How many people here are butt hurt that Trump caved in to Pelosi??

[VRAMdemon]

I think Pelosi realized that Trump wanted a shutdown and decided "Fuck it, you want a shutdown? Okay, you can have one." And she probably did it knowing full well that once he got into that mess, he wouldn't have an easy retreat.

In terms of fundamentals, we have established that Pelosi can hold the caucus together in the face of monumental stupidity by Trump. After all, neither Republicans nor Democrats thought that shutting down the government was a good idea, and the wall is stupid anyway, which is why immigration hardliners block trades of wall for DACA. The reality-based big picture has nothing to do with some idiotic wall fantasy: rather, it's about DACA - the lack of a middle ground between Republicans who insist it must not exist, and Democrats who insist it must be robust and incude a quick path to citizenship.

That "middle ground" could only be achieved as part of a much bigger, COMPREHENSIVE immigration reform bill, one that reduces the number of undocumented (further than this has already occurred naturally), by changing their status to "documented" (including, yes, a path to citizenship)...yet reduces (further than this has already occurred naturally) the incentives to enter the US (including some sensible robust improvements in border security).

Now Trump is a stupid guy who hires lousy advisers that he won't listen to. Or rather, the good ones leave in frustration, their reputation besmirched. So we might see a replay. But we can't count on that: Pelosi's challenges have just begun. Pelosi has told him he can't do something, and is sticking to her guns. If more people, starting with his parents, had done this, he might not be the asshole he is today, and the world would be better off.

Also ..Trump gives snide nicknames to people he feels contempt for and wants to delegitimize. Little Marco, Low energy Jeb, etc.His nickname for Nancy is...Nancy

In Loser Donald's mind, this is a sick burn. The man hates being called by his first name. He was visibly upset when Hillary said "Can I call you Donald?" in the debates. You'll note that whenever he's telling a story (I.e. lying) about a conversation he had with someone, the person in the story never calls him "Donald" - it's always "Mr. Trump" or "Mr. President", even when it makes no sense that that person would talk to him so formally. Because he's a narcissist, he can't imagine that anyone else would react differently than he does, so he thinks he's supremely insulting her by not calling her "Ms. Pelosi".

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Because he's a narcissist, he can't imagine that anyone else would react differently than he does, so he thinks he's supremely insulting her by not calling her "Ms. Pelosi".

Part of his reptilian brain might have the human equivalent of "respect" where one crocodile recognizes another as being a legit threat and so avoids being too aggressive. Predators, even higher life than him, say shrews, avoid being damaged if possible.

Oh the quote from Trump

" We need people to come in to help us — the farms". After he caught himself then he added other things, but it was a clear stumble to cover a freudian slip.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Unlike Trump's wall, the Chinese had to fight actual invaders, thus justifying building a wall. And it didn't work too well, so what is Trump doing pushing a wall that does nothing and cost real money?

Thus my post about the wars being the selling point for the great wall. Trump's version has always been a non starter except for the uneducated.

 

[sdifox]

Thus my post about the wars being the selling point for the great wall. Trump's version has always been a non starter except for the uneducated.

I guess I misunderstood your point.

 

[trenchfoot]

Thus my post about the wars being the selling point for the great wall. Trump's version has always been a non starter except for the uneducated.

He made a really great sales pitch to his base for the wall that appealed to their sense of racism, fear of the outside world and their need to do something about the notion that they were being ignored by "the establishment". They were primed for being scammed by the guy who is an experienced expert at it and thus they bought that wall that, (even better yet) "Mexico was going to pay for" which appealed to their sense of retribution against the Mexican gangs, rapists, disguised middle eastern terrorists and murderers that were in his words literally "pouring over our borders".

Well now they're demanding what was promised to them and the salesman can't deliver all because the reviled and despised Nancy Pelosi pulled the rug right out from under him and humiliated him in front of the whole world.

Trump's biggest fear now is that those folks are going to start asking for their money back OR demand he make good on his promise that he'd build that wall and make Mexico pay for it like he said and satisfyingly make it hurt and humiliating for good measure.

 

[TheVrolok]

I want the wall because:

Rich Hollywood liberals have walls around their homes.

Hillary and bill have a wall around their home.

Obama has a wall around his home.

The pope has a wall around the Vatican.

It a wall is good enough for them, it's good enough for our nation.

This is one of the foundational "problems" with the Trump base.

Certainly, I think all of us can agree that on a very superficial level, THs point make sense.

Unfortunately, one you actually deconstruct the problem and put thought into it, it clearly doesn't make sense.

Trumps base simply does not like cognitive burden, and the path of least resistance that provides cognitive ease will be the path they take. That's why Trump "makes sense" to them.

I could digress into a whole System 1 vs System 2 discussion, but suffice it to see TH has a lazy (or complete lack of) System 2.

And yes, I was a huge fan of Kahnemans book.

 

[BoomerD]

I, for one, am kind of butt-hurt by Donnie’s caving. I had hoped to see his base storm the White House with torches and pitchforks, protesting the damage it was doing to them and their ways of life...but, nope...we were robbed of that guilty little pleasure.

 

[glenn1]

No, the country is against the wall because it won't accomplish what you hope it will and costs too much. Trump doesn't even think it will do what you hope it will do. It's merely a political ploy and has always been.

I don’t really support a full border wall (although spot walls are fine) but cost is a stupid argument in light of the recent shutdown. A shutdown that will cost many multiples of the $5b that Trump was seeking for a wall in terms of paying for broken contractual obligations, back pay for employees who did no work, etc. Cost is a utilitarian argument that you no longer get to make in good-faith when you agree to accept other costs that are multiples of excess of the cost you objected to. An honest argument from cost would have sought to determine the option with the lowest possible expenditure and agree to that as quickly as possible. And in this recent example the $5 billion for the wall was almost certainly in the lowest cost option.

If you want to argue against the wall in terms of morality, or the shutdown as a price worth paying in a larger political struggle for future votes that’s fine. But crowing about spending probably $60b or $70b in costs related to a shut down in order to “save” a spend of $5 billion on the wall is stupid.

 

[Indus]

I love your post; except when you are mean.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

While we are building the wall, let's go ahead and give that communist state of california back to mexico. I am sure between socialism and communism california liberals can solve mexicos problems.

Let's not build a wall between mexico and california, let's build a wall separating communism and a free republic.

This is a good example of why we need to split Texas up into Betoland and Machine Gun Bacon country

 

[Indus]

I don’t really support a full border wall (although spot walls are fine). $5 billion on the wall is stupid.

Walls don't work.

I have a friend from Texas who has been married years and has kids with a former illegal immigrant. Guess how she got across the border?

Hint: She didn't just walk across.

 

[BoomerD]

I don’t really support a full border wall (although spot walls are fine) but cost is a stupid argument in light of the recent shutdown. A shutdown that will cost many multiples of the $5b that Trump was seeking for a wall in terms of paying for broken contractual obligations, back pay for employees who did no work, etc. Cost is a utilitarian argument that you no longer get to make in good-faith when you agree to accept other costs that are multiples of excess of the cost you objected to. An honest argument from cost would have sought to determine the option with the lowest possible expenditure and agree to that as quickly as possible. And in this recent example the $5 billion for the wall was almost certainly in the lowest cost option.

If you want to argue against the wall in terms of morality, or the shutdown as a price worth paying in a larger political struggle for future votes that’s fine. But crowing about spending probably $60b or $70b in costs related to a shut down in order to “save” a spend of $5 billion on the wall is stupid.

But the shutdown didn’t have to happen...those costs from the shitdown didn’t have to be incurred. That’s like throwing a dish against the wall...then complaining about how much it cost.
Stupid argument.

 

[glenn1]

But the shutdown didn’t have to happen...those costs from the shitdown didn’t have to be incurred. That’s like throwing a dish against the wall...then complaining about how much it cost.
Stupid argument.

But it did happen. Pointing out counterfactuals doesn’t change the calculus of a utilitarian cost argument. For example, if you objected to paying five dollars for parking and now got a $50 ticket, It still makes more sense to pay the $50 ticket then let your car get towed and pay $300 for that. It does not matter whatsoever that you could have paid five dollars for parking to begin with or park somewhere else entirely. The only choices which are valid in a utilitarian cost argument are ones which are still available to you, not ones which you could have taken earlier but chose not and at present are no longer available to you.

 

[sdifox]

I don’t really support a full border wall (although spot walls are fine) but cost is a stupid argument in light of the recent shutdown. A shutdown that will cost many multiples of the $5b that Trump was seeking for a wall in terms of paying for broken contractual obligations, back pay for employees who did no work, etc. Cost is a utilitarian argument that you no longer get to make in good-faith when you agree to accept other costs that are multiples of excess of the cost you objected to. An honest argument from cost would have sought to determine the option with the lowest possible expenditure and agree to that as quickly as possible. And in this recent example the $5 billion for the wall was almost certainly in the lowest cost option.

If you want to argue against the wall in terms of morality, or the shutdown as a price worth paying in a larger political struggle for future votes that’s fine. But crowing about spending probably $60b or $70b in costs related to a shut down in order to “save” a spend of $5 billion on the wall is stupid.

Err the dotard owns the shutdown, no one else. Go yell at him for the cost.

 

[glenn1]

Walls don't work.

I have a friend from Texas who has been married years and has kids with a former illegal immigrant. Guess how she got across the border?

Hint: She didn't just walk across.

Spot walls obviously do work where appropriate. They are a relatively low security method to discourage casual or impulse intruders. They won’t stand up to determined attack any more than the locks on your house will against a burglar, but a lock will keep out your snooping mother in law when you’re not home (unless she breaks a window).

Obviously you need to understand their limitations to understand where they do you make sense. And use them as one means out of many in order to provide overall security to the desired level. Most people would not want to live in a fortified underground bunker to maximize their security, just like most people would not want to live in a house with no walls doors or windows and people could stroll and whenever they wanted.

In the case of our country, the wall is obviously a sideshow. Unless until we decide what we’re gonna do with people who do get in to the country and stay without legal authorization Then the wall is kind of secondary. And if we do address the “what do we do with them “ question then a wall and many other considerations maybe completely pointless anyway. For example, what should our legal immigration numbers be.

 

[Jhhnn]

Spot walls obviously do work where appropriate. They are a relatively low security method to discourage casual or impulse intruders. They won’t stand up to determined attack any more than the locks on your house will against a burglar, but a lock will keep out your snooping mother in law when you’re not home (unless she breaks a window).

Obviously you need to understand their limitations to understand where they do you make sense. And use them as one means out of many in order to provide overall security to the desired level. Most people would not want to live in a fortified underground bunker to maximize their security, just like most people would not want to live in a house with no walls doors or windows and people could stroll and whenever they wanted.

In the case of our country, the wall is obviously a sideshow. Unless until we decide what we’re gonna do with people who do get in to the country and stay without legal authorization Then the wall is kind of secondary. And if we do address the “what do we do with them “ question then a wall and many other considerations maybe completely pointless anyway. For example, what should our legal immigration numbers be.

Excuse me, but Trump has made the Wall! the centerpiece of whatever passes for immigration policy in his Admin. So long as the xenophobes & bigots hold enough power to prevent honest solutions wrt immigration there will be none. Trump policy caters to that entirely.

The whole thing is more than a sideshow- it's malevolent. I mean, it's not like the people in south Texas want to be walled off from the Rio Grande, the water of life on both sides of the border. It's not like they want to be forced to sell their property to put up a symbol of irrational fear & stupidity, either.

 

[Stryke1983]

But it did happen. Pointing out counterfactuals doesn’t change the calculus of a utilitarian cost argument. For example, if you objected to paying five dollars for parking and now got a $50 ticket, It still makes more sense to pay the $50 ticket then let your car get towed and pay $300 for that. It does not matter whatsoever that you could have paid five dollars for parking to begin with or park somewhere else entirely. The only choices which are valid in a utilitarian cost argument are ones which are still available to you, not ones which you could have taken earlier but chose not and at present are no longer available to you.

A better analogy would be if a local criminal called you demanding 'protection money' or their associates will vandalize your home. We're saying no, because they are demanding money in exchange for solving a problem they are causing. Your solution is to give them the money, then when they call back a month later to just give them the money again. Then I'm assuming you'll continue to support giving them more money indefinitely. All the while the rest of us are refusing to be blackmailed and are trying to get the criminal arrested.

So based on your brilliant plan the President and Republican party can waste however much money they want, on whatever boondoggles they want and continue to ignore what's best for the country. Because if you don't give them the expensive monuments they want they'll keep trying to crash the economy until they get voted out in 2020.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I don’t really support a full border wall (although spot walls are fine) but cost is a stupid argument in light of the recent shutdown. A shutdown that will cost many multiples of the $5b that Trump was seeking for a wall in terms of paying for broken contractual obligations, back pay for employees who did no work, etc. Cost is a utilitarian argument that you no longer get to make in good-faith when you agree to accept other costs that are multiples of excess of the cost you objected to. An honest argument from cost would have sought to determine the option with the lowest possible expenditure and agree to that as quickly as possible. And in this recent example the $5 billion for the wall was almost certainly in the lowest cost option.

If you want to argue against the wall in terms of morality, or the shutdown as a price worth paying in a larger political struggle for future votes that’s fine. But crowing about spending probably $60b or $70b in costs related to a shut down in order to “save” a spend of $5 billion on the wall is stupid.

When a president declares war on his own country, you don't weigh costs, you make sure the people win and insure it never happens again. The American people have a short memory but, it's longer than the remainder of the Orange one's term.

 

[Indus]

When a president declares war on his own country, you don't weigh costs, you make sure the people win and insure it never happens again. The American people have a short memory but, it's longer than the remainder of the Orange one's term.

Yeah that's what really irks me..

A president's oath of office is to protect, defend the constitution of the United States.

Never in my lifetime have I seen the constitution under so much attack as I have in the last few years by Trump and the GOP.

 

[Viper1j]

I for one thinks this totally ruins any chance of him trying for a 2nd term@!!
Which is good news!!

He didn't cave in to Pelosi.

He just didn't want a pissed off controller guiding AF1 into a mountain.

The shocking thing, is that many of his cult are more than willing to starve their own children for him.

Jim Jones anyone? They would be first in line to drink the koolaid.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...ers-support-shutdown-blackwell-newday-vpx.cnn

Furloughed workers: We support the shutdown
Federal law enforcement officers Charles and Jill Gilbert, who did not receive paychecks during the government shutdown, say they support President Trump's efforts to fund his border wall.

 

[Jaskalas]

That is a false statement. You read Trump and he lied. Pictures of the property have been posted and yet you fail to see for yourself.

Why did you think you knew the truth of it?
Here is Obama's home wall.

Unless you'd like to argue the definition, but it seems pretty apt to me.

 

[IronWing]

I wonder if TH understands that if a wall were to be built, it would be built by a major defense contractor who would drug test employees? No wall job for TH.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Why did you think you knew the truth of it?
Here is Obama's home wall.

Unless you'd like to argue the definition, but it seems pretty apt to me.

I hardly doubt the dems would oppose a "wall" like this if you call that a wall....

 

[zzyzxroad]

Are we building a wall around the entire US now? If not the home equivalency is hairbrained and anyone making it is an idiot.

 

[Viper1j]

Why did you think you knew the truth of it?
Here is Obama's home wall.

Unless you'd like to argue the definition, but it seems pretty apt to me.

I will support a border wall made out of identical material and height of the wall in that picture. I can see the value of DECORATIVE walls. Will you be planting the same trees too?

Are we building a wall around the entire US now? If not the home equivalency is hairbrained and anyone making it is an idiot.

Walls are useless without a roof. I think we need a big beautiful roof over the entire country!!! You wouldn’t want to sleep in a house with parts of the roof missing would you?

WITHOUT A ROOF, WE’LL JUST GET BOOFED

 

[snoopy7548]

That's a gate...

And having a wall or gate around your home is perfectly fine. There are orders of magnitude more criminals in this country than of those who want to come into this country.

If we took that $5 billion and spent it on social services, we might have a good start at turning a lot of these criminals around - why resort to crime if your needs are met?

Republicans are fucking stupid.