DogofWar1 Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 Nancy knows he'll just rally his side for the wall, shut down the government again, and we'll be right back at square one. Smart of her to withhold SOTU until longer term funding solution is found. She found a weak point of Trump's. Now, it's a bit risky because it is a little outside her initial reasoning for stopping it, but it's likely to he effective. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drowland Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, DogofWar1 said: That *thud*thud*thud* you hear? That's Donald's future DOJ lawyers trying to figure out how to argue a national emergency was needed to the court despite this tweet existing. They'll just say the caravan, full of criminals and organized by Democrats, changed everything. Edited January 28, 2019 by drowland 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 (edited) If anybody cares, illegal border crossings have generally been declining for years now: And correspondingly, the number of hispanic illegals in the US has been falling for about about a decade. Our policies on the South West border in general, have been working (not that they are perfect). Edited January 28, 2019 by PeterMP 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 #ThanksObama 4 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 In Crenshaw had Dems who supported this. He might as well name them. Same as Trump should with the messages he was getting during the shutdown. Let's see that list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 2 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said: In Crenshaw had Dems who supported this. He might as well name them. Same as Trump should with the messages he was getting during the shutdown. Let's see that list. "So many" instead of using an actual number in a sentence is Republican for "zero." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 5 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said: In Crenshaw had Dems who supported this. He might as well name them. Same as Trump should with the messages he was getting during the shutdown. Let's see that list. Manchin ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... uh, that's it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 (edited) Well, to be fair to Crenshaw, he's in the House and there are 235 Democrats there so I doubt it would be that hard to find a few Dems who would agree with him that a wall is "reasonable". That being said, the context of their agreement with him would also be important. I doubt he's just making it up out of thin air, but he's probably puffing it up to more than it is. Edited January 28, 2019 by mistertim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 (edited) Edited January 28, 2019 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 22 minutes ago, mistertim said: Well, to be fair to Crenshaw, he's in the House and there are 235 Democrats there so I doubt it would be that hard to find a few Dems who would agree with him that a wall is "reasonable". That being said, the context of their agreement with him would also be important. I doubt he's just making it up out of thin air, but he's probably puffing it up to more than it is. Well, to be fair to reason, "The Wall" was thought up as a strategy to remind Trump to talk about immigration policy, because he is too scatterbrained to just, like, remember. It is not and never has been a serious policy proposal based on facts or evidence (in other words, reason). https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2019/01/04/where-the-idea-for-donald-trumps-wall-came-from/#1fd201664415 Quote Donald Trump’s plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border did not come from security analysts following years of study or through evidence that a wall would reduce illegal immigration. Amazingly, for something so central to the current U.S. president, the wall came about as a “mnemonic device” thought up by a pair of political consultants to remind Donald Trump to talk about illegal immigration. ... Joshua Green had good access to Trump insiders, including Sam Nunberg, who worked with Stone. “Roger Stone and I came up with the idea of ‘the Wall,’ and we talked to Steve [Bannon] about it,” according to Nunberg. “It was to make sure he [Trump] talked about immigration.” The concept of the Wall did not click right away with the candidate. “Initially, Trump seemed indifferent to the idea,” writes Green. “But in January 2015, he tried it out at the Iowa Freedom Summit, a presidential cattle call put on by David Bossie’s group, Citizens United. ‘One of his pledges was, ‘I will build a Wall,’ and the place just went nuts,’ said Nunberg. Warming to the concept, Trump waited a beat and then added a flourish that brought down the house. ‘Nobody,’ he said, ‘builds like Trump.’” 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 (edited) A Simple Border Wall deal? I don't see the problem. "**** no" and "Get the **** out of here" seem pretty simple to me. ~Bang Edited January 29, 2019 by Bang 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 Rich Russians flock to Florida to deliver American babies SUNNY ISLES BEACH, UNITED STATES (AFP) - In southern Florida's Sunny Isles Beach, Russian tourists Anna and Helen sip coffee with their husbands and newborn babies - a common scene in what has become a prized destination for well-off foreigners looking to secure United States citizenship for their children. Under the shadow of luxury skyscrapers - among them Trump Towers - exists an army of well-dressed women, either pregnant or pushing top-of-the-line strollers. Most are Russian or from former Soviet Union countries. The weather, white-sand beaches and dazzling turquoise waters are common reasons given for travelling to give birth in this city of 20,000 people, north of Miami. But one 34-year-old, who gave her name only as Anna, was more direct. "For the American passport!" she told AFP, smiling. She arrived in the US while expecting now two-month-old Melania. Both she and compatriot Helen, mother to a three-month-old, said tens of thousands of dollars and months of planning went into their trips. The attraction is clear. President Donald Trump does not like it, but according to the US Constitution, children born on American soil automatically gain citizenship, opening up highly sought-after opportunities to study and work. And why Sunny Isles specifically? "Feel home, lot of Russian," Anna said. Upon turning 21, baby Melania will also be able to sponsor visas for her parents to come to the US - another policy that has disgruntled Mr Trump. The trend is big business: Miami Mama, a company in neighbouring Hallandale Beach, has been organising travel packages for Russian mothers since 2009. Charging between US$6,900 (S$9,375) and US$49,000, they will coordinate everything from interpreters and apartments to medical care and citizenship documents, according to the firm's website. And none of this is illegal, according to US immigration laws. But according to NBC, the FBI raided Miami Mama in 2017, arresting one employee for making false statements in federal documents to obtain passports for children. Miami Mama - whose logo shows a pregnant woman against the backdrop of an American flag - did not respond to AFP's requests for comment. Click on the link for the full article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanboyOf91 Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 Does he want Pelosi to win on the DREAM Act? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 12 minutes ago, FanboyOf91 said: Does he want Pelosi to win on the DREAM Act? He's so deeply compromised. By now you'd think he'd STFU if it was anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 1 hour ago, FanboyOf91 said: Does he want Pelosi to win on the DREAM Act? This is a terrible idea. Playing chicken with a debt limit increase is as bad or worse than a shutdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 (edited) The “im not agreeing to take on more debt unless we spend more money” angle doesn’t seem to make logical sense.... on the other hand if the shut down did cost 11 billion and pelosi could have settled with trump for something less than 6 billion aren’t you supposed to take the deal? oth rallying the base probably worth way more than the remaining balance.. Edited January 29, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 23 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: on the other hand if the shut down did cost 11 billion and pelosi could have settled with trump for something less than 6 billion aren’t you supposed to take the deal? No. You don’t let people like Trump get away with underhanded strong arming or they’ll just keep doing it over and over and over again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 26 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: No. You don’t let people like Trump get away with underhanded strong arming or they’ll just keep doing it over and over and over again. especially when the accurate headline is "Trump Shutdown costs $11B when signing the same CR a month earlier would have avoided it all together" 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 31 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: No. You don’t let people like Trump get away with underhanded strong arming or they’ll just keep doing it over and over and over again. Yall keep saying this. She keeps ignoring it. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 1 hour ago, DogofWar1 said: This is a terrible idea. Playing chicken with a debt limit increase is as bad or worse than a shutdown. It's a lot worse, no or. The shutdown was bad, hurt a lot of people, and cost the economy some productivity, but this would jeapordize the US' credit rating, and losing the top rating would DIRECTLY cost a fortune in higher interest rates. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 25 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: The “im not agreeing to take on more debt unless we spend more money” angle doesn’t seem to make logical sense.... on the other hand if the shut down did cost 11 billion and pelosi could have settled with trump for something less than 6 billion aren’t you supposed to take the deal? oth rallying the base probably worth way more than the remaining balance.. The issue is it's not 5.7 billion. To let Trump use a shutdown politically to extract money will set a precedent with him where the costs balloon many times over. The wall was never going to cost 5.7B, estimates range from 25B to 100B, and it's likely going to be north of 50B at least. Add in the damage of Trump not only using it for a wall but for every pet project he wants, and suddenly it becomes 100+ billion. The more appropriate answer is to stop it at its source. You don't give in to terrorists, and you don't give that mouse a cookie, and so you don't give Trump that wall money just for shutting down the government. 15 minutes ago, techboy said: It's a lot worse, no or. The shutdown was bad, hurt a lot of people, and cost the economy some productivity, but this would jeapordize the US' credit rating, and losing the top rating would DIRECTLY cost a fortune in higher interest rates. True. But I didn't want to seem to minimize the harms to men and women going without pay. But absolutely. A lowering of the credit rating would be devastating in dollar amounts that make the cost of the shutdown look like peanuts. A long shutdown COULD cause a recession. A credit downturn WOULD cause one. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 3 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: The “im not agreeing to take on more debt unless we spend more money” angle doesn’t seem to make logical sense.... on the other hand if the shut down did cost 11 billion and pelosi could have settled with trump for something less than 6 billion aren’t you supposed to take the deal? oth rallying the base probably worth way more than the remaining balance.. How about not shutting down gov for"months or years" to get what you want? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now