• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Shutdown over?

Page 47 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
SMOGZINN said:
Oh, I agree. Trump has America by the short and curlies. We are going to piss away a ton of money on a wall, and a large part of that money will probably go directly into Trump's wallet, which is why he is so adamant about it.

I'm talking about if this wall is a good idea or not, not if we are going to be blackmailed into doing it.
Click to expand...
Then don't do it...and tell the DACA folks you just couldn't compromise your self- righteous moral integrity in order to make it happen. I'm sure you'll be able to rationalize such ideological insanity in no time at all.
 
You won't see the DACA children getting citizenship for along time. Trump already said this, 10 to 12 years. How convenient. After all, with citizenship that's 700,000 new voters who will probably never vote Republican, at least in it's current form.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
And the vast majority of the public also wants increased border security as well. Why can't Democrats do the right thing? DACA is going to die because of hard-line extremists like you. It's such a fn easy compromise....for sane people.
Click to expand...

Desperate dishonesty. Wall! is not the same as increased border security. Dems have offered to fund the stupid thing where it might do some good, anyway. The only party who can't live w/o it is Trump. If the GOP worked with the Dems they'd be able to submit a veto-proof bill to increase security, protect the Dreamers & we both know it.
 
Jhhnn said:
Desperate dishonesty. Wall! is not the same as increased border security. Dems have offered to fund the stupid thing where it might do some good, anyway. The only party who can't live w/o it is Trump. If the GOP worked with the Dems they'd be able to submit a veto-proof bill to increase security, protect the Dreamers & we both know it.
Click to expand...
Walls in certain areas are indeed an effective part of border security and for you to frame it any other way is incredibly dishonest.

Dems offered to fund it? Bullshit. Schumer offered to authorize funding, but not agree to appropriate a dime (BIG difference!)....authorizations are non-binding and nobody's falling for that con. Besides...his dishonest offer is off the table anyway.
 
It seems some here are OK with Trump holding the dreamers hostage over his wall. Is this a smart political move? As of now 87% of the public thinks that those in the DACA children should be able to stay in the country and should not be deported. People aligning themselves with a viewpoint that only 13% of the public supports does not seem to be a smart political move.
 
Who controls funding? Oh, that's right, the Reps can pass funding bills whenever they choose, without a single Dem vote needed.
 
The real question should be what will this "new" DACA bill look like. Will it be funding for the wall and no path to citizenship, at least for Trumps two possible terms. Ryan seems determined to not pass anything not supported by an overwhelming majority of his caucus. That's a significant barrier to getting anything through with D vote. Anything the GOP will pass has to be sufficiently punitive and debasing for their voter constituencies to agree to, and it's hard to calibrate just where the bottom of that pit lies. Tell me about that 'bill of love,' Donny.

Anyway...The Republicans seized on the shutdown to accuse Democrats of complicity in any murders committed by any undocumented person. These guys will play hardball. Will Trump have the balls to veto a DACA bill that passes in both the House and the Senate. He's a big talker, but he's a coward and a liar.
 
Last edited:
fskimospy said:
Not exactly, as this amnesty is extremely popular among the electorate. Basically everyone is for it except the hard right nativists.

Basically it's useful to do so long as they can actually get McConnell to hold a vote on a DACA bill of some sort. Then it puts the onus for rejecting an extremely popular policy on the house, in which case you either get your preferred policy or you get yet another anchor to tie around their neck. Whether they will actually succeed in getting that vote...
Click to expand...
This is where you are wrong. Amnesty is not extremely popular. People support it in principle, but not as a condition for budget approval. There are caveats and nuances to the discussion.

I am happy to see the Senate working together towards a resolution, and I think McConnell will bring it to a vote knowing the House will blow it up, essentially keeping his promise.

In the House, the hard line nativists will demand other concessions the Democrats will never accept, and it will become a battle over who best controls the narrative, with Trump looming as the wild card instead of the leader stabilizing the discussion.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Walls in certain areas are indeed an effective part of border security and for you to frame it any other way is incredibly dishonest.
Click to expand...

I can honestly frame it as money poorly spent on border security. A mote is also an effective part of border security, but no one is suggesting we use that.

For the cost of the wall we could hire, outfit, and train 10,000 border patrol agents for 10 years. That would have a much larger impact on immigration than a wall.
 
SMOGZINN said:
I can honestly frame it as money poorly spent on border security. A mote is also an effective part of border security, but no one is suggesting we use that.

For the cost of the wall we could hire, outfit, and train 10,000 border patrol agents for 10 years. That would have a much larger impact on immigration than a wall.
Click to expand...
The wall is obviously a political symbol for Trump to get re-elected in 2020 - he gets it built, it will really help his reelection chances. Nobody actually believes it will be anymore effective than the fence that obama and hillary voted for but it sends mexicans a message straight from the american people (who voted Trump): you're not welcome here unless you go through the LEGAL immigration process. Then we will welcome you with open arms. Invading the border by the 100s of thousands ain't gonna fly anymore, especially after we've seen the negative effects that illegals can have on the country.

Could the money be spent better? Yeah probably. But Build the Wall is a better marketing tool than Train the Border, or Help the Border Patrol. Plus the wall is a lasting big middle-finger monument/symbol to people who want to circumvent the legal immigration process.
 
SMOGZINN said:
I can honestly frame it as money poorly spent on border security. A mote is also an effective part of border security, but no one is suggesting we use that.

For the cost of the wall we could hire, outfit, and train 10,000 border patrol agents for 10 years. That would have a much larger impact on immigration than a wall.
Click to expand...
More border patrol agents are needed as well....but not the end all and be all solution imo. Drones, detention centers, judges, etc. are needed as well. Certain areas do require walls and your only fooling yourself if you don't think so.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Walls in certain areas are indeed an effective part of border security and for you to frame it any other way is incredibly dishonest.

Dems offered to fund it? Bullshit. Schumer offered to authorize funding, but not agree to appropriate a dime (BIG difference!)....authorizations are non-binding and nobody's falling for that con. Besides...his dishonest offer is off the table anyway.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that barricades weren't part of border control. We likely already have them in places where they work the best.
 
White House proposes path to citizenship for 1.8 million people
In return, the White House would like to see a $25 billion investment in a trust for border infrastructure and technology, as well as more funds for personnel, and an end to family migration beyond spouses and minor children. The diversity visa lottery would also be abolished, with those visas going to work through a backlog of people already waiting for family visas and high-skilled immigration green cards.​

White House offers DACA and beyond. Will Congress act? Will Democrats obstruct and oppose?
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
More border patrol agents are needed as well....but not the end all and be all solution imo. Drones, detention centers, judges, etc. are needed as well. Certain areas do require walls and your only fooling yourself if you don't think so.
Click to expand...
Or we could just nail employers' asses to the wall and save a ton of money and human misery.
 
SP33Demon said:
The wall is obviously a political symbol for Trump to get re-elected in 2020 - he gets it built, it will really help his reelection chances. Nobody actually believes it will be anymore effective than the fence that obama and hillary voted for but it sends mexicans a message straight from the american people (who voted Trump): you're not welcome here unless you go through the LEGAL immigration process. Then we will welcome you with open arms. Invading the border by the 100s of thousands ain't gonna fly anymore, especially after we've seen the negative effects that illegals can have on the country.

Could the money be spent better? Yeah probably. But Build the Wall is a better marketing tool than Train the Border, or Help the Border Patrol. Plus the wall is a lasting big middle-finger monument/symbol to people who want to circumvent the legal immigration process.
Click to expand...

Trump's chances of re-election will likely be near zero if he makes it that far. He's also a minority president only by dint of the EC, not the will of the voters. It's a fluke, a cosmic joke & an absurdity.
 
Jaskalas said:
White House proposes path to citizenship for 1.8 million people
In return, the White House would like to see a $25 billion investment in a trust for border infrastructure and technology, as well as more funds for personnel, and an end to family migration beyond spouses and minor children. The diversity visa lottery would also be abolished, with those visas going to work through a backlog of people already waiting for family visas and high-skilled immigration green cards.​

White House offers DACA and beyond. Will Congress act? Will Democrats obstruct and oppose?
Click to expand...

Trump offers a poisoned chalice.RTFA.
 
Jaskalas said:
What is poisoned about you getting DACA?
Click to expand...


In what may end up being the most contentious piece of the proposal, the White House is also defining as border security closing "legal loopholes" that will allow it to deport more immigrants -- which would likely include changes in immigration enforcement authority that would be virtually impossible for Democrats to swallow.
Click to expand...
 
In exchange for a path to inmigration for people we all agree should probably be allowed to stay, Trump gets his wall and we make it easier to deport people that probably shouldn't be here anyway. Why not take that deal?
 
Starbuck1975 said:
In exchange for a path to inmigration for people we all agree should probably be allowed to stay, Trump gets his wall and we make it easier to deport people that probably shouldn't be here anyway. Why not take that deal?
Click to expand...

Because nobody agrees with him on the last part.

The deal is basically:

1) something everyone wants
2) something only Trump wants
3) something Trump and maybe republicans want.

Why take that deal? I’m confused.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
Because deals require a little give and a little take?
Click to expand...

So can you explain where the Republican give is? They have already said they want to legalize DACA people, so that’s not giving anything.

Like I said we have one thing both parties want and two things only republicans want. I agree with you that deals require give and take, so as soon as republicans give something I’m interested to revisit. As it stands it’s not a serious proposal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top