Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:43 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
Many of them are. Many more of them actually are in conflict with "mainstream Democrats." I would expect a serious effort at discussion would refer to powerful members of the Democratic party as "mainstream Democrats." Sweeping up any Left wing group and trying to pretend that that was what you really meant (but did not say) weakens any claim you have to arguing in good faith.
I'm not the one that first said "mainstream Democratic opposition". That was a direct quote from steronz's challenge. You understand that, right?

And if what you really want is "powerful members of the Democratic party", I started by providing a quote from Nancy Pelosi (they don't get much more powerful than her) and then followed it up with a Politico article that said "Democratic leaders are now united around delivering the president no increase over last year’s fence funding."

So let me ask you directly, do you consider that sufficient evidence that there is "mainstream Democratic opposition to that budget proposal"?

ETA: I'm somewhat sympathetic to your "many more of them actually are in conflict with "mainstream Democrats"". I mean, WTF does "NY4WHALES" care about a wall on the southern border? What jackass thought having them sign onto the letter was a good idea?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-10-2019 at 07:46 PM.
  #302  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:48 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
"mainstream Democratic opposition to that budget proposal"?
This is starting to feel like a disconnection over the word "that", as bad as the one after Obama's "You didn't build that" speech.
  #303  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:52 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I guess this is you conceding the point?
Why? You have been wrong at every turn.
  #304  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:53 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
This is starting to feel like a disconnection over the word "that", as bad as the one after Obama's "You didn't build that" speech.
What do you mean? In the post where steronz issued his challenge, he quoted (and bolded) "DHS proposes $1.6 billion to support the construction of 65 miles of new border wall system". In their opposition letter, the progressive groups wrote "no to $1.6 billion". I'm pretty sure those are all referring to the same proposal.
  #305  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:56 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
Why? You have been wrong at every turn.
I'm confident our readers can figure out who was wrong here.
  #306  
Old 01-10-2019, 08:00 PM
sharptoys sharptoys is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm confident our readers can figure out who was wrong here.
You
  #307  
Old 01-10-2019, 08:02 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm not the one that first said "mainstream Democratic opposition". That was a direct quote from steronz's challenge. You understand that, right?
Then you should use it as it would be commonly understood, not as you want to twist it to score points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
And if what you really want is "powerful members of the Democratic party", I started by providing a quote from Nancy Pelosi (they don't get much more powerful than her)
Of course, you quoted her completely out of context and simply refused to admit that you did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
and then followed it up with a Politico article that said "Democratic leaders are now united around delivering the president no increase over last year’s fence funding."
You are finally getting closer to making a point. Of course, "no increase" simply means that there will be a whole lot of money committed, again. There was no claim that any funds would be cut.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So let me ask you directly, do you consider that sufficient evidence that there is "mainstream Democratic opposition to that budget proposal"?
If you mean the $1.6 billion that the Democrats agreed to, omitting the same stupid wall demand that the GOP Senate omitted before Trump insisted it be added, I hardly consider that "opposition" to anything other than Trump's lies and temper tantrums.
  #308  
Old 01-10-2019, 08:06 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What do you mean?
I mean it sounds like one big attempt at prevarication, in which Democrats who oppose allocating funds to Trump's vanity wall (and it is a wall, as Trump has consistently described it for years) get accused of indifference over border security in general, which is clearly untrue.
  #309  
Old 01-10-2019, 08:13 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
... If you mean the $1.6 billion that the Democrats agreed to, omitting the same stupid wall demand that the GOP Senate omitted before Trump insisted it be added, I hardly consider that "opposition" to anything other than Trump's lies and temper tantrums.
What are you talking about? The $1.6B is for a "wall system". It says so right in the DHS funding request that steronz provided us:

Quote:
DHS proposes $1.6 billion to support the construction of 65 miles of new border wall system.
  #310  
Old 01-10-2019, 08:32 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What do you mean? In the post where steronz issued his challenge, he quoted (and bolded) "DHS proposes $1.6 billion to support the construction of 65 miles of new border wall system". In their opposition letter, the progressive groups wrote "no to $1.6 billion". I'm pretty sure those are all referring to the same proposal.
And yet, that $1.6 billion got a lot of Democratic votes.

HD, you are relying on a bullshit tactic of picking and choosing who speaks for the Democratic Party. When it is convenient for you, you choose one or two loopy elected officials on the fringe of the party. When it’s convenient for you, you select some random progressive groups to be the arbiter of Democratic thought. This is when there’s a damned voting record of Democratic politicians to refer to!

So I ask you to use your brain - I really do believe you are a clever guy - and knock off this really flimsy cherry picking debate strategy you’ve embraced.
  #311  
Old 01-10-2019, 09:05 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm confident our readers can figure out who was wrong here.
Oh yeah, we can. Totally.
  #312  
Old 01-10-2019, 09:05 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What are you talking about? The $1.6B is for a "wall system". It says so right in the DHS funding request that steronz provided us:
Dodge and Weave. "Trump's Wall" is the closure of the entire Mexican border. Refusal to fund that boondoggle, not every effort to secure the border, is what Trump, (and Hannity and Coulter and Limbaugh, etc.), mischaracterize as not wanting a secure border.
(Does it not make you feel put upon to have to defend that pack of liars?)
  #313  
Old 01-10-2019, 09:15 PM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
steronz,

Your silence / sudden absence is disheartening, but here's some more "challenge" material:

What do you think? Challenge resolved?
I'm glad you miss me.

Democrats have already agreed to the $1.6B in committee. What happened was that Trump decided that wasn't good enough and started negotiations over with $5.7B as his starting point. Democrats, predictably, have rolled back the previous agreement and have started their negotiating at $0B.

If you want to characterize standard negotiation tactics as opposition then have at it, declare your rhetorical victory and pat yourself on the back. But the fact that Democrats have already agreed to $1.6B for wall suggests to me that they're not opposed to it. I'm 100% convinced that, absent Trump's current tantrum, congress would go back to the negotiating table come up with a bipartisan plan that included <drumroll> the $1.6B for new barrier construction that DHS requested. And wouldn't that be a good thing? The government opens, DHS gets their money for border improvements which makes us all safer, everyone wins! Except Trump. And we're all losing now because of this nonsense.
  #314  
Old 01-10-2019, 09:29 PM
JB99 JB99 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 802
Well, as much as you people might want to pin this on the Democrats, the Republicans had two whole years of solid majority control in which they were in a much stronger position to build whatever they pleased. Trump didn't see any reason to pitch a tantrum or shut down the government. I'm waiting for someone to explain to me why not.

It is blatantly clear that when Republicans go two years without building a wall, Trump didn't care. Now that Democrats control the House, it has suddenly become a national emergency. If it wasn't important in the last two years, I don't see why it is important now.

I also remember being told Mexico would pay for it. Why should our Congress authorize money for a wall Mexico is supposed to pay for?
  #315  
Old 01-10-2019, 09:51 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB99 View Post
Well, as much as you people might want to pin this on the Democrats, the Republicans had two whole years of solid majority control in which they were in a much stronger position to build whatever they pleased. Trump didn't see any reason to pitch a tantrum or shut down the government. I'm waiting for someone to explain to me why not.

...
Well, he spent his first 2 years fully occupied with trying to impede the Mueller investigation. That was no small amount of work in between golf vacations.
(ETA: By the way, isn't it nice to be able to talk about aspects of the Trump presidency in the past tense? I think it is.)

Last edited by bobot; 01-10-2019 at 09:54 PM.
  #316  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:19 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
... If you want to characterize standard negotiation tactics as opposition then have at it, declare your rhetorical victory and pat yourself on the back. ...
Excellent!

Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
... But the fact that Democrats have already agreed to $1.6B for wall suggests to me that they're not opposed to it. I'm 100% convinced that, absent Trump's current tantrum, congress would go back to the negotiating table come up with a bipartisan plan that included <drumroll> the $1.6B for new barrier construction that DHS requested. And wouldn't that be a good thing? ...
I'm glad to see your certainty that the whole 'not even $1' is nothing but a "negotiating tactic". My impression had been that Chuck originally agreed to it (it being $1.6B), got a shitload of heat from the loony left-wing fringe, and that scared the gutless coward into rescinding the offer. You're telling me he's lying now though, so, good, I guess.
  #317  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:35 PM
The Tooth The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm confident our readers can figure out who was wrong here.
Yep. Didn't even have to read the thread.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #318  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:39 PM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm glad to see your certainty that the whole 'not even $1' is nothing but a "negotiating tactic".
Your understanding of Pelosi's comments is lacking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
My impression had been that Chuck originally agreed to it (it being $1.6B), got a shitload of heat from the loony left-wing fringe, and that scared the gutless coward into rescinding the offer.
I don't share your impression.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You're telling me he's lying now though, so, good, I guess.
If you're bothered by liars I've got some bad news for you...
  #319  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:44 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Excellent!


I'm glad to see your certainty that the whole 'not even $1' is nothing but a "negotiating tactic". My impression had been that Chuck originally agreed to it (it being $1.6B), got a shitload of heat from the loony left-wing fringe, and that scared the gutless coward into rescinding the offer. You're telling me he's lying now though, so, good, I guess.
That bit as usual leaves a lot of context:
[From the first link]

Quote:
Asked if Democrats could support spending more than $1.6 billion on border security as part of a deal with Trump, Schumer said he did not want to negotiate through the press.

The Senate passed $1.6 billion in wall funding in its Homeland Security appropriations bill, in line with the White House’s original request. But Trump has since upped the ante to $5 billion, an amount the House included in its version of the spending bill.

The president has threatened to veto any funding package that does not fund the wall at an amount to his liking.
In essence: Trump changed the deal that was made before (11/27/18)

This is excellent in the sense that you pointed to yet another item of why we are in this Trump shutdown, that was more evidence that shows why Trump can not be trusted.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-10-2019 at 11:45 PM.
  #320  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:51 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Your understanding of Pelosi's comments is lacking.

I don't share your impression. ...
What do you think I"m missing about Pelosi's comment? That's what you were referring to as a "negotiating tactic", right?

I've shared mine, but what's your impression? You said you were convinced the Dems would fund $1.6B in border fencing, right?
  #321  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:58 PM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What do you think I"m missing about Pelosi's comment? That's what you were referring to as a "negotiating tactic", right?
She was asked about Trump's wall, right? Do you think the $1.6B previously approved in the senate, that you describe as "fence" or whatever, would that colloquially count as "Trump's wall?" Would Trump describe it as such? Of course not, that's why he's rejected that offer altogether. So Trump gets a $0 dollar offer for his wall, which has nothing to do with the $1.6B DHS requested for some new barrier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I've shared mine, but what's your impression? You said you were convinced the Dems would fund $1.6B in border fencing, right?
Yes, if they're negotiating in good faith over a DHS request. That is no longer the case, the debate is now over Trump's wall, the one he promised during his campaign.

I'll say it again -- if Trump were to remove himself from the process, DHS would get their money from a bipartisan vote, the government would restart, and life would go on. But that ship has sailed, this is now about fulfilling Trump's campaign promise, despite your colorful characterization of his position as something else entirely.
  #322  
Old 01-11-2019, 03:02 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
More evidence in support of Bone's "so" rule.
Cadet's Corollary: if one consistently is misinterpreted by peopel saying "so...", one needs to become better at stating one's points clearly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm confident our readers can figure out who was wrong here.
You. Definitely. There's a pretty firm consensus on that, too.
__________________
If you want to vote for people who will attack the rights of me and those close to me, we cannot be friends, and I will not accept that you're a good person.
  #323  
Old 01-11-2019, 09:04 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,746
There seem to be two different negotiation tactics here.
You have the democrats, who had the position of being for what DHS wanted, 1.6 in increased funding, who approved and passed legislation to that effect. After the deal was agreed to, the deal changed on Trump's side, with him now demanding 5.7 b for a wall. A very natural negotiation tactic in that scenario is to say, "Well, now you are getting nothing, as you can not hold to your end of the bargain that you made."

Then you have Trump, who got the increased funding that was asked for by DHS, who then was told by right wing media that he looked weak if he took the deal. So, after he has agreed to it, he changes it. In order to have a position, rather than appeal to voters, or appeal to reason or logic, he instead appeals to holding 800,000 people, along with pretty substantial parts of the economy, hostage, to get what he, not the voters, not Law enforcement, not DHS, wants.

The first there is a fairly standard reaction to someone who has gone back on what they agreed to, and is the only way to deal with someone who will not deal in good faith.

The second is not honest, it is just bullying people to get your way, no matter who is harmed in the process.

I find the first to be entirely defensible, logical, reasonable, and moral.

I do find the latter to be, while not defensible, reasonable, or moral, entirely logical, however, as there is a reason why criminals take hostages in order to get their way. Then there are those who defend that tactic.
  #324  
Old 01-11-2019, 09:13 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Cadet's Corollary: if one consistently is misinterpreted by peopel saying "so...", one needs to become better at stating one's points clearly.



You. Definitely. There's a pretty firm consensus on that, too.
You're not really one of the "readers" though, are you?

It's rather routine for the libs here to deliberately mis-characterize conservative positions.

And by "readers" I'm not really referring to the posters on our incredibly-left-wing forum, I'm talking about the more diverse group of people that lurk or stumble across this thread from elsewhere.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-11-2019 at 09:15 AM.
  #325  
Old 01-11-2019, 09:18 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It's rather routine for the libs here to deliberately mis-characterize conservative positions.
And you have examples in mind, I'm sure.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #326  
Old 01-11-2019, 09:19 AM
SingleMalt SingleMalt is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Front Range
Posts: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
There seem to be two different negotiation tactics here.
You have the democrats, who had the position of being for what DHS wanted, 1.6 in increased funding, who approved and passed legislation to that effect. After the deal was agreed to, the deal changed on Trump's side, with him now demanding 5.7 b for a wall. A very natural negotiation tactic in that scenario is to say, "Well, now you are getting nothing, as you can not hold to your end of the bargain that you made."

Then you have Trump, who got the increased funding that was asked for by DHS, who then was told by right wing media that he looked weak if he took the deal. So, after he has agreed to it, he changes it. In order to have a position, rather than appeal to voters, or appeal to reason or logic, he instead appeals to holding 800,000 people, along with pretty substantial parts of the economy, hostage, to get what he, not the voters, not Law enforcement, not DHS, wants.

The first there is a fairly standard reaction to someone who has gone back on what they agreed to, and is the only way to deal with someone who will not deal in good faith.

The second is not honest, it is just bullying people to get your way, no matter who is harmed in the process.

I find the first to be entirely defensible, logical, reasonable, and moral.

I do find the latter to be, while not defensible, reasonable, or moral, entirely logical, however, as there is a reason why criminals take hostages in order to get their way. Then there are those who defend that tactic.
Of course, there's also the fact that $5.7 billion is a lot of money for a mnemonic device.
  #327  
Old 01-11-2019, 09:27 AM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,406
HurricaneDitka, I'd really like to hear your response to this:


Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
...You have the democrats, who had the position of being for what DHS wanted, 1.6 in increased funding, who approved and passed legislation to that effect. After the deal was agreed to, the deal changed on Trump's side, with him now demanding 5.7 b for a wall. A very natural negotiation tactic in that scenario is to say, "Well, now you are getting nothing, as you can not hold to your end of the bargain that you made."

Then you have Trump, who got the increased funding that was asked for by DHS, who then was told by right wing media that he looked weak if he took the deal. So, after he has agreed to it, he changes it. In order to have a position, rather than appeal to voters, or appeal to reason or logic, he instead appeals to holding 800,000 people, along with pretty substantial parts of the economy, hostage, to get what he, not the voters, not Law enforcement, not DHS, wants.

Clearly you feel this is a misrepresentation of the facts. Would you please enumerate which of the above statements is incorrect to your thinking?
  #328  
Old 01-11-2019, 09:48 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It's rather routine for the libs here to deliberately mis-characterize conservative positions.
Possible alternative explanation: conservative positions have become so nonsensical and wrongheaded (see also: the recent republican attempt to pretend that the 5 billion dollars in question are not actually about the wall) that any position conservatives tend to stake out is basically indefensible if it's coherent at all. Because liberals attempt to take those positions as though they were internally consistent and supposed to make actual policy sense, they end up unintentionally misinterpreting conservatives - which conservatives then turn into a conspiracy theory - because on the right everything is a conspiracy - that liberals here have it out for them.

I mean, it makes as much sense as what you're saying.
  #329  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:51 AM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,729
Let's not pretend that anyone other than Trump is responsible for the shutdown.

Quote:
In a sign of growing unease about the partial government shutdown, some Senate Republicans came off the sidelines to hash out a deal that would reopen the government as Congress worked toward a broader agreement tying wall funds to protection for some undocumented immigrants and other migrants.

But before those negotiations could gain momentum, they collapsed. Vice President Mike Pence and other members of Mr. Trump’s team let it be known privately that the president would not back such a deal.
Trump started this, Trump claimed he would own it, Trump is continuing this. Trump, Trump, Trump and only Trump. No mischaracterization here.
  #330  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:06 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,301
I am beginning to see a new trend forming. Here and there, the suggestion is being put forth that this Wall thing should be addressed in the same manner as we deal with gun violence.

thoughts and prayers for the Wall
  #331  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:24 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingleMalt View Post
Of course, there's also the fact that $5.7 billion is a lot of money for a mnemonic device.
When you're too bat-shit right-wing crazy even for Forbes, that's pretty bat-shit!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forbes.com
“Inside Trump’s circle, the power of illegal immigration to manipulate popular sentiment was readily apparent, and his advisers brainstormed methods for keeping their attention-addled boss on message,” writes Joshua Green, author of Devil’s Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Nationalist Uprising. “They needed a trick, a mnemonic device. In the summer of 2014, they found one that clicked.”
... The concept of the Wall did not click right away with the candidate. “Initially, Trump seemed indifferent to the idea,” writes Green. “But in January 2015, he tried it out at the Iowa Freedom Summit, a presidential cattle call put on by David Bossie’s group, Citizens United. ‘One of his pledges was, ‘I will build a Wall,’ and the place just went nuts,’ said Nunberg. Warming to the concept, Trump waited a beat and then added a flourish that brought down the house. ‘Nobody,’ he said, ‘builds like Trump.’”
[off-topic]The Forbes website goes berserk goes ape-shit with its Javascripts or whatever-the-f**k and locks up my laptop. To read that page I must hit Ctrl-U and blow away the main tab.
  #332  
Old 01-13-2019, 08:24 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,886
Somehow the "master negotiator" Trump has failed to realize that he might actually have to give something that the Democrats want (but he doesn't) in order to get the thing that he wants but the Democrats don't (the racist symbol that is the wall).
  #333  
Old 01-13-2019, 08:45 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,047
If Trump himself had written The Art Of The Deal it would have fit on one page and read like one of his idiot tweets.
1) Make ridiculous demad.
2) Take and mistreat hostages.
3) Stew in the corner like a child.

Last edited by bobot; 01-13-2019 at 08:46 AM.
  #334  
Old 01-13-2019, 08:56 AM
scr4 scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 15,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Somehow the "master negotiator" Trump has failed to realize that he might actually have to give something that the Democrats want (but he doesn't) in order to get the thing that he wants but the Democrats don't (the racist symbol that is the wall).
Only if the wall is the real goal. I don't think it is. Getting attention and appearing strong is his real goal, and he thinks he's getting that now.
  #335  
Old 01-13-2019, 02:23 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
If Trump himself had written The Art Of The Deal it would have fit on one page and read like one of his idiot tweets.
1) Make ridiculous demad.
2) Take and mistreat hostages.
3) Stew in the corner like a child.
Exactly, that is his negotiation tactic. He doesn't negotiate in good faith, he finds some sort of leverage with which to bully his opponent.

The 800,000 workers, the services that they provide, and the ripple effects to the economy are not in any way related to the wall. They are simply leverage that he has to get what he wants.

In real estate, he didn't negotiate in good faith, he bullied others, contractors or sellers or buyers, and used leverage on them to get favorable deals for himself.

That's why no one was willing to deal with him anymore.
  #336  
Old 01-13-2019, 03:11 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
Only if the wall is the real goal. I don't think it is. Getting attention and appearing strong is his real goal, and he thinks he's getting that now.
Distracting from the criminal investigations into his candidacy, his presidency, and himself is the real goal, IMHO.
  #337  
Old 01-13-2019, 03:52 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,047
A cool write up about the history of Trump's claims about the wall. (With cool wall graphics that change as you scroll through.) Washington Post, the guys who got Nixon.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...=.024d4a152387
  #338  
Old 01-13-2019, 06:33 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
… I'm not really referring to the posters on our incredibly-left-wing forum …
The evidence seems to indicate that ignorance (which we struggle against here) has a strong right-wing bias. Sorry about that.
  #339  
Old 01-13-2019, 07:17 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,729
Seth Myers had a wonderful set of clips tracing the cost of the wall over time as spoken by Trump himself. It starts at $5 billion, and goes to 6, 7, 8, 10-12, 20 and 25 billion. Then he played a clip of Trump denigrating those people who say the wall would cost $20 or $25 billion as well as one of him insisting the wall would be made of hardened concrete.

I have to assume that the segment will never be shown on Fox News. Even after Trump is impeached.
  #340  
Old 01-13-2019, 09:40 PM
nelliebly nelliebly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 998
Despite all Trump's efforts, the majority of Americans oppose the wall and blame him for the shutdown, and his disapproval rating is up 5 points, according to a new CNN poll.

56% oppose a wall
39% favor it

52% do NOT believe there's an immigration crisis
45% believe there is a crisis.

Quote:
Among those who do see the situation as a crisis, most feel that a border wall would help improve things. The subset who feels that way, however, amounts to only 31% of US adults.
By party:

80% of Republicans support the wall
10% of Dems

70% of GOP think there's a crisis at the border
66% of them think a wall would fix it.

75% of Dems say there is no crisis
4% think there is, and a wall would fix it

Trump's Approval rating:

57% disapprove
37% approve


While his approval rate is the same, the increase in his disapproval rating comes from non-college-educated white males. They still support the wall, but they blame Trump for the shutdown.
  #341  
Old 01-13-2019, 10:40 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
Despite all Trump's efforts, the majority of Americans oppose the wall and blame him for the shutdown, and his disapproval rating is up 5 points, according to a new CNN poll.
The thing about CNN is that we have the internet. We can go back in time and review political statements made by other politicians.

We can see that Obama said it was a crisis and media outlets dutifully repeated it. There was no push-back from Pelosi or Schumer. They voted for the wall in 2013.

What Obama said from same cite above:
"We now have an actual humanitarian crisis on the borer that only underscores the need to drop the politics and fix our immigration system once and for all," then-President Barack Obama said in the Rose Garden in 2014. "In recent weeks we've seen a surge of unaccompanied children arrive at the border, brought here and to other countries by smugglers and traffickers."
  #342  
Old 01-13-2019, 11:04 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
The thing about CNN is that we have the internet. We can go back in time and review political statements made by other politicians.

We can see that Obama said it was a crisis and media outlets dutifully repeated it. There was no push-back from Pelosi or Schumer. They voted for the wall in 2013.

What Obama said from same cite above:
"We now have an actual humanitarian crisis on the borer that only underscores the need to drop the politics and fix our immigration system once and for all," then-President Barack Obama said in the Rose Garden in 2014. "In recent weeks we've seen a surge of unaccompanied children arrive at the border, brought here and to other countries by smugglers and traffickers."
On the internet we can also point that in 2014 the number of people caught at the border was increasing, after that it dropped and if 2014 was a crisis for a few months, calling the current one is even more of a stretch still.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/22/62224...n-three-graphs

As for the Pelosi and Shumer, that is mostly false:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...wall-position/
Quote:
Our ruling

Trump said Schumer has "has repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past along with many other Democrats. They changed their mind only after I was elected president."

Schumer, along with tens of other Democrats including former President Barack Obama, voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorized building a fence along about 700 miles of the border between the United States and Mexico. That’s the majority of the barrier in place today along the southern border.

However, the fence was mocked as a "nothing wall" by Trump in the past and was far less ambitious, both politically and physically, than the wall Trump wants to build now.

Finally, Trump says the Democrats no longer support their previous position simply because he wants it. But Democrats have actually proposed current funding for the fencing that was approved in 2006.

We rate this statement Mostly False.
So yes, "the fence was mocked as a "nothing wall" by Trump in the past and was far less ambitious, both politically and physically".

Besides that, one should notice that this is a bit of an avoidance of what nelliebly noticed, avoiding the asinine things that Trump is saying now does not make for a good argument.
  #343  
Old 01-13-2019, 11:53 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
On the internet we can also point that in 2014 the number of people caught at the border was increasing, after that it dropped and if 2014 was a crisis for a few months, calling the current one is even more of a stretch still.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/22/62224...n-three-graphs
looking at your own cite the numbers are in line with 2014 when Obama made the statement in my cite. We now have convoys coming to this country and it’s made worse by Democratic attempts to derail border control with sanctuary cities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
As for the Pelosi and Shumer, that is mostly false:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...wall-position/
Your cite has nothing to do with the fact that Pelosi and Schumer supported the wall. It also doesn’t reflect media attention given to illegal aliens stuck at the border. It’s a crisis but they can’t use the word in a sentence because it gives the appearance of agreeing with Trump.
  #344  
Old 01-14-2019, 12:30 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
looking at your own cite the numbers are in line with 2014 when Obama made the statement in my cite. We now have convoys coming to this country and it’s made worse by Democratic attempts to derail border control with sanctuary cities.

Your cite has nothing to do with the fact that Pelosi and Schumer supported the wall. It also doesn’t reflect media attention given to illegal aliens stuck at the border. It’s a crisis but they can’t use the word in a sentence because it gives the appearance of agreeing with Trump.
Nah, it is clear that you are ignoring what Trump did not call it a wall. And the ones at Politifact concluded that it remains a mostly false statement for the reason that it was not the wall that Trump is planning now.
  #345  
Old 01-14-2019, 01:20 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,301
nm

Last edited by eschereal; 01-14-2019 at 01:21 AM.
  #346  
Old 01-14-2019, 07:47 AM
Ruken Ruken is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
the fact that Pelosi and Schumer supported the wall.
They did not support "the wall". What you wrote is not true.
  #347  
Old 01-14-2019, 08:57 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Your cite has nothing to do with the fact that Pelosi and Schumer supported the wall.
That fence (or wall if you prefer) has been built and it’s complete. Why do you want to spend $50 billion to replace what was just completed? Are you falling for some Trump-like Florida real estate scam?

Quote:
It also doesn’t reflect media attention given to illegal aliens stuck at the border. It’s a crisis but they can’t use the word in a sentence because it gives the appearance of agreeing with Trump.
Illegal border crossings are down 80%. What kind of bad thing goes down and then becomes a crisis?
  #348  
Old 01-14-2019, 12:54 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,559
The phrase "the wall" is now being used disingenuously as a straw man among detractors. there is no plan to build a 30-foot tall wall from gun to ocean. The plan on the table is to supplement the existing barriers (which work!) with about 240 miles of additional barriers, most recently described as steel slats. So, if you want to argue against that, have at it. But don't be like childish Pelosi and Schumer and allow the concept of something wall-like for Trump (even though it's more fence-like) short circuit the your the brain.
  #349  
Old 01-14-2019, 12:56 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,504
We'll know what Trump means by a wall when he says it.
  #350  
Old 01-14-2019, 01:02 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
We'll know what Trump means by a wall when he says it.
Evidently not.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017