Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Fergasun

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

e.g. not negotiating 

 

The people doing the actual negotiations said they aren't ruling anything out.  But, pretty clearly, Trump is in no position to get what he wants, so in all likelihood, Pelosi is right.  It doesn't mean they aren't negotiating, it just means that Trump's negotiating position is so bad that he's not going to get the thing he wants most.

 

Also, protip, "e.g." means "for example."  You want "i.e." (in essence). 

 

5 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

 

Its a bad metaphore premised on false premise...

 

Explain.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

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.
 

5

 

It's ridiculous.

 

He wants Wall. Then he says a huge chunk of the Wall has already been built. But wait, he doesn't need a Wall Wall. Slats are ok. Wait, but a bunch has already been built.... he just can't tell us where. Wait, here is a picture of a brand new section of Wall that totally isn't existing border being repaired. Wait, that was existing border being repaired.  Wait, he wants a Wall.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

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?

What is Trump offering? His DACA offer was largely negated by the courts, and even after that he is holding back on it. Trump is trying to force something the House, Senate, and majority of American people don't want. He's going to have fun defending declaring a national emergency in the courts.

“I saw yesterday, ‘well, what about DACA,’ I said, ‘it’s highly unlikely,’” Trump said in an interview with The Daily Caller Wednesday. “I was tougher than anybody else on that. I could see doing something for DACA but I want to find out what the Supreme Court’s gonna do first.”

https://fox11online.com/news/nation-world/trump-says-daca-deal-highly-unlikely-as-democrats-look-ahead-to-2020-for-solution

  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

What is Trump offering? His DACA offer was largely negated by the courts, and even after that he is holding back on it. 

 

 

I didn’t say trump was offering something..but I think he is more desperate for a deal. Everyone including him knows a national emergency won’t work... democrats are a little narrow minded. If trump does want to bring the border wall into the budget debate, why shouldn’t the dems bring up every issue they can’t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

This may end up being be debatable but fine, for now let's not call him a terrorist. He is a villain though.

 

And just because you say one thing is off the table doesn't mean you're not negotiating. That happens in negotiations all the time. A wall is a non-starter... No wall is a non-starter... How do you reconcile both side's absolutisms with your belief that Donald Trump wants to negotiate but the democrats don't?

 

I also love this chain of events....

"I'm going to shut down the government"

"The democrats shut down the government"

"I'm ending the democrats' shutdown but I'm going to shut it down again in a couple weeks"

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

 

And just because you say one thing is off the table doesn't mean you're not negotiating. That happens in negotiations all the time. A wall is a non-starter... No wall is a non-starter... How do you reconcile both side's absolutisms with your belief that Donald Trump wants to negotiate but the democrats don't?

 

I mean, as long as we agree that both tactics are legitimate negotiating strategies then I definitely agree with you.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I mean, as long as we agree that both tactics are legitimate negotiating strategies then I definitely agree with you.

I agree that saying “no wall is a non-starter” would be fine. I disagree that “since I don’t have the votes, I’m going to intentionally damage the country.” is legitimate.

 

edit: ladyskinsfan is correct. He’s like the little kid who breaks his video game controller or flips the board game when he doesn’t get his way.

 

Heres a hypothetical... i was going to say, “what if Obama had threatened to declare a national emergency to confiscate all publicly owned assault rifles?” but we know how that would have been received. Here’s a better one, what if Obama had threatened to declare a national emergency in order to secure funding for a border wall? I’m 99.9% sure that the GOP and all the propagandists would have been through the ****ing roof.

Edited by Sacks 'n' Stuff
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

37 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I agree that saying “no wall is a non-starter” would be fine. I disagree that “since I don’t have the votes, I’m going to intentionally damage the country.” is legitimate.

 

 

He has to sign the bill in order for it to pass. Checks and balances. Executive branch has a right to check the legislative...  

 

 

Quote

 

Heres a hypothetical... i was going to say, “what if Obama had threatened to declare a national emergency to confiscate all publicly owned assault rifles?” but we know how that would have been received.

 

He definitely should of... in fact Obama’s passiveness was one of the reasons Russians were able to meddle in our elections. I get it, it was a tough spot, but a little more aggressiveness could have done him (and the country) a lot of good.

 

Gun violence is more a national emergency than a border wall is...

 

 

 

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bang said:

Do i recall correctly in thinking the Obama admin brought the potential for meddling up, and McConnell crushed it?

 

~Bang

 

 

 

Biden said that they wanted a bipartisan condemnation of Russian meddling and McConnell said no. Not verifiable, but even if it were true, McConnell isn’t the president. Hard spot though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

 

He has to sign the bill in order for it to pass. Checks and balances. Executive branch has a right to check the legislative...  

And the legislative has a right to check the executive. Separate but equal. McConnell's side by side vote was to show Trump he was nearing a point where he would have a veto overridden. He won't be allowed to shut down the government again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Bang said:

Do i recall correctly in thinking the Obama admin brought the potential for meddling up, and McConnell crushed it?

 

~Bang

 

I remember when Obama was "dictator in chief" with all his executive orders.  So wtf would Trump be classified as attempting?

 

Far right is full of 10 second Toms, I swear man

 

 

12 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Obama’s passiveness in some things is a fair criticism (and I’m a big fan of the guy & his ability to please a woman in ways that twa will never be able to). Of course, the GOP portrayed him as a tyrannical dictator.

 

 

giphy (18).gif

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
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...