Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:09 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 385
What can Dems extort from Trump in exchange for the wall?

I think Dems are already doing exactly the right thing -- not giving an inch to the toddler throwing a temper tantrum.

But if he wants his $5.7 billion so badly, why not take advantage of his inept dealmaking and put together a trade? Lots of people (mostly Republicans) have already suggested DACA protection in exchange for the wall, but that's just something they already had under Obama. Here are a few things off the top of my head I might propose as a trade for the $5.7 billion:
  • Immediate full citizenship for all Dreamers
  • Full federal recognition of sanctuary city status
  • Complete cessation of deportation efforts for non-felons
  • Immediate amnesty for all undocumented aliens meeting reasonable conditions
  • Clear, attainable path to citizenship for amnestied aliens

Don't bother replying that his base will never go for it. That's a given, and fuck them anyway. Trump is such an infantile egomaniac, he might just go for it. And it would go a long way toward solving our "problem" with undocumented aliens, to the extent that it's even a problem.

What do you think? What would your wall trade package include?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.

Last edited by Akaj; 01-10-2019 at 02:13 PM.
  #2  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:15 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,034
I wouldn't engage in any transactional horse-trading with Trump. He's completely untrustworthy, and I'd have no faith he would carry out any agreement. He's already making noise about overriding congressional decisions not to fund the wall by declaring an emergency... why should I trust him not to deport DACA kids after a law is passed?

I'd just angle for a border security package that actually does some good and isn't a vanity/campaign project.
  #3  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:17 PM
Tatterdemalion Tatterdemalion is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 527
The Democrats are trying to do that.

Trump walked out

If Trump won't negotiate, it's kind of hard to get anything done.
  #4  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:23 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,254
Well, his resignation and suicide seems the obvious choice.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #5  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:27 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I wouldn't engage in any transactional horse-trading with Trump. He's completely untrustworthy, and I'd have no faith he would carry out any agreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatterdemalion View Post
If Trump won't negotiate, it's kind of hard to get anything done.
Yes, all true, but play along. Let's pretend Trump gets desperate enough to deal when he sees the Dems won't budge, and let's further pretend the deal could be structured so Trump doesn't get a cent until the entire package is signed, sealed and delivered. (And while we're at it, let's pretend none of it needs Senate approval.)

Under those fantasy conditions, what would you consider a fair trade for holding your nose and partially funding the wall?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #6  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:29 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,054
I think it would be easy to get Trump to give concessions on things that aren't related to the immigration issue. Any concessions on immigration would be considered a surrender by his base, but something totally unrelated - like China policy, tariffs, environment, Paris Accord, etc. wouldn't get as much heat, if any.
  #7  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:31 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I wouldn't engage in any transactional horse-trading with Trump. He's completely untrustworthy, and I'd have no faith he would carry out any agreement.
Tru dat.

Here's my proposal: Pelosi should tell Trump that if the Senate passes and Trump signs the House appropriations bill 'as is', then she promises to tack on the $5.7B for the wall onto H.R.1, which she guarantees will pass the House, after which the Senate Republicans will have no Dem opposition to getting it to Trump's desk.

1) The deal should be structured this way so that if Trump agrees to the deal then changes his mind before signing the House bill, the Dems haven't given up anything.

2) If Trump and/or McConnell decide later that H.R.1 is too big a price to pay for wall funding, it's no loss for the Dems: H.R.1 wasn't going to pass anyway.

3) If Trump tells McConnell that he wants his wall funding, dammit, and all that voting rights stuff doesn't matter to him one way or the other, then $5.7B is a small price to pay for getting H.R.1 onto the books.
  #8  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:33 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Well, his resignation and suicide seems the obvious choice.
His resignation would suffice! I want him to live a long, long time after he leaves the White House - and spend most of that time behind bars.
  #9  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:33 PM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 57,827
Lower the qualifying age for Medicare by seven years annually for ten years.

That gives time for the Government to lower health care costs and for health insurance companies to switch to insuring cars and houses.
  #10  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:33 PM
Tatterdemalion Tatterdemalion is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Yes, all true, but play along. Let's pretend Trump gets desperate enough to deal when he sees the Dems won't budge, and let's further pretend the deal could be structured so Trump doesn't get a cent until the entire package is signed, sealed and delivered. (And while we're at it, let's pretend none of it needs Senate approval.)

Under those fantasy conditions, what would you consider a fair trade for holding your nose and partially funding the wall?
The Democrats have already made their offer - a path do citizenship for the DACA recipients.

There's no need for any hypotheticals here. The Dems already offered, Trump already shot them down.
  #11  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:33 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,930
How about his tax records, a promise to testify under oath for the Mueller investigation and a public apology for his role in spreading lies about Obama?
  #12  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:35 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Under those fantasy conditions, what would you consider a fair trade for holding your nose and partially funding the wall?
Trump will not nominate anyone for any judicial vacancy until January 21, 2021. That's fair.
  #13  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:35 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I think it would be easy to get Trump to give concessions on things that aren't related to the immigration issue. Any concessions on immigration would be considered a surrender by his base, but something totally unrelated - like China policy, tariffs, environment, Paris Accord, etc. wouldn't get as much heat, if any.
It depends on how worked up his base has historically been over an issue. His supporters have been anti-environmentalists for decades; they'd be about as happy with environment-related concessions as they would if he appointed Hillary as Secretary of State.
  #14  
Old 01-10-2019, 02:51 PM
Smapti Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 15,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Trump will not nominate anyone for any judicial vacancy until January 21, 2021. That's fair.
Except, of course, appointing Obama to the Supreme Court.
  #15  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:24 PM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 57,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Except, of course, appointing Obama to the Supreme Court.
Someone must die first, unless the resignation of the last two guys is part of the deal.
  #16  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:30 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Someone must die first, unless the resignation of the last two guys is part of the deal.
If Trump promises that, I'm betting RBG retires almost immediately.
  #17  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:40 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,504
Only after they do. Nobody sane would do something just because of a Trump promise.
  #18  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:59 PM
Apollyon Apollyon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 2,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
she promises to tack on the $5.7B for the wall onto H.R.1...
Question: does POTUS have line item veto power? Could this be used to gut a bill but still get the tacked on funding?
  #19  
Old 01-10-2019, 04:06 PM
silenus's Avatar
silenus silenus is offline
Isaiah 1:15/Screw the NRA
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 50,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apollyon View Post
Question: does POTUS have line item veto power? Could this be used to gut a bill but still get the tacked on funding?
Nope. That issue was settled by Clinton vs City of New York, 1998.
  #20  
Old 01-10-2019, 04:27 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 20,832
If Trump cared about immigration, he would be doing things to stop immigration. Instead, he loafed on the subject until Congress was about to start investigating his past in earnest and then shut everything down and turned it into a spectacle for fundraising (either for the 2020 election, or to throw into his "go bag"). So, practically speaking, there's nothing that they could offer him that he'll take, because he'll always go one higher, to keep things off the rails.

But there is the chance that they didn't offer a certain quantity of something, but instead a very specific something, that he would have to fold. As I have said, they should offer to fund the wall, at whatever dollar value he wants, if the bill to fund it also includes provisions for tracking down and arresting business owners who employ illegal workers.

If Trump accepts it, he's at legal risk himself and will upset a whole bunch of people in his previous line of work - who he is still friends with - and if he rejects it, then the Democrats can walk all over him, because the common man loves the idea of arresting rich people. Trump thrives on populism, but his policy isn't actually very populist, and you can call him on that, real easy, if you're willing.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 01-10-2019 at 04:29 PM.
  #21  
Old 01-10-2019, 04:33 PM
Gray Ghost Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Trump will not nominate anyone for any judicial vacancy until January 21, 2021. That's fair.
Not happening. Appointing judges and justices was one of the reasons for many to vote for Trump vs. Clinton. He bails on that, or if he bails on the wall or other immigration enforcement, he might as well pull an LBJ and not even show up for the election.

What I could see him doing is trading some form of gun control for the wall. Trump isn't a gun guy at all, and has publicly delighted in defying the NRA in the past. How does a federal UBC---make every transfer go through an FFL---and/or 'red flag law' in exchange for wall funding sound? I don't think you could get an assault weapons ban through---Trump'd be OK with it, but a lot of Senators and Reps wouldn't be---but that's the sort of concession I think you could reasonably try to pry out of Trump.

Last edited by Gray Ghost; 01-10-2019 at 04:33 PM.
  #22  
Old 01-10-2019, 04:44 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,546
While I'm fine with assuming Trump gets desperate enough, I don't think we can take it further to "Trump can actually be trusted to do what he says." So anything about things he "will" or "won't" do is out. Those are promises he will renege on.

I like the idea of tacking it onto HR1. And the way you said to implement it is brilliant. Tacking it onto a bill Dems want and Pubs don't makes it where the Dems either get a win or are no worse off.

What's more, I think that, if Trump wanted to, he could sell his base on HR1 quite easily, since he actually ran on reducing corruption in government. If he does, the Pubs can either grow balls and not agree with him, or agree with him and give the Dems what they want.

If this was some other forum, I'd have said RTFirefly won the thread. But maybe some of you can come up with something even better.
  #23  
Old 01-10-2019, 04:57 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost View Post
Not happening. Appointing judges and justices was one of the reasons for many to vote for Trump vs. Clinton.
If he doesn't take a fair deal, then fuck it. He can run for re-election on getting the wall built -- why should I sign up for a deal where he gets the wall AND his appointees AND who knows what else? His campaign is his problem.
  #24  
Old 01-10-2019, 05:06 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Lower the qualifying age for Medicare by seven years annually for ten years.

That gives time for the Government to lower health care costs and for health insurance companies to switch to insuring cars and houses.
Thats what I'm talking about.

Going back to Obama level rules about DACA isn't really a win. Even by democrat standards (which tend to be pretty pathetic).

If Trump expands medicare, then we should give him his white nationalist monument. Thats about it.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #25  
Old 01-10-2019, 05:08 PM
Gray Ghost Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
If he doesn't take a fair deal, then fuck it. He can run for re-election on getting the wall built -- why should I sign up for a deal where he gets the wall AND his appointees AND who knows what else? His campaign is his problem.
Cool. If you have a problem with judicial nominees, complain to the Senate. Expecting absolutely no new judges or justices to be appointed over the next two years is frankly silly, and you would have had zero problem telling me the same thing if I were to advocate such during, say, the last two years of Obama's Presidency. I was suggesting things that the Democrats could likely push for and get in exchange for giving Trump his big stupid, typically populist, public works project that won't do a damned thing to forestall illegal immigration.

I'm sure there are other concessions he'd likely make. Trump isn't a doctrinaire conservative. I'm not sure he could even spell Buckley, Kirk, or LOL Goldwater, never mind know who they were. Ask for things he's likely to give you, even if a typical Republican wouldn't dream of giving them to you.

Aside, why is a government shutdown always the Republican guy's fault?
  #26  
Old 01-10-2019, 05:22 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost View Post
Aside, why is a government shutdown always the Republican guy's fault?
I dunno about "always", but nobody with even the barest hint of an awareness of the current situation can honestly claim this shutdown isn't squarely at the feet of the Trump himself.
  #27  
Old 01-10-2019, 05:27 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 11,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost View Post
Aside, why is a government shutdown always the Republican guy's fault?
I don't know that they are. The 2013 shutdown and the current one are clearly a case of the Republican party wanting to change something (repeal the ACA, build a wall), not having enough votes/the presidency to accomplish it, and refusing to continue funding normal operations. Plus in both cases, there's a main figure from the Republican party (Cruz, Trump) on video threatening to shut down the government if they don't get what they want. So that seems fairly clear.

The one a year ago could arguably be placed at the feet of the Democrats, who refused to continue normal funding until DACA was considered.

Wikipedia is a bit too sparse and I don't remember enough of the specifics either way to know how best to attribute the Clinton/Gingrich era shutdowns.
  #28  
Old 01-10-2019, 05:59 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost View Post
Aside, why is a government shutdown always the Republican guy's fault?
President Trump: I don't mind owning government shutdown (video)
  #29  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:50 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Well, like many buildings, he doesn't actually own it, but his name is sure on it.
  #30  
Old 01-10-2019, 08:33 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost View Post
Aside, why is a government shutdown always the Republican guy's fault?
Trump's publicly saying that he's willing to keep the shutdown going as long as it takes in order to get his wall. He's saying that he's the guy who decides and he can end the shutdown when he wants to.

Of course, Trump is also publicly saying that the shutdown is entirely the Democrats' fault. Which means he's saying that he has no control over the shutdown or when it ends.

How does Trump believe both of these things at the same time? I don't know.
  #31  
Old 01-10-2019, 08:34 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 24,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
What do you think? What would your wall trade package include?
Nothing; no deal. Trump reneges on deals all the time so there's no point in making one with him.
  #32  
Old 01-10-2019, 08:38 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost View Post
Expecting absolutely no new judges or justices to be appointed over the next two years is frankly silly, and you would have had zero problem telling me the same thing if I were to advocate such during, say, the last two years of Obama's Presidency.
Did you say this when the Republicans said Obama couldn't appoint any new justices in the last year of his presidency? Or is this a new rule you adopted after Trump got elected? Or is the line separating silliness and not-silliness drawn somewhere between one and two years? Can you tell us how many months it is?
  #33  
Old 01-10-2019, 08:45 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Nothing; no deal. Trump reneges on deals all the time so there's no point in making one with him.
That's not an impasse. All it means is that you need the deal to be completed before the laws are passed so he can sign, or the deal baked into the text of the law as he signs it.

Or the HR1 idea, which pins whatever Trump gets to him actually keeping his promise. He has to be willing to sign that bill and get his Republicans on board if he wants to get his wall funding.

You can still make deals with untrustworthy people. If you couldn't, capitalism would grind to a halt.

It just requires making reneging undesirable or actually to your benefit.

Last edited by BigT; 01-10-2019 at 08:47 PM.
  #34  
Old 01-10-2019, 08:45 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,413
Even if one could trust Trump, which of course you can't, there is nothing the Democrats could get from him that's worth it.

The single best thing the United States of America can do for itself is get Donald Trump out of office. No other extant issue is that important. Getting him his stupid wall vastly increases the likelihood he will remain in office.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #35  
Old 01-10-2019, 08:52 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 24,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
That's not an impasse.
Hmmm... I could swear that I wrote that it was, in fact, an impasse for me.
  #36  
Old 01-10-2019, 08:57 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost View Post
Cool. If you have a problem with judicial nominees, complain to the Senate. Expecting absolutely no new judges or justices to be appointed over the next two years is frankly silly....
The reason I think it is a fair offer is that the no appointments proposal is just as silly as Trump’s wall. That’s why it’s a fair deal. If Trump thinks his farts don’t smell and he doesn’t think it’s a fair deal, then he can reject it and shove the wall where it belongs.

Quote:
I'm sure there are other concessions he'd likely make.
Donald Trump wants two scoops of ice cream, and then gives everyone else one. In his mind, that’s a fair deal. Nobody else should find that a fair deal. So basing my expectation of a fair deal on the basis of what Donnie Two Scoops is willing to give up is inherently a laughable metric.

Quote:
Aside, why is a government shutdown always the Republican guy's fault?
In the words of an old comedian, Republicans campaign for office on the basis of government not working, then once in office they do everything they can to prove it. With the exception of that aborted shutdown a while back where Dems wanted DACA and shut down government for like a weekend, Republicans have deliberately shut down government to achieve their agenda. So, if the shoe fits....

Last edited by Ravenman; 01-10-2019 at 08:58 PM.
  #37  
Old 01-10-2019, 09:18 PM
Gray Ghost Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Did you say this when the Republicans said Obama couldn't appoint any new justices in the last year of his presidency? Or is this a new rule you adopted after Trump got elected? Or is the line separating silliness and not-silliness drawn somewhere between one and two years? Can you tell us how many months it is?
Oh please Nemo. You and I have been around here long enough to know that's not the case, and that I've had plenty of things I've found wrong with Trump, and W before him. The 'rule' about not seating a judicial candidate in the last year or so of a lame duck President's term, when the Senate is divided, goes back to Fortas and LBJ, if not further. Biden, when he was Judiciary Chair, famously wanted to prevent a SJ nominee at the end of the HW Presidency. If you want someone to blame, take it up with Harry Reid's idiotic idea to change the number of votes from 60 to a simple majority in the case of judicial nominees. Probably thought the Democratic Party would never lose another majority. Oops.

No, my comment on the shut down comes from the media-driven perception that whether it's a GOP Congress and Dem President, or it's a Dem Congress and GOP President, any shut down is automatically the Republican's fault. Be he Gingrich, or Ryan, or Trump.

You know, compromise usually means giving the other side some of what they want, along with you getting some of what you want. Compromise is not supposed to be you getting half of what you want, while the other side goes and pounds sand. Give Trump his stupid wall. It's just going to be torn down when your lot wins in 2020 anyway. Or, better yet, as I keep writing here, ask for something that a populist like him would be happy to give away, in exchange for whatever governmental pocket change his silly pet project is going to end up costing. Don't worry, I'm sure the wall will work as well at interdicting the flow of Democrat-voting human cargo, about as well as the rest of the border's security works to interdict other contraband.
  #38  
Old 01-10-2019, 10:17 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
You can still make deals with untrustworthy people. If you couldn't, capitalism would grind to a halt.
No, they'd just have to borrow from Russian banks instead.
  #39  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:46 PM
China Guy China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,463
I'm of two minds. A shutdown is a terrible thing to waste, and offers a bargaining opportunity to ram a whole load of unpalatable gains like DACA down Trumps throat. (I'm also not a nitwit, so this is structured as an irreversible hard deal and not some bullshit trumpy promise.)

On the other hand, Trump the shutdown owning terrorist has completely backed himself into a corner, and this could the right time to play hardball all the way.

Who else laughed out loud at Trump the Actor storming out of the meeting with Pelosi? Almost as Oscar award winning as Pence storming out of the NFL game with players taking a knee. Both totally spontaneous because "they couldn't tolerate" such indignities to the US of A. If this was a Hollywood movie, it would be panned as so unrealistic.

Last edited by China Guy; 01-10-2019 at 11:46 PM.
  #40  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:09 AM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,567
Give him money to go away. That's it. No wall; don't do that to property owners on the Rio Grande. Just give him more money than he's ever seen in his life (which would be, AIUI, a bit less than half what he's asking for the wall) to leave. He must agree to no longer be President, renounce his US citizenship, move to Europe, and never pester us again. And he has to take young Stephen Miller with him.
  #41  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:24 AM
The Tooth The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,450
Which European country do you think would want take him?
  #42  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:26 AM
The Tooth The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,450
As for Miller, I see in his future aviator sunglasses, a Hawaiian shirt, a suitcase full of cash, a bungalow in Honduras, and the knowledge that if he returns to the US he'll be imprisoned for life.
__________________
"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
  #43  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:34 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 6,095
A very easy legislative thing that Democrats have not talked about at all for some reason is overturning that recent Obamacare ruling. It could (AFAIK) be done with a single line of text severing (or just flat-out repealing) the individual mandate. It's very easy and comports with what Republicans pretend to believe, so it should be added to the pile.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 01-11-2019 at 01:36 AM.
  #44  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:56 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tooth View Post
Which European country do you think would want take him?
Hungary and Poland. Autocrats support autocrats.
  #45  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:56 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 6,095
I also kind of want to see if he could be conned into supporting DC statehood. Bait him with comments about how no President since Eisenhower has gotten to change the flag, and how there would be a Trump Star but no Obama Star.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 01-11-2019 at 01:57 AM.
  #46  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:57 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
I think Dems are already doing exactly the right thing -- not giving an inch to the toddler throwing a temper tantrum.

But if he wants his $5.7 billion so badly, why not take advantage of his inept dealmaking and put together a trade? Lots of people (mostly Republicans) have already suggested DACA protection in exchange for the wall, but that's just something they already had under Obama. Here are a few things off the top of my head I might propose as a trade for the $5.7 billion:
  • Immediate full citizenship for all Dreamers
  • Full federal recognition of sanctuary city status
  • Complete cessation of deportation efforts for non-felons
  • Immediate amnesty for all undocumented aliens meeting reasonable conditions
  • Clear, attainable path to citizenship for amnestied aliens

Don't bother replying that his base will never go for it. That's a given, and fuck them anyway. Trump is such an infantile egomaniac, he might just go for it. And it would go a long way toward solving our "problem" with undocumented aliens, to the extent that it's even a problem.

What do you think? What would your wall trade package include?
Those are good, but I'd add support for letting refugees in, the way it has been traditionally done.
  #47  
Old 01-11-2019, 06:07 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Well, like many buildings, he doesn't actually own it, but his name is sure on it.
Ha!
  #48  
Old 01-11-2019, 09:25 AM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 57,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Hungary and Poland. Autocrats support autocrats.
I understand Saudi Arabia takes in fallen despots.
  #49  
Old 01-11-2019, 09:45 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
I also kind of want to see if he could be conned into supporting DC statehood. Bait him with comments about how no President since Eisenhower has gotten to change the flag, and how there would be a Trump Star but no Obama Star.
OMG, he would totally fall for this. Why not go for Puerto Rico, too?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #50  
Old 01-11-2019, 09:48 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Those are good, but I'd add support for letting refugees in, the way it has been traditionally done.
Roger that.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
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 06:01 AM.

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