Trump Border Wall Post-Shutdown Discussion (Wall-Fight)

[mistertim]

5 minutes ago, twa said:

 

certainly as much as the Dems.......R. Reagan

 

   Did you seriously just reach all the way back to the Reagan administration to get your bothsideism fix?

[twa]

19 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

   Did you seriously just reach all the way back to the Reagan administration to get your bothsideism fix?

 

All the way?....sees like yesterday.

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Skin'emAlive said:

Peter, there is no winning a compromise with a sociopathic traitor.

 

We are talking about a populace that can be swayed to vote for a particular person/party or not at all by the power of a targeted meme with short one-liner text. The reality is that a compromise prevents these people from seeing the true ramifications of trumps actions. If anything, it gives credence to the ones who voted for him, and exponentially increases the number of apathetic voters. There is nothing outside of a complete organizational upheaval that would be worth bringing a wall to the bargaining table. 

 

1.  You aren't really negotiating with him.  He isn't likely to support anything that I've put up.  You are negotiating with Senate Republicans.

 

2.  You are talking about real problems and real people's lives.  That has to have some value.  Waiting 2 more years to do things about climate change is going to have consequences.  There are real people out there that have kids that aren't getting paid (and many of those people didn't vote for Trump).

 

3.  Again, you are assuming that they are going to see the ramification of being related to Trump (and not Democrats) and change.  That's not an assumption that I think is a good assumption, especially because he's not going to need 50% of the vote to win the Presidency again, and it doesn't seem to be altering his poll numbers again.  You are arguing for allowing people to suffer and not moving forward to solving long term problems with no clear upside.

 

What happens if Trump lets the government be shut down for 6 months before he folds, but he still wins in 2 years?  Or what happens if he goes the emergency route, and the courts find in favor him? (and he wins again in 2 years).

 

Those aren't risks that make sense to me to take if you can move other things forward.

 

4.  Then put up something that is a compromise that doesn't include funding the wall.  I talked about tying ending the shut down to $5 billion in improved port security.  Larry talked about tying ending the shut down to $5 billion more in immigration courts/border security.

Edited January 10, 2019 by PeterMP

[Skin'emAlive]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Goddammit, man, what about the people that didn't vote for him but still voted? He lost the popular vote, FFS.

 

Its not about those people. It’s about the people that did vote for him, and the people that didn’t vote at all. People like my dad and brother who couldn’t be bothered to vote, because they’ve never done it before. Why start now? It’s about the people that laughed when he ran for election. Laughed when he stumbled through the debates. Laughed when he won. And continue watching the train wreck as if it were house of cards. They know he’s full of **** and running the country into the ground. But they don’t care because “ I don’t get into politics.” Or “ they are all liars” or “ it doesn’t affect me”. Or “ he’s only in office for another few years” or somethingaboutism.

 

These party voters and Apathetic voters think that the California fires don’t affect them because they don’t live there. Ignoring the climate change that has caused it, and the demolition of the platforms that are combating it. They think the immigration reform doesn’t affect them, while they drive to their construction jobs in their company issued super duties. But show me a large scale HVAC company or drywall company that isn’t primarily immigrants. They think the wall won’t affect them, while it creates a humanitarian crisis with thousands of people that WANT to live here and work, and ignoring the fact that Syrian and Yemen humanitarian crisis directly caused mass instability within Europe. You think those kids being locked up and torn from their families right now are just going to forget it all and not hold a grudge? 

 

The second February hits and those people have to pay their taxes but don’t get their tax returns, or food stamps things will change. There is no incentive to cave to just about any demands this organization proposes as it would only prolong and feed the indifference. 

[Forehead]

4 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

my job is across the street from Union Station : )

 

I'm in your general area; 1st and K NE.

[Hersh]

One person not being skewered enough in all this is Paul Ryan. The bipartisan immigration bill would have passed if he had put it to a vote years ago. The CR the Senate passed would have passed with huge support a few weeks. 

As much as this is Trumps fault, we are also here simply from the GOP not allowing votes on bills. 

[Skin'emAlive]

Peter, I don’t have an easy solution that didn’t involve people suffering. Though I wish I did. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

Or what might be even better, hire more immigration courts, and maybe reduce the huge backlog in those courts that are creating so much costs.  Reduce the backlog in the courts, and it might even pay for itself by reducing the incarceration costs.  

 

Hire more immigration judges with the money, make them a lifetime appointment, and let Trump/GOP pick them?

[Renegade7]

45 minutes ago, Skin'emAlive said:

 

Its not about those people. It’s about the people that did vote for him, and the people that didn’t vote at all. 

 

You are being idealistic that they will get it or see through because of this.  You are also throwing in a bunch of people that didn't vote like they dont care, they do, but had to deal with GOP making it as hard as possible for them to vote. 

 

This isn't a system designed to educate voters or make it easier for them to be involved in the voting process.  How many people had their right to vote taken away or kicked off the rolls without even knowing it?  We are also risking a economic chain reaction that I'm telling you is not worth this.

 

Quote

The second February hits and those people have to pay their taxes but don’t get their tax returns, or food stamps things will change. There is no incentive to cave to just about any demands this organization proposes as it would only prolong and feed the indifference. 

 

It will change something that's for sure, but don't get your hope it will change what you want.  What if this group of people you want to learn a lesson dont learn that lesson and instead double down blaming the dems?  I've already brought up ways to circumvent the president to get the government open and prevent it from getting shutdown again, that's the combo we need to have, we already know these two side won't budge, the damage in the mean time could be catastrophic.  They aren't even inspecting food anymore, some people getting ready to stop growing it all together because the subsidies have stopped.

 

You think he was kiding when Trump said months?  He's not.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Renegade7

[Cooked Crack]

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

Hopefully they get to go for a long ride with some of those Mad Maxicans.  

Edited January 10, 2019 by visionary

[visionary]

 

[Fergasun]

The President was the major focus of House elections, he lost the House. His wall and the caravan were also central points.

There is a reason President's "moderate" when faced with a hostile legislative branch -- they need government to continue to function. They need this to enact policy, and they need this to maybe try doing something different to win the next election for their party as well.

Trump should have given a White House address pivoting to "border security plus comprehensive immigration reform". He hasn't done this when the shutdown was impending.

The Dems are not giving him wall money -- he could actually probably get something like 2.5 to 4 Billion for non-wall border security -- more than the original $1.3B or $1.6B on the table. This is the "way out".

Nope. He sticks to his guns, call the Dems names and walks out of the meeting.

In a week (Jan 17 to 20 is my prediction) we will either have GOP overriding or Trump declaring national emergency and this goes to the courts. Most Fed workers, contractors, etc will not be able handle missing 2 paychecks -- this is hurting income inequality.

My guess is that Trump has to declare this a national emergency -- but I am not sure it will really make him happy.

This is his first tangle with a hostile branch of government and he has performed very poorly. Why its important to put adults in the White House in the first place.

Thanks for enabling this GOP....

[Fergasun]

I see the GOP Senate is still pushing some type of Wall for DACA deal. That's not on the table, realistically --I don't think WH likes it, the parties are waiting for the USSC to chime in.
GOP Senators need to talk Trump off his wall.

I get that Chuck and Nancy are probably enjoying watching Trump fail at this. This is the point where Schumer and Pelosi put together a package of GOP wants and Dem wants on border security something like $2B and say, "Look, we agree for border security to do A, B, C, D..." here is a counter offer -- but no wall.

But as long as Trump stays on $5.7B and wall, what incentive do they have to even float a counter? Trump is going to continue to be a butt. Dems don't trust him on CIR -- without moderating Trump is making a huge political mistake and doubled down on it. Trump is surrounding himself with Tea Party hawks like Mulvaney.... and worse raciste.

If he cared about border security he wouldnt mind some number more than $1.3 and $1.6B... I think that a number like (2.5) and no wall could get enough GOP onboard to override veto.

[Burgold]

8 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

1.  You aren't really negotiating with him.  He isn't likely to support anything that I've put up.  You are negotiating with Senate Republicans.

Is there any negotiating with Mitch McConnell? What in his history shows you that he's up for any sort of bipartisan compromise... ever? He pushed policies that nearly sent the US economy over the cliff. Hell, he did pursue policies that he knew would push the US economy over a cliff just for the sake of power and then when we were in free fall sat on his hands and continued obstructing just because he thought it would be good at the ballot box for his side. 

 

McConnell has zero interest in this nation let alone bipartisanship or basic compromise. Latest example is him saying a bill his Senate passed 100-0 less than a month ago was a non-starter. There may be reasonable members of the Republican Party in the Senate, but if McConnell doesn't allow a vote what do they matter? If you could get enough votes to strip McConnell then maybe, maybe you'd have a chance to do normal government, but it's just as likely that the next guy would be worse.

[RedskinsFan44]

Offer 5 billion for proper facilities for asylum seekers

 

Edited January 10, 2019 by RedskinsFan44

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Burgold said:

Is there any negotiating with Mitch McConnell? What in his history shows you that he's up for any sort of bipartisan compromise... ever? He pushed policies that nearly sent the US economy over the cliff. Hell, he did pursue policies that he knew would push the US economy over a cliff just for the sake of power and then when we were in free fall sat on his hands and continued obstructing just because he thought it would be good at the ballot box for his side. 

 

McConnell has zero interest in this nation let alone bipartisanship or basic compromise. Latest example is him saying a bill his Senate passed 100-0 less than a month ago was a non-starter. There may be reasonable members of the Republican Party in the Senate, but if McConnell doesn't allow a vote what do they matter? If you could get enough votes to strip McConnell then maybe, maybe you'd have a chance to do normal government, but it's just as likely that the next guy would be worse.

 

1.  If they don't vote, it is still a win for the Democrats in terms of the Senate elections.  Putting things up that people will generally support and watching the Republicans not vote on them is a win.  It still puts pressure on the Republicans.

 

2.  McConnell can be removed from as Senate majority leader if enough of his members lose confidence.

 

Realistically, if you are so sure that nothing would come from passing such bills (because of Trump/McConnell), what is the issue with putting them up?

 

(I suspect subconsciously you are essentially like Skin'emAlive and see this as way to deal Trump a final serious blow and letting him out through a "compromise" (even one that doesn't really give him what he wants) is bad.  And to me, that would be the worse thing the Democrats can do.  If it turns into beating Trump for the Democrats and not being about good governance, long term, they (and all of us) are going to lose.  And that is what I think is happening.  This has turned into an effort show up or beat Trump.  It has gotten away from governing.)

Edited January 10, 2019 by PeterMP

[LD0506]

[PeterMP]

10 hours ago, Skin'emAlive said:

Peter, I don’t have an easy solution that didn’t involve people suffering. Though I wish I did. 

 

The problem, as I pointed out, is your solution isn't really a solution.  It is a hope and a dream, and things might break that way, but it is as possible that things will break the other way in which case you've caused pain and missed an opportunity to move Democratic priorities forward for nothing.

Edited January 10, 2019 by PeterMP

[LD0506]

[Corcaigh]

A number of government websites have been modified to prevent access during the shutdown. i.e. documents you could download before are now hidden.

 

Who's idea is this kind of pettiness to put in extra effort to disable a function source of information? If a site goes down, it goes down, but essentially to 'sabotage' it?

[LD0506]

[Chew]

 

[Renegade7]

3 hours ago, Burgold said:

If you could get enough votes to strip McConnell then maybe, maybe you'd have a chance to do normal government, but it's just as likely that the next guy would be worse.

 

Possible, or someone with more to lose might act like it. He's from Kentucky, he thinks he's safe no matter what, a lot of them know they aren't.  An uprising of senate Republicans is just what doctor ordered, Turtle hasn't transition yet from not wanting to get embarrassed again to not wanting to lose control of the senate.

[Cooked Crack]