Are the Democrats fooking up the border wall issue?

[Chisquirrel]

@DSeid

Current Trump supporters? Indeed. A good portion of those who voted for Trump, especially the Obama-Trump voter? Not at all futile.

The Dam side should obstruct the idiocy that is the wall but they should also avoid being merely another “party of no” and be out there saying what they are FOR right now - what better else they want that $5 billion to be used for (for example, education and be sure to include issues that are salient to Rural Americans), about being for Dreamers, and for spending smarter on border control issues, not more, not just something “big” but systems that are effective, the right people deployed in the right ways at the right places doing the right things with the right technologies as needed. Propose allowing two or three billion for border security of that sort, packaged with Dreamer protection, and the other two or three of the five billion he wants for education inclusive of some rural outreach.

They’re already on it.

@GOP's Newest Fever Dream Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

“For the wall’s $5.7 billion, every child in America could have access to Universal Pre-K,”

And the most recent negotiation DID include money for increased border security, just not a stupid wall.

[KidCharlemagne]

@GIGObuster

Yes, that OP is confusing, particularly when we remember that the immigration debate dominated many 2018 House races, the result then: The House did go to the democrats thanks to most of them running against the wall too. (…And getting through to most voters still )

It would be discouraging IMHO for many who did want to get the House (at least) to drop the three monkey act and control the Mango Mussolini. To have the House now to not fight against the Tsar-a-lago would be bad, including this nonsense about the wall.

I’m not saying we should support the wall or support more money for border security. I’m merely pointing out that that the Dems position could be marketed better. It’s almost always better to stand for something than against something.

[KidCharlemagne]

@Snowboarder_Bo

I didn’t bring it up; you did.

I wasn’t asking the question antagonistcally. What I meant by “since you brought it up” was that you implied there were more important PR battles. I was asking what you thought those were.

[scr4]

@Velocity

The PR issue for the Democrats is that opposing X usually makes you appear to be in favor of whatever X was meant to prevent.

Like opposing Obamacare makes Republicans appear to be in favor of illness & death? And opposing gun control makes them appear to be in favor of gun violence?

[GIGObuster]

@KidCharlemagne

I’m not saying we should support the wall or support more money for border security. I’m merely pointing out that that the Dems position could be marketed better. It’s almost always better to stand for something than against something.

Uh, well… do you still don’t realize that the marketing did work for the Democrats regarding the wall in the house races?

[KidCharlemagne]

@foolsguinea

The OP is so weird to me, because it seems to be completely conceding the idea that we need souped-up border security. It’s like saying, “The Iron Curtain was a good thing, but it would have been even better with modern drones instead of fences!” That line of argument is just silly. The claim that walls are worse at defining borders is easily seen through, the argument that we need security is conceded, and the argument destroys its own objection to the wall.

I do oppose the wall because it would be an act of violence against Americans who live by the border. I reckon a fleet of drones would be a different kind of violence, and ongoing violence.

No, we challenge this on small-c conservative grounds: It is better to have vibrant border cities, nature preserves, and the farms of the Rio Grande region than to have walls of dystopian fear from the dreams of xenophobia.

And we challenge it on humanitarian grounds: Immigrants don’t need to policed like a woody vine attacking your house’s foundation. They’re human beings, and we can grant the same rights to live where they please as we would want for ourselves.

And finally, our immigration policy should be pragmatic: Integrated immigrants are preferable to un-integrated invaders. They need to integrated, they need to be above ground, and welcoming them with the open hand of tolerance gets that accomplished; in a way border security as the USA has practiced it this last generation simply doesn’t.

WaPo and George Mason University just conducted a poll that show while only 41% of adults in battleground states support the wall, 70% are in favor of more funding for border security. The people clearly want something so if the Dems don’t make it clear they’re offering something, they may start siding with Trump under the duress of a prolonged shutdown.

[KidCharlemagne]

@GIGObuster

Uh, well… do you still don’t realize that the marketing did work for the Democrats regarding the wall in the house races?

You think it was the stance on the border wall that won the house for the Dems?

[GIGObuster]

@KidCharlemagne

You think it was the stance on the border wall that won the house for the Dems?

Simple logic, Trump and many Republicans did make it an issue in most races, and the reply from the Democrats did carry the day:

Far from U.S.-Mexico border, immigration debate dominates many 2018 House races

Far from U.S.-Mexico border, immigration debate dominates many 2018 House races

The second reason immigration is so prevalent, Shaw said, is that border control becomes a measure by which voters judge a government’s ability to operate. And even though Republicans control the White House and both chambers of Congress, Shaw said the perception of an out-of-control border becomes a key point of contrast between candidates, with many Republicans pushing for a border wall while accusing Democrats of sabotaging their efforts to preserve “open borders.”

That analysis helps explain why Republican Rep. Mike Simpson and his Democratic challenger Aaron Swisher ended up fielding 11 consecutive questions about immigration to start their debate in Idaho’s second congressional district.

In a district where unemployment is hovering around 2 percent, Swisher spoke about the damage that visas for high-skilled foreigners have on America’s computer scientists. And in a district where just 14 percent of the population is Hispanic, Simpson stressed the importance of border security by citing the latest Central American migrant caravan that has so preoccupied Trump.

“There is today, I heard, 1,000 people from Honduras making their way up here that are going to try to cross illegally,” Simpson said during the Oct. 14 debate. “That’s going to cause a problem.”

The caravan en route to the U.S.-Mexico border has since swelled in size to between 3,500 to 7,000, but like previous caravans, the majority are not expected to present themselves at ports of entry and request asylum. Nearly 1,700 members of the current caravan have applied for asylum in Mexico, according to Mexican government authorities.

A similar debate played out last week in Minnesota’s second congressional district, when Republican Rep. Jason Lewis and his Democratic challenger Angie Craig didn’t discuss the border their state shares with Canada, but did get into a prolonged debate over the logistical challenges of the nation’s southern border.

Lewis recounted a trip he took to Southern California, explaining what he learned about a valley there known as “Smuggler’s Gulch” and the 14 miles of double-layered border fencing erected around San Diego. “Of course we need a wall,” he said.

Craig countered by saying that drones flying overhead and sonar technology scanning for tunnels underground were more effective options. “If you build a 30-foot wall, someone’s going to build a 32-foot ladder,” she said.

In essence, they won in good part (in other issues, like in health care, the Democratic party also came ahead in the past election) by pointing out how dumb and xenophobic was/is that effort of the wall and how unethical is really most of the anti-immigrant rhetoric coming from the Republicans.

[Ravenman]

@KidCharlemagne

They should be talking about how a wall is a medieval solution to a 21st century problem and about how satellite and drone technology would work better, (don’t know if that’s true but marketing often isn’t) and the technology would keep getting better, while a wall will only get worse.

They are. You aren’t listening.

Full Durbin: Border wall ‘a 19th Century solution to a 21st Century challenge’

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/12/23/merkley-trump-border-wall-government-shutdown-1074504

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@KidCharlemagne

Am I the only one that thinks this is a critical PR fight for the Democrats as they take over the house on the first? Even though a slim majority of Americans are against the border wall,

So let’s just dispense with this nonsense straightaway.

41% of voters in battleground states support the wall. That is not a “slim majority”; that is pretty decisively “against”. Among independent voters, 34% favor while 44% oppose. Among democratic voters, 79% oppose while only 12% favor. Caving to the republicans on this is not a winner for the dems, because the only constituents that will vote for them already oppose it.

the Democrats seem purely obstructionist in their efforts

They’re trying to stop Trump from wasting 5 billion dollars on a massive, ineffective boondoggle. It’s worth noting at this point that 5 billion dollars doesn’t even come close to the cost of the wall. And that Trump repeatedly promised that Mexico would pay for the wall. And that there was an existing funding bill passed in both houses of congress that funded the government and threw in over a billion dollars in extra funding for border security. In what universe is this “obstructionism”?

and I get the feeling a prolonged shut-down will be blamed on them.

It will be blamed on them only by those with no exposure to national news and/or no memory of it. Trump publicly owned the shutdown several days ago. He said he would be proud to shut down the government to get wall funding. It was all over the news. It’s all over the news now that he’s trying to shift the blame. Remember, congress already passed a bill. There’s already a funding bill passed through both houses of congress. Trump vetoed it.

The only people who will blame this shutdown on the democrats are those who are completely divorced from reality.

There’s no nice way of putting that - the people who will blame the democrats (who currently are the minority in the house, senate, supreme court, and don’t control the executive branch) for a shutdown brought on by the republican president vetoing an appropriations bill which passed through the republican house and the republican senate are fucking crazy.

Now, not that that’s not a large portion of the electorate. I will fully admit that a large portion of the electorate is fucking crazy. However, I don’t think the dems were likely to reach them anyways. And there’s a lot more to lose by just rolling over and caving on the president’s demand for a stupid, pointless boondoggle like this.

I certainly think the dems were right to vote against the budget bill,

Hang on, the whole framing here is nonsensical. The dems didn’t have to vote for it. Every single democrat could have voted against it and made zero difference. The republicans are still the majority party in both houses. The only leverage the dems have is that they could filibuster it - but they didn’t! The bill passed! Trump vetoed it. What, should the democrats have voted in lockstep to overturn that veto? It’s not exactly a particularly good bill.

but now they need to get out there and plug hard for their own alternative vision of border security. They should be talking about how a wall is a medieval solution to a 21st century problem and about how satellite and drone technology would work better, (don’t know if that’s true but marketing often isn’t) and the technology would keep getting better, while a wall will only get worse.

I dunno where you get your news, but… uh… they are. The dems have been consistently making an argument against the wall for over two years now. Recently, they’ve been a lot louder about better ways to spend that 5 billion dollars.

It just seems like the Dems have absolutely no grand strategy.

What news do you watch? Seriously, where are you getting your information?

@KidCharlemagne

I think there are a fair number of wall-supporting fence sitters who will potentially fall to the dark side but, since you brought it up - What do you think is the most critical, winnable, PR fight right now?

“This shutdown is Trump’s fault and he cannot blackmail us into funding his stupid fucking wall like this. Sign the bill the house and senate passed.” Which is an easy fight to win because Trump said as much himself. All you have to do is quote him from literally four days ago.

[aceplace57]

Trump and his WH team aren’t skilled enough to win this PR battle. Anything the team does will get screwed up by their heavy handed boss.

The Democrats are playing a very dangerous game. If an ugly incident happens at the border it will explode in their laps. The Republicans will certainly lay the blame on their refusal to fund improvements to the wall.

The ghost of Willie Horton never goes away. Politicians better be seen as tough on crime and that includes border security.

Right now, it looks like the democrats will win this issue.

[Fiveyearlurker]

@Velocity

The PR issue for the Democrats is that opposing X usually makes you appear to be in favor of whatever X was meant to prevent.

So opposing the border wall makes it look like Democrats are saying, “DON’T stop people from crossing over illegally!”

Here’s a 5 billion dollar rock that I claim prevents cancer in toddlers even though there’s no evidence, and toddler cancer is at a lower rate than ever. Opposing paying for this rock means you want more toddlers to get cancer.

[Dinsdale]

@Kimera757

The border wall costs over $5 billion (much more than that). That’s a lot of government money, at a time when the government has less income due to massive tax cuts.
…

Well, yes and no. In terms of the entire budget, and vast sums we piss away on other stupid things, I’m not sure how large it it. An argument might be made that - if the Dems could horsetrade to get something meaningful - like immigration reform or some other significant issue - it might be a cheap price to pay…

Trump is so stupid, Dems might be able to get him to agree to some ridiculously lopsided deal, jus so he could crow about winning on his wall.

[foolsguinea]

Small consolation for anyone who lives by the Rio Grande and gets an eyesore wall in their community, though.

[XT]

@Chisquirrel

Democrats have repeatedly offered Trump compromises for the wall, and he has repeatedly reneged on this compromises or publicly thrown tantrums. As Trump has happily stated this shutdown (and the other two just this year) sit squarely on his desk, I don’t know why they should give him anything other than the time until the next election.

I think they should go all in on this issue. Make this issue THE issue to take a stand on and tell him to go fuck himself, he’s not getting a dime. He can keep the government shut down as long as he likes, as it’s all on him. No compromise, no quarter.

IOW, I don’t think the Dems are fooking up on this…not unless they blink first and give in to him. I think this is the issue to make him blink…and blink he will, IMHO, sooner rather than later.

[boytyperanma]

How about Trump get’s his wall and it’s paid for by a payroll tax. Let everyone in the country know what they are paying for with an itemized ‘wall tax’ on their paychecks.

The Democrats are right to fight on this issue. They don’t need to bring Republicans to their side for future elections. They need Democrats to turn out to win elections. If they had a spine and stand up for Democratic issues they’ll have a much easier time convincing their voters to vote. Caving to Trump’s demands will have the opposite effect.

[XT]

@boytyperanma

How about Trump get’s his wall and it’s paid for by a payroll tax. Let everyone in the country know what they are paying for with an itemized ‘wall tax’ on their paychecks.

The Democrats are right to fight on this issue. They don’t need to bring Republicans to their side for future elections. They need Democrats to turn out to win elections. If they had a spine and stand up for Democratic issues they’ll have a much easier time convincing their voters to vote. Caving to Trump’s demands will have the opposite effect.

Trump would love this idea, since I think it works out to about $30 for each tax paying citizen. That would be a touch over $2 per month (it would probably actually be nothing for most and maybe, oh, say $5 per month for the rest). Relative to our budget it really is a paltry amount of money, but that’s not the point and the Dems should not focus on this aspect IMHO.

[Smapti]

@boytyperanma

How about Trump get’s his wall and it’s paid for by a payroll tax. Let everyone in the country know what they are paying for with an itemized ‘wall tax’ on their paychecks.

How about we rent space on a billboard across the street from the White House with a picture of his face and the caption “LOSER”?

[China_Guy]

Master negotiator turned down a DACA for the Wall deal earlier this year. Master negotiator now say’s he’ll take less than $5B.

We all know the wall
a) won’t be paid by Mexico
b) is a band aid on the bullet wound of border security (ok, maybe stupid analogy, but the wall won’t secure the entire border worth jack)
c) will cost a lot more than $5B

Master negotiator, who has shown he can’t negotiate jack shit, is showing everyone his busted flush and asking why aren’t the Dems coming to the Grift House to do a deal?

I hope the Dems don’t negotiate with terrorists, especially as President Bone Spurs is a vulnerable sloth with a big target on his fat ass.

[bobot]

@KidCharlemagne

… a slim majority of Americans are against the border wall, …

Sez who?