and such make it clear you have no sense, since that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Then bring it up for an actual vote. How about the Senate actually do its job. I am blaming Trump for shutting down government over it. Not blaming exactly, since he is the one who said he'd be proud to do so. Just that he needs to own it.

So they should have put the bill in front of him, then not have him sign? I could go along with that. In fact that is exactly what should happen if the Congress was doing its job. The House sent the same bill that the Senate approved a month ago. The Senate should vote on it, pass it (unless they are so spineless that they change their votes within a month), put it on the President's desk. If he vetoes then the Congress can decide if they override the veto and put people back to work. That is how our government is supposed to work. But, again, Trump is the only one right now who can reopen government. If he indicates he'd sign that then it's over with today. But, no, he's proud to shut it down. Because there are 800,000 people not being paid, and because it is affecting our national security. Open it, and if the Dems refuse to negotiate in good faith then you have a ready made political hammer to use. I just said above there is room to blame for both sides. Try reading.

He said he'd take the blame, then he is to blame. Words matter. And did I not just say above I am in favor of a wall in areas where experts say it's needed? Save your childish responses for elsewhere. Yes, because he said he wouldn't sign it, so it wasn't presented to him. You have a Senate majority leader who refuses to understand the constitutional responsibilities of the Senate.

I believe I have indicated blame an be assigned to all sides here. As I said above I am in favor of walls in specific areas where experts say it would matter. But there is only one person who can open government right now, and it's not Pelosi. It's the President. If I were POTUS, I would reopen right now, negotiate like hell for 30 days, and the if the Dems refuse to negotiate fairly I'd declare the emergency (although I would also say it's hard to figure out why it's an emergency now when it wasn't for two years prior) and beat the Dems over the head with it when elections come up. The person who looks the best in his will be the person who the public thinks got the government reopened and checks flowing to the workers. The Dems right now are in the cat bird's seat because they keep saying they want to reopen then negotiate. The President's words that he'd be proud to shut down the government are coming back to haunt him. Again, words matter.

My friends at whatever. Laughable. Did Trump demand the shutdown/ Are you serious? Go back and watch the film of him in the White House with Pelosi and Schumer. What did he say? He'd be proud to own the shut down. His words, said for all to hear. Words matter. I entered into this conversation because someone above said that language should be precise. Well, the president was precise. Now he owns it. And to deny that is ridiculous. Did he get a bill to sign? No, because despite the Senate having a bill that passed by 100-0 and the House as well, the president said he wouldn't sign it if it hit his desk. So again it's on him. Not to say the Democrats should negotiate. I think those who work this problem everyday tell us that walls in specific areas would be helpful, and those should be built. But there is one guy who can open government right now and he sits in the Oval office. Back in December the Senate passed one. The current House passed the same one. If the Senate simply voted the same way they did a month of so ago you have it. But the President in December said he wouldn't sign it. You can try and deflect all you want, but only one person sat on live TV and claimed he'd be proud to shut the government down. And now he wants to weasel out of taking that responsibility, and folks like you want to let him.

More meaningless posting. Trump can open the government right now by allowing the budget bills that have been passed by both chambers to go forward. That is the reality of the situation. You have no idea what you're talking about. Is it your position that any chief executive, regardless of party, can simply shut down government if he or she does not get his way? You do understand the concept of co-equal branches of government?

Another meaningless comment. Right now there is only one person who has the authority to open government; the chief executive. And he won't. That is the simple truth. Personally I hope we vote every single member of Congress and the chief executive out of office for the crap they're putting the country through right now. But only one person can open government right now, and to deny that is just stupid. Put another way, if Obama had done this over, say, health care, conservatives would have been screaming for his impeachment and removal.

Not sure where you're going with this. But if words and precision matter, then the president owns the shut down. Why? Because that's what he said. Now the Democrats could be more forthcoming in negotiations to be sure, but their stance is they will do so once the government is reopened. Only one person has the power to reopen government right now, the chief executive. And he won't do it.

I see reference herein to being precise with language. I couldn't agree more. So when the president says he will own the shut down, one can only presume he means what he says and that he owns the shut down. Surely the chief executive of the country can be trusted to be precise with his language.

Silly me.

So coaches don't teach. Brilliant analysis there.

It's simple. Some supposed fans of the Bills would rather be right on an Internet site than root for the Bills to succeed. Sad really.

I would hope two more guys, one sees that play. The one rule change I'd make us to have PI be a 10 yard penalty/automatic first down

But that tries to place objective criteria on what will always be a subjective issue. Always comes down to judgment. I agree with a comment hereinnthat at some point you have to accept bad calls are part of the game. My thought is having two more sets of eyes on the field and a guy upstairs you'll eliminate human error as much as possible. I understand the desire to use more cameras, off site officiating etc., but games would take forever.

Theee are so many complaints about bad calls in the NFL, and many say we should rely more on technology to overcome these. But my concern is you could conceivably look at any given play in the NFL and pick out a call that should have been made. How about adding a minimum two more officials on the field (I'd put them in the defensive backfield) along with allowing the guy in the press box to make a call if he sees something. Give each coach one challenge regardless of the type of call. If you add officials in the back you have two more sets of eyes back there, and it seems the calls that are by and large screamed about occur primarily back in that area. The guy in the box can catch the most egregious holding. And coaches still can challenge truly bad calls. And once this is done, accept the fact that in any game like football there will be human error and just accept that as part of the game.

Good topic. Some here are focused on the pro teams but the key issue is high schools. If they can't get insurance then the pipeline to college ball dries up, and thus to the pros.

Just pure envy here.

I hope you're right.