PleaseBlitz Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-digs-in-on-border-wall-funds-as-congressional-negotiators-prepare-to-convene/2019/01/30/56139e24-2488-11e9-ad53-824486280311_story.html?utm_term=.b39ad40d3687 Quote House Democrats unveiled a new border security plan Wednesday that contains no money for physical barriers along the U.S.-Mexico divide, defying President Trump’s insistence on a wall of some kind to stave off another government shutdown. The Democrats’ proposal was their opening bid in bipartisan House-Senate negotiations aimed at coming up with a deal to keep the government open when temporary funding runs out Feb. 15. It came just hours after Trump dug in on his conditions for signing off on such a deal, writing on Twitter that lawmakers would be “wasting their time” if they’re not considering a wall or physical barrier on the southern border. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 23 minutes ago, visionary said: Because after all, nothing says "emergency" like spending a month working on which bogus claims you're going to make, if you don't get your vanity project funded. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 A veto override is the solution to Trump's not signing. Dems need to keep the pressure on. No wall. Say No to bullies. And if he declares an emergency, pass a law that obviates an emergency. Not getting his vanity project is NOT an emergency. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) This is my analogy of what has happened on the border security argument. 2 adversarial owners (the voters) have a 50% even split of shares of a football team. One owner appointed a coach hated by the other owner- the other the general manager who he wants to counter the coach. The coach wants every single player to be an offensive lineman and has staked his coaching job on doing this. The General Manager responds by saying hell no - from this point on absolutely no pay roll (cap dollars?) will be allocated to offensive linemen. Edited January 31, 2019 by nonniey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) 23 minutes ago, nonniey said: This is my analogy of what has happened on the border security argument. 2 adversarial owners (the voters) have a 50% even split of shares of a football team. One owner appointed a coach hated by the other owner- the other the general manager who he wants to counter the coach. The coach wants every single player to be an offensive lineman and has staked his coaching job on doing this. The General Manager responds by saying hell no - from this point on absolutely no pay roll (cap dollars?) will be allocated to offensive linemen. not enough tied up women in super cars Edited January 31, 2019 by Llevron 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 @Llevron handled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wiggles Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) Executive Overreach? Overgrab? Edited January 31, 2019 by clietas 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 11 minutes ago, Jumbo said: @Llevron edit done my bad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 25 minutes ago, nonniey said: This is my analogy of what has happened on the border security argument. 2 adversarial owners (the voters) have a 50% even split of shares of a football team. One owner appointed a coach hated by the other owner- the other the general manager who he wants to counter the coach. The coach wants every single player to be an offensive lineman and has staked his coaching job on doing this. The General Manager responds by saying hell no - from this point on absolutely no pay roll (cap dollars?) will be allocated to offensive linemen. Mine would be this: 2 owners, one owns 55% the other 45% (because nothing can happen without the House, and the House is 55-45). The owner with 45% wants every single player to be an offensive lineman and has staked his coaching job on doing this. The other owners is like "that's ****ing dumb" because, obviously, you can't win football games with just offensive lineman. So the owner with 55% says you can have the offensive linemen you already have, and no more, and we'll let you sign some tight ends and fullbacks (extra $ towards border security). The owner with 45% says **** that, I will shut the entire team down and we just won't play until you give me my way. For the record, I would prefer the above to Danny Snyder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said: Mine would be this: 2 owners, one owns 55% the other 45% (because nothing can happen without the House, and the House is 55-45). The owner with 45% wants every single player to be an offensive lineman and has staked his coaching job on doing this. The other owners is like "that's ****ing dumb" because, obviously, you can't win football games with just offensive lineman. So the owner with 55% says you can have the offensive linemen you already have, and no more, and we'll let you sign some tight ends and fullbacks (extra $ towards border security). The owner with 45% says **** that, I will shut the entire team down and we just won't play until you give me my way. For the record, I would prefer the above to Danny Snyder. Ok I give you that but you have to admit even that policy by the 55% owner is still pretty stupid even if not as stupid as the coaches policy when seen this way. Edited January 31, 2019 by nonniey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 I think both analogies suck. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 don on now, totally blowing up the talks again---saying only a wall will be acceptable, no fences or other structures need apply (which he'll likely change in an hour)---slamming the dems and of course, lying all over the place and bringing all his caravan rap back in full force 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wiggles Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 1 minute ago, Jumbo said: don on now, totally blowing up the talks again---saying only a wall will be acceptable, no fences or other structures need apply (which he'll likely change in an hour)---slamming the dems and of course, lying all over the place and bringing all his caravan rap back in full force Hes lost it. Talking bout moving existing border walls n fencing to Arizona and Texas. Or just tearing it down. Leadership 101. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said: I think both analogies suck. Analogies are like farts. If you have to force it, it's probably crap. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 Donny just wants Nancy to step on him again. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted January 31, 2019 Author Share Posted January 31, 2019 Has it not been obvious a wall isn't passing the House. Trump hates democracy. He can't share power. If he is so narcisitic to go forward with his "wall national emergency" and comments that say the whole immigration funding conference bill, i.e. how laws are reconciled through the House and Senate, he's not worthy to run the country. It couldn't be more obvious his election was a giant mistake. Elections have consequences. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Fergasun said: Has it not been obvious a wall isn't passing the House. Trump hates democracy. He can't share power. If he is so narcisitic to go forward with his "wall national emergency" and comments that say the whole immigration funding conference bill, i.e. how laws are reconciled through the House and Senate, he's not worthy to run the country. It couldn't be more obvious his election was a giant mistake. Elections have consequences. Sharing power means he is justified in not signing a bill unless it includes at least some of what he wants... pelosi said she’s not negotiating... who isn’t sharing power with who? Edited January 31, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) The whole “you don’t negotiate with terrorist” tact some have been pushing on here as an excuse to support pelosis unwillingness to negotiate is complete laughable. Trump, don’t like it or not, is the president. Not a terrorist. He has the authority to make demands of the legislature, terrorists don’t. argue about the merits of a wall, or whether a shut down is justified. Trump clearly has the authority to shut down the government over a border wall, it’s him exercising his “right” to share power. Foolishly... Edited January 31, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: Sharing power means he gets some of what he wants... pelosi said she’s not negotiating... Not sure where you get your information from, but you may want to reevaluate it as a source. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/30/no-deal-border-security-talks-2594735 Quote Top Democrats refused to rule out extra funding for some kind of added barrier at the border as congressional deal-makers started negotiations Wednesday aimed at a compromise that could stave off a second shutdown. The 17 lawmakers appointed to the special conference committee did not reach an agreement during their first meeting on whether they would fund President Donald Trump's border wall as they try to prevent another funding lapse in two-and-a-half weeks. But Democratic spending leaders said afterward that they will not take a hard line upfront against funding for a border barrier, the specifics of which were not defined. "I’m not going to give you the conclusion. We’re going into this conference, and we’re open to everyone’s facts and figures," House Appropriations Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) told reporters after the meeting. "Everything’s on the table.” 5 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: The whole “you don’t negotiate with terrorist” tact some have been pushing on here as an excuse to support pelosis unwillingness to negotiate is complete laughable. Trump, don’t like it or not, is the president. Not a terrorist. He has the authority to make demands of the legislature, terrorists don’t. argue about the merits of a wall, or whether a shut down is justified. Trump clearly has the authority to shut down the government over a border wall, it’s him exercising his “right” to share power It's a freaking metaphor. Nobody is calling Trump an actual terrorist. Sheesh, I can't believe this has to be typed out. The principal is simple: If people make threats or do harmful things in order to get their way....and then they get their way....you've taught them that threats and harmful acts work as a method to get their way. Then they'll do it more, not less. This isn't rocket science. Jesus. Edited January 31, 2019 by PleaseBlitz 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted January 31, 2019 Author Share Posted January 31, 2019 What does Trump want except a "big beautiful wall" that lost his party control of the House? This is why Mitch McDonald disengaged from negotiations in the budget between December 22 and January 4. He has plenty of right to push for a wall, but he's not gonna get a wall. Trump initially asked for $1.3B in Border Security funds. He will be getting more than that in this bill -- seems like he could be getting more than I initially thought (above $4.5B). More border security money should fall under "some of what he wants" if he claims "the border is insecure". His attitide is "only a wall". It's almost like Pelosi enjoys denying him what everyone else knows he ain't getting. He should have shutdown the government for the wall to Paul Ryan last year. Sharing power means we accept we ain't gonna get what we want a the time, but I get enough and I give enough to feel I have advanced my cause. It also means you are smart enough to see where the power is. Trump lost his wallpower when he lost the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 13 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said: Not sure where you get your information from, but you may want to reevaluate it as a source. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/30/no-deal-border-security-talks-2594735 Politico article in this thread: Speaker Nancy Pelosi has drawn a firm line in the ongoing border security negotiations: There will be no wall funding in any deal congressional negotiators reach to avert another government shutdown e.g. not negotiating 13 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said: It's a freaking metaphor. Its a bad metaphore premised on false premise... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted January 31, 2019 Author Share Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) Wait, wait, wait. WHEN THE GOP CONTROLLED SENATE DIDNT VOTE FOR WALL FUNDING TO END THE SHUTDOWN IT WAS DEMONSTRATED THAT WALL FUNDING CANNOT PASS. The negotiations are between the $1.3B funding with no wall and the $5.7B funding with no wall. The shutdown for the wall was a disaster for the GOP/right anand quickly turned that into the crisis rather than the border. Lets see if movile doesnt triple post.... Edited January 31, 2019 by Fergasun 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 10 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: Politico article in this thread: e.g. not negotiating Its a bad metaphore premised on false premise... border security is up for negotiations. Saying you want a Wall and won't take anything but a Wall.... e.g. Not Negotiating. 2 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