DC Tom

I wonder how much of it is for Russia... Total aid to Russia under the Obama administration was about 3.5 billion, by the way...

Fewer government workers to push teenagers off cliffs and push trees over on hikers, obviously.

When did they say that? Of course they want people living in the shadows. They're quieter there, and easier to control. See: illegal immigration.

It's not as if a federal worker would have been there to catch them. What is even the theoretical connection between the shutdown and these fatal falls? The deaths follow a decision by Trump administration officials to leave the scenic — but sometimes deadly — parks open even as the Interior Department has halted most of its operations. During previous extended shutdowns, the National Park Service barred access to many of its sites across the nation. Oh, I see. If only the parks were closed, they wouldn't have been there at all. This would argue in favor of permanently closing all the national parks because if people go there, they might die. But the real argument, thinly veiled, is that if only the parks were closed (like in past shutdowns), the shutdown would affect a lot of real people who could be shown complaining about their wrecked vacation. If the parks and monuments were closed............what would keep people out ?............................WALLS ?? . Counterpoint: three people died for the Democrats' principled stand. How many more lives are the Democrats' principles worth? I mean...this finger-pointing cuts both ways.

Today I learned that the color of the boathouse at Hereford is brown brick with white and blue trim.

I'm mute, you #######.

There's a "Miso Honey" food truck in DC. I always wondered how they got that past any of the metro municipalities.

No, I mean it in a literal, but conditional and third-person general sense: if you want this resolved soon, then you will have to quickly get rid of both Trump and Pelosi, which implementation of "quickly" is limited to assassination. I am not advocating for such, because I'm okay with this shutdown dragging out. The hypothesis does not apply to me.

I just want someone like her, for once, to explain what a "fair share" is. Forget "right" or "wrong," just explain your definition of "fair." That's all. Just explain to me, Sandy (yes, that's her nickname), what your own "fair share" of taxes is, and why it's fair.

They've done their job, why stick around? They passed the spending bill, now it's up to the Senate and White House to approve it. Because there is no compromise, on either side. Because this isn't about policy, or morality, or what's good for the country, or anything other than partisan dominance. Because let's face it: if the good of the country were at all involved, they'd recognize that a $5B wall is pretty much an irrelevancy. This is about nothing more than power. And it's being led by Trump and Pelosi - two of the dumbest, most emotionally stunted, most unreasonable people in the world, one of whom - Pelosi - has a history of throwing the country under the bus for partisanship, and the other who's a delusional narcissist with a history of "deal making" includes three bankruptcies. The House may as well go to Disney World, for all it matters. This isn't getting resolved soon, unless someone shoots both Trump and Pelosi.

Okay, let's see...Yep, you still list things you don't know as reasons for impeachment. You now owe me $9 million. I don't know the reasons why yet, but they exist and I'll find them eventually.

Germans thought we were soft, as well. Still, the Chinese might not be entirely wrong this time - we've become a zero-risk society where we can't even let children walk outside alone, and there's strong debate even amongst professionals whether or not capital ships can be risked in combat. The Chinese would be ill-advised to start a war by sinking a carrier (the Japanese mistake wasn't sinking the Pacific Fleet, but starting the war by sinking it). But they'd most likely end a war by not even sinking one, just badly damaging it.

Then HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY'RE REASONS FOR IMPEACHMENT?????

Did Trump "violate" her, or did she "feel violated?"

That's funny. In two lines, you argue that the Senate is a break on the House, but abdicates their responsibility if they act as a break on the House. If you want to know why people criticize you as blindly partisan...welp, there it is.

I've never dug in to the details myself, just seen that "deficit" and "debt" are two very different things, that nonetheless too many people use interchangeably to prove whatever point they want to make. And people also like to conflate - purposely - overall debt and public debt, and mandatory and discretionary spending. It's ridiculously easy to oversimplify and confuse the issue. Which was where I was going with my original "Comparing Obama's $3T to Trump's $2T" post - it's ridiculously easy to portray them however you prefer. For example: Obama's $3T increase in debt represents about a 30% increase in the debt/GDP ratio (roughly from 60% to 90%) to a level considered constrictive to economic growth (over 70%) by the World Bank. Trump's $2T, on the other hand, is still a decrease to 99% debt/GDP from 104% when he took office, so it represents an improving situation. Right? Well...except that that 30% increase in Obama's first to years, being a ratio, represents an economic contraction as well as an increase in debt...so that's not even as bad as it looks at first...but during Obama's "economic growth," the debt/GDP ratio still increased by 15%...so that's bad compared to Trump's first to years, right? And then what if I told you that Trump's budget deficit for 2018 is $70B less that was forecast? That shows a measure of fiscal responsibility...that's good, despite the debt, right? Point being: whenever somebody chucks a single number at you out of context, they're lying to you. And odds are, they're even lying to themselves. There's only three people on this board I trust to discuss economic policy (not that I trust them to be right, I just know they're not talking completely out of their asses.) And ALF isn't one of them. Neither am I, for that matter - I just have a background that gives me a good domain-independent ability to spot bull####.

That's why the Senate exists, as the grown-ups to keep the children from getting too rambunctious at the House kiddie table.

Even though the attack on the USS Cole was an arguably legitimate act of war...I'm still okay with this.

Hell, they didn't even understand his 2005 1040 when it was leaked to them.

Considering that the debt has consistently increased since 1957, including during the Clinton "surplus," and often increases by more than the deficit, I'd suggest that perhaps...no it doesn't?

Yes...but the much, much bigger issue is that he perjured himself in an investigation in to Whitewater answering questions that had absolutely no connection to Whitewater. Same nonsense that's happening now...Mueller has the same "create a crime" mandate that Starr had. But this time it's different, because...shut up! You actually list "things we don't know" as reasons for impeachment?

That's bloody ***** stupid. Politicians lie to the American public and disagree with other politicians' policy...but let's make those impeachable offenses. "But his intent was to use foreign policy to enrich himself!" Okay then...show how it's different than this.

So now we're discussing deficit spending, and not debt? Why don't you just pick one?

That usually happens when your opinions are so shallow and emotionally based that you don't even understand your own thoughts.

Compare to the three trillion in Obama's first two years in office...