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 »

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

I'm British and I see this as a big problem with your Constitution, that government shuts down automatically if funding agreements are not in place.

You can get away with it when you have a shared bipartisan culture among law makers but you are obviously a long way from that. I think things should just be automatically underwritten and debates on laws should be separate.

frequentlyme · 70-79, M

@Burnley123 I agree in part. Nothing but funding of ongoing debt and expenses should be debated, but it should be heavily debated. Everything else should be debated separately.