Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Hooper said:

Pelosi is laying waste to Trump and all his blind supporters in congress. Has calmly and professionally turned them into bloated chinless cucks. 

 

Trump is trying to act like the 2018 election didn't happen.  Pelosi is exercising the power that voters actually did give her.  Trump and his supporters are either too dumb to understand or being willfully ignorant of the new balance of power.  

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/24/there-is-only-one-way-break-trumps-pathology-pelosi-has-found-it/?utm_term=.bc09c8bf1637

 

Quote

When Nancy Pelosi initially let it be known that President Trump would not be invited to Congress to deliver his State of the Union speech until he reopened the government, the widespread media take was that Pelosi had sunk to Trump’s level. “Washington these days represents nothing so much as an unruly sandbox,” sniffed one New York Times analysis, in which “septuagenarian politicians are squabbling like 7-year-olds.”

 

This overall narrative, which has been everywhere, purported to hold both sides accountable for the standoff, but it put the thumb on the scales for Trump in an insidious way. It did not permit space for a reasonable judgment as to whether one side’s use of the levers of power (Trump shutting down the government to force massively lopsided concessions from Democrats, versus the House speaker denying Trump a platform to profoundly mislead the country about that destructive act in the midst of carrying it out) might be more legitimate, mature and considered under the circumstances than the other.

 

Now Trump has capitulated. In two tweets on Wednesday night, Trump conceded that it’s Pelosi’s “prerogative” to decline the invitation, and allowed that he’d give the speech “in the near future." That is, after the shutdown is over.


The result of this is that the obscuring fog of both-sidesism lying atop this whole situation has been dissipated. What has been laid bare, instead, is a simple reality: Democrats actually do control one chamber of Congress, after having won a major electoral victory, and that actually does give them some veto power over Trump’s conduct and agenda.

 

Pundits can claim all they want that Pelosi is being “as petty as Trump,” as if this is all just a matter of interpersonal conduct. That objection is now irrelevant: What really matters is that Trump will not deliver the speech. He will not use this ceremony as a platform to browbeat Democrats or to spread gales of disinformation about the shutdown and about the wall fantasies driving it. He will not use its pomp and elevating power to, in effect, launder his profound bad faith and the resulting deep imbalance of the situation. Perhaps the only antidote to the false-equivalence fog machine is the reality of power — the power of “no.”

 

I don’t mean to overstate the long-term significance of this capitulation. Instead, my point is that it gets at the deeper problem we all face here: Trump and his GOP enablers are proceeding as if the 2018 elections never happened.

 

Edited by PleaseBlitz
Link to post
Share on other sites

The gov't shutdown is exactly why the right wing have been on a campaigning mission to try and ruin Pelosi in every single local race all over the country.  She knows the game and is a pro at it. It's also why the Dems were mistaken for trying to turn the page on her so quick just because some new blood was elected to congress. The GOP would have loved to get an inexperienced rookie in that role.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

The gov't shutdown is exactly why the right wing have been on a campaigning mission to try and ruin Pelosi in every single local race all over the country.  She knows the game and is a pro at it. It's also why the Dems were mistaken for trying to turn the page on her so quick just because some new blood was elected to congress. The GOP would have loved to get an inexperienced rookie in that role.

 

The wacky, Bernie-fringe of the Democratic Party is gullible as hell.  They damn near went for it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

ross is definitely worthy of joining most of the trump admin in any of the more hellish imaginings one might conjure

 

but it's not a good idea to spend much time with such conjuring---bad for digestion

 

speaking of conjuring, i expect fox pundits and house gopers to soon call for throwing aoc into a lake to see if she floats

 

being into science as they are

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Trump and his supporters are either too dumb to understand or being willfully ignorant of the new balance of power.  

 

Stop me if you heard this one before LOL

 

15 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

The wacky, Bernie-fringe of the Democratic Party is gullible as hell.  They damn near went for it.

 

They are the more emotional Dems and less logical. I want this because it would feel good type of folks. I dont necessarily think they are bad. But they can be stupid lol

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

The wacky, Bernie-fringe of the Democratic Party is gullible as hell.  They damn near went for it.

 

It's also a great example of why there is more to a candidate (for any job position) than being "pure" on every single issue.  Knowledge of the job, how gov't works, and having the nuance to not take the bait at every turn, some of that can only be gained by experience.  I have much love for the energy and youth that someone like AOC brings but she still has a  lot to learn about actual governing. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not a fan of this.  They should go no more than $2.5 billion in border security measures, no wall, something in return.  With this, Trump is getting nearly $4 billion in concessions because he threw a temper tantrum. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Not a fan of this.  They should go no more than $2.5 billion in border security measures, no wall, something in return.  With this, Trump is getting nearly $4 billion in concessions because he threw a temper tantrum. 

What are the pros and cons of this plan?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Not a fan of this.  They should go no more than $2.5 billion in border security measures, no wall, something in return.  With this, Trump is getting nearly $4 billion in concessions because he threw a temper tantrum. 

 

Don't worry.  Meadow and Hayes will throw a hissy fit on TV and accuse the dems of caving and then Pelosi and Co. will renege on an already agreed upon deal throwing the country into chaos.  

 

Oh wait, I guess only one side acts like a moron.

  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

 

It's not clear yet.  Dems should be asking for some stuff in return, but it's not clear that they are, and if they are, what it is. 

 

What would you think is an acceptable return is the question then. I just wanna have this lined up so when they release it we can get right at it 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's to deflect any accusation that dems are being soft on border security.  They would like the message to be "Border security is important and we're all for increased funding for it.  Just not on Trump's vanity project aka the wall.  We are for border security.  We're against government waste and hostage taking tactics by the president."

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Not a fan of this.  They should go no more than $2.5 billion in border security measures, no wall, something in return.  With this, Trump is getting nearly $4 billion in concessions because he threw a temper tantrum. 

Dems are trying to give the orange buffoon a way to save face money wise and still not fund his **** idea of a wall.....But knowing Trump and his ilk, not to smart to figure out a way to spin it. I know everyone and their mom is for Border security not a stupid wall that will definitely cost more than $5 Billion and wont stop illegal immigration or drug flow. Might slow it down but a legit cost analysis would probably say it is not the best investment for limited funds. But hey when did this Trump administration ever work on logic.... more like what they "feel"....smh

3 minutes ago, bearrock said:

I think it's to deflect any accusation that Dems are being soft on border security.  They would like the message to be "Border security is important and we're all for increased funding for it.  Just not on Trump's vanity project aka the wall.  We are for border security.  We're against government waste and hostage taking tactics by the president."

Exactly what I was typing and you beat me to it..

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

What would you think is an acceptable return is the question then. I just wanna have this lined up so when they release it we can get right at it 

 

I'd say the "ask in return" depends on what they're proposing.  

 

To me, if they're offering, say, to expend the immigration courts, and maybe get rid of the backlog that I think is a big problem, then I really don't think anything in return is owed.  That's just a common sense attempt to fix a problem.  

 

(And to me, you don't demand that people give you something, before you will allow a problem to be fixed.)  

 

(I get the idea that those courts also need some serious reforming.  But that may be more a matter for negotiation.)  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Millionaires on TV, one after the other, lecturing the masses on why not getting paid is no big deal, or short-term pain or whatever, and they wonder why AOC proposing a 70% marginal tax rate is polling positively with even nearly 50% of GOP voters.

 

As far as "border security" funding, I have no issue with the Dems throwing that out as a carrot, the message all along has been that border security measures are perfectly fine, but the wall itself is a farce, so by all means offer up a few billion and line item the money, laying out specifically what border security measures it is for and once again let Trump show the masses he is all about the wall and just the wall. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

What would you think is an acceptable return is the question then. I just wanna have this lined up so when they release it we can get right at it 

 

Oh I see.  I mean, there is a pretty wide range if both side's demands are fluid.  

 

For example, I would be on board with Dems giving Trump the entire $5.7 billion, but a significant portion of it must be for upgrading infrastructure to care for migrant families, asylum judges, permanent protections for Dreamers (the entire eligible population of 1.7 million) and TPS holders*, none of the bull**** revamping of the asylum process that Stephen Miller inserted into the last offer, and also Stephen Miller must receive one public cross-checking by Tom Wilson.  Maybe even say $1 billion or less can actually be used for fencing or other barriers that were approved prior to Trump's prototypes from last year (i.e., barriers but not monuments to Trump's ego). 

 

*The permanent concessions for Dreamers and TPS holders is mandatory because it would be the significant concession from Trump that would make pulling a stunt like this again in the future not a good option for him.  

6 minutes ago, killerbee99 said:

Dems are trying to give the orange buffoon a way to save face money wise and still not fund his **** idea of a wall.....But knowing Trump and his ilk, not to smart to figure out a way to spin it. I know everyone and their mom is for Border security not a stupid wall that will definitely cost more than $5 Billion and wont stop illegal immigration or drug flow. Might slow it down but a legit cost analysis would probably say it is not the best investment for limited funds. But hey when did this Trump administration ever work on logic.... more like what they "feel"....smh

 

 

Right, there is plenty of space for Dems to find a place where they are providing lots of funds for border security and also things at the border that address Trump's complaints about a crisis (facilities, judges, personnel, etc.).  But Dems HAVE TO extract significant concessions, or else Trump gets something solely in exchange for shutting the government down, which cannot happen. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...