Your Thoughts?

We will not negotiate the status of unlawful immigrants while Democrats hold our lawful citizens hostage over their reckless demands,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. “This is the behavior of obstructionist losers, not legislators. When Democrats start paying our armed forces and first responders we will reopen negotiations on immigration reform.”

So, when negotiating something, does each party in the negotiation not have a responsibility to negotiate over that which the other party finds important? Would it not seem that saying "We will not negotiate" on (insert subject) mean that you are being an obstructionist? If so, who then is to blame for failure of the negotiations - the one who wants to negotiate, or the one who does not want to negotiate?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

Political posturing all the way. Lets see. In the private sector , what do you do with an employee who refuses to do their job? Oh Yes.. You fire their asses and get someone else.

frequentlyme · 70-79, M

@whowasthatmaskedman Okay, but if we don't have politicians being politicians, what would we have? You suggestion would seem to suggest an autocratic system, not a democracy.

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

@frequentlymeHmmm.. I sometimes get hammered by Americans for my "anti American bias". But since you ask, how about the American system.? But lets tweak it a little. Take regulation and taxation and laws back to the fifties, when the country ran at a profit, and make voting compulsory for all, to insure participation and ban all political donations, but provide an allocation of money for each candidate to run a campaign on. Oh.. And toughen up regulation and enforcement to catch and jail those who cheat the system. Then America should be more or less what it always could have been. The American reality much closer to the American Dream.

frequentlyme · 70-79, M

@whowasthatmaskedman I don't totally disagree with you - in fact I mostly agree with what you said, except that taking things back to the 50's would negate the good changes made since then, and prevent future progress and evolution of the dream. The dream is for fairness, equality, freedom and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing uncommon, but the 50's didn't represent that dream anymore than today does, and for many, it represented it much less. Change isn't bad, change is a constant. However, I do think some things have gotten out of hand, and I squarely place the blame for most of it on the American voter, a voter who doesn't vote. We are, and have always been, our own worst enemy.