Pelosi sets the Donald off live.

[mect]

Another side to this is discussed in this editorial I just read.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...6a6f3ce8199_story.html?utm_term=.e58beb52e2bc

He says that the dems have in effect cancelled their leverage with Trump by refusing to provide wall funding under any circumstances. This is the meat of it here:



So, have the dems decided that it's actually better policy wise to deny $5 billion to start wall construction than to legalize 2 million dreamers? Or have they, instead, decided as a political calculus that it is better to prevent Trump from delivering on his signature promise, so that they can nail him over it in 2020? If so, arguably it looks like GOP obstructionism under Obama.

I'm opposed to the wall, but I'm starting to think they should cut a deal for the dreamers here. Even if you just want to look at this cynically as pure politics, who do you think these dreamers are going to be voting for once they're legal?

I'd be okay with this if the $5 billion was taken out of the defense budget.

 

[JSt0rm]

why does the gop always blow holes in the budget?

 

[woolfe9998]

I'd be okay with this if the $5 billion was taken out of the defense budget.

Haha, yes, that would be ideal. But the more and more I think about the politics of this, in exchange for not being able to blame the shutdown on Trump, and denying him bragging rights over a wall, the dems get probably 85% of 2 million millennial aged Hispanic voters (or the ones who turn out to vote, anyway), no doubt heavily concentrated in Texas and Arizona, two light red states now trending blue and nearing a tipping point.

The condition I would put on it is, the dreamers must be legal before the end of 2019.

 

[Indus]

Giving Dreamers legal status has to be bipartisan or it becomes a political wrecking ball everytime a dreamer gets a ticket for jay walking. You'll never hear the end of it on fox news how they're terrorists, how they're isis and they're replacing Americans and blah blah blah.

 

[woolfe9998]

Giving Dreamers legal status has to be bipartisan or it becomes a political wrecking ball everytime a dreamer gets a ticket for jay walking. You'll never hear the end of it on fox news how they're terrorists, how they're isis and they're replacing Americans and blah blah blah.

Yes, but that's the beauty of it, because it would be bipartisan. I think this is a possible bill which provides funding for the wall AND legalizes the dreamers. It's a compromise deal where both parties vote it through.

 

[Indus]

If you're going to compromise for the wall, an anti gerrymandering & protecting voting rights act with actual teeth is going to be the one that gets it.

 

[ivwshane]

Another side to this is discussed in this editorial I just read.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...6a6f3ce8199_story.html?utm_term=.e58beb52e2bc

He says that the dems have in effect cancelled their leverage with Trump by refusing to provide wall funding under any circumstances. This is the meat of it here:



So, have the dems decided that it's actually better policy wise to deny $5 billion to start wall construction than to legalize 2 million dreamers? Or have they, instead, decided as a political calculus that it is better to prevent Trump from delivering on his signature promise, so that they can nail him over it in 2020? If so, arguably it looks like GOP obstructionism under Obama.

I'm opposed to the wall, but I'm starting to think they should cut a deal for the dreamers here. Even if you just want to look at this cynically as pure politics, who do you think these dreamers are going to be voting for once they're legal?

They already did that and it had bi-partisan support and trump killed it.

Why the fuck would Democrats make any concession with a known serial liar? Its a waste of time.

 

[woolfe9998]

They already did that and it had bi-partisan support and trump killed it.

Why the fuck would Democrats make any concession with a known serial liar? Its a waste of time.

They already passed a bill for wall funding and legalizing dreamers in both Houses and Trump vetoed it? When did that happen?

I think Trump will sign almost any bill that provides wall funding. He's obsessed with delivering on that promise.

 

[ivwshane]

They already passed a bill for wall funding and legalizing dreamers in both Houses and Trump vetoed it? When did that happen?

I think Trump will sign almost any bill that provides wall funding. He's obsessed with delivering on that promise.

Come on...

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/16/17017908/immigration-congress-fault-daca

 

[woolfe9998]

Come on...

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/16/17017908/immigration-congress-fault-daca

Thanks for the link. In other words, the answer to my question is NO. Trump never reneged on a specific deal to trade the Dream Act for wall funding because no such deal has ever been offered by dems. What your article discusses is that Trump was set to "make a deal" for the Dream Act - the only one specifically referenced had the dems making no concession other than they would haggle over the particulars of the Dream Act.

I'm afraid you're missing the point. Trump is whizzing his pants to build this wall. There is no doubt he would make such a deal. We're talking about a single bill containing both here, not, he gets wall funding and we have to trust him to go along with legalizing the dreamers.

There may be fair criticisms of my suggestion that the dems should make this deal, but this isn't it.

 

[JSt0rm]

the wall is just a simple solution for simple people.

 

[DrDoug]

...

There may be fair criticisms of my suggestion that the dems should make this deal, but this isn't it.

How about the fact that Republicans deal in bad faith and you can't trust them to follow through in doing anything that they are against, even if they agree to do so? Fuck the wall and fuck any Democrat that makes a deal for it.

Putin's Orange-stained Jockstrap only wants a long, thick wall to make up for his miniscule schlort.

 

[UNCjigga]

Thanks for the link. In other words, the answer to my question is NO. Trump never reneged on a specific deal to trade the Dream Act for wall funding because no such deal has ever been offered by dems. What your article discusses is that Trump was set to "make a deal" for the Dream Act - the only one specifically referenced had the dems making no concession other than they would haggle over the particulars of the Dream Act.

I'm afraid you're missing the point. Trump is whizzing his pants to build this wall. There is no doubt he would make such a deal. We're talking about a single bill containing both here, not, he gets wall funding and we have to trust him to go along with legalizing the dreamers.

There may be fair criticisms of my suggestion that the dems should make this deal, but this isn't it.

It's a known fact that Schumer offered $1.6B to begin building the wall in 2017 in exchange for DACA--Dems thought it would be prudent to let appropriations cmtes. determine budget for the wall each year like they do with most other things. Trump decided he wanted it fully funded, and then he threw ending chain migration into the mix and then all kinds of other restrictions on legal immigration. He basically ensured that no version of any such bill would pass by threatening to veto any version that didn't have what he wanted (even though he had agreed to terms earlier.)

 

[woolfe9998]

How about the fact that Republicans deal in bad faith and you can't trust them to follow through in doing anything that they are against, even if they agree to do so? Fuck the wall and fuck any Democrat that makes a deal for it.

Putin's Orange-stained Jockstrap only wants a long, thick wall to make up for his miniscule schlort.

I don't trust them for anything. But I do not understand how trust can be an issue here. If both provisions are in the same bill, the only thing Trump could do is veto it after agreeing to the deal. Which would he the same thing as never having made it to begin with, except that Trump looks like even more of an ass.

 

[woolfe9998]

It's a known fact that Schumer offered $1.6B to begin building the wall in 2017 in exchange for DACA--Dems thought it would be prudent to let appropriations cmtes. determine budget for the wall each year like they do with most other things. Trump decided he wanted it fully funded, and then he threw ending chain migration into the mix and then all kinds of other restrictions on legal immigration. He basically ensured that no version of any such bill would pass by threatening to veto any version that didn't have what he wanted (even though he had agreed to terms earlier.)

OK, let's assume that happened. That would mean they could not make a deal on the terms they discussed. Which doesn't mean they can't make one now. And even if they can't make one, then again, so what? My question was, should they try?

I'm afraid these procedural arguments are illogical. It sounds like what is motivating these arguments is an emotional predisposition against making a deal with Trump.

I'm more curious what people think of the trade off of funding the wall for DACA, assuming a deal could be made.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Finally watched the youtube video. Pretty funny, but sad at the same time. Nanchuck had a good jab to get him wound up. Pence just zoned out, at one point looked like his palm was really trying to make it to his face.

 

[dawp]

he owned them both.

no, he did not, he, and you, got played.

 

[ivwshane]

OK, let's assume that happened. That would mean they could not make a deal on the terms they discussed. Which doesn't mean they can't make one now. And even if they can't make one, then again, so what? My question was, should they try?

I'm afraid these procedural arguments are illogical. It sounds like what is motivating these arguments is an emotional predisposition against making a deal with Trump.

I'm more curious what people think of the trade off of funding the wall for DACA, assuming a deal could be made.

Assuming a deal could be made? That's the whole issue there guy.

I'm guessing you don't care about government waste and you think it's the job of congress to rubber stamp whatever the president wants regardless if it's wasteful, ineffective, and expensive.

The issue isn't that its a deal with trump, the issue is that it's a stupid deal.

 

[Demo24]

Esquire seemed to sum this up well and in a hilarious way:

https://www.esquire.com/news-politi...elosi-mocks-president-trump-wall-oval-office/


>Watch as Pelosi tries, not altogether angrily, to explain to him that he doesn't have the votes for the big, beautiful, stupid wall for which, of course, Mexico is going to pay. She says the votes aren't there. He keeps saying he can get them instantly, but that the problem is that he can't get the votes in the Senate. They're both right. He doesn't have the votes in either place. But he runs down all the applause lines that get the rubes all ginned up at his rallies, and Pelosi keeps calmly telling him that, while he's as full of shit as the Christmas goose, nevertheless he and his big, beautiful, stupid wall should get further stuffed anyway.

>(You should also notice that, off to one side, Mike Pence clearly has been shot with the trank gun by the Secret Service.)

>Even Schumer suddenly discovers a thin vein of iron in his spine and maneuvers El Caudillo del Mar-a-Lago into bragging about shutting down the government unless he gets his way, thereby undercutting any political strategy the Republicans in Congress might have been developing to blame a prospective shutdown on the Democrats. That sound you hear is the Republican congressional leadership taking delivery of a barge-load of bourbon.

 

[Bitek]

Another side to this is discussed in this editorial I just read.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...6a6f3ce8199_story.html?utm_term=.e58beb52e2bc

He says that the dems have in effect cancelled their leverage with Trump by refusing to provide wall funding under any circumstances. This was the meat of it here



So, have the dems decided that it's actually better policy wise to deny $5 billion to start wall construction than to legalize 2 million dreamers? Or have they, instead, decided as a political calculus that it is better to prevent Trump from delivering on his signature promise, so that they can nail him over it in 2020? If so, arguably it looks like GOP obstructionism under Obama.

I'm opposed to the wall, but I'm starting to think they should cut a deal for the dreamers here. Even if you just want to look at this cynically as pure politics, who do you think these dreamers are going to be voting for once they're legal?

Totally disagree on his analysis. Thoughts like this is what get Ds in trouble.

1. The dreamers were put into that position by Trump in order to take a hostage, assuming the Ds are bleeding hearts and will fold.

Giving in will embolden him to do it again. See the Huawai executive as another example.

2. The Wall itself has been rooted in racism by Trump. It's meaning has gone far beyond any practical value as an immigration deterrent (which was questionable at best.)

Giving in signals to the D base that they are weak and willing to compromise on core party values to cut deals with Trump. Him holding up his end will never be trusted... and they will find they are not either if they deal. The Wall would remain as a shameful monument to Trump's bigotry and ego, and the Democrats cowardice.

Trump has made it a politically toxic issue. They cannot, should not touch it.

 

[SMOGZINN]

So, have the dems decided that it's actually better policy wise to deny $5 billion to start wall construction than to legalize 2 million dreamers? Or have they, instead, decided as a political calculus that it is better to prevent Trump from delivering on his signature promise, so that they can nail him over it in 2020? If so, arguably it looks like GOP obstructionism under Obama.

The thing to understand is that this is a delay tactic. What Democrats mostly want is to wait for this negotiation until they have seated the new Democrat controlled House. The main question here was how much heat would they have to take to do so. The answer Trump gave them is 'almost none.'

After January 3, when the new Congress is seated, they will take up this issue again and we might just see such negotiations. What is certain is that Trump is going to have to give up more than he would have had to this week to get his wall built because he shot his mouth off and took ownership of the shutdown. It just might even turn out that the Democrats can get the legalization for the Dreamers just to fund the government with out a wall.

2. The Wall itself has been rooted in racism by Trump. It's meaning has gone far beyond any practical value as an immigration deterrent (which was questionable at best.)
...
Trump has made it a politically toxic issue. They cannot, should not touch it.

This is true as well. The wall has become a symbol of racism and xenophobia. It is going to be hard for Democrats to vote for it because of that. I think in the end if the GOP can offer enough incentive Dems will vote for it and explain to their constituency that it was worth letting them have their little monument to hate in order to protect real people today, and future congresses can simply let it fall down from lack of maintenance funding.

 

[BAMAVOO]

no, he did not, he, and you, got played.

did too. nah nah nah nah....

 

[BAMAVOO]

So the Wall is getting built?

Is that your position?

we can only hope it is.

 

[BAMAVOO]

And this is what desperation looks like!

nope, truth.

 

[BAMAVOO]

In retard chud land this is the narrative.

in reality land. of course you know nothing of this.