Dems - Defend your Senators holding the budget bill hostage

If DREAMers alone wouldn’t pass, but if Republicans are willing to accept some things they don’t want (kids growing up in the country not to be sent to a country they have no memory of) in order to get what they want (a boondoggle of a wall), then sure, they’re compromising after all, and the problem with them is something else entirely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act#Legislative_history

My sense is that the DREAM Act has never had broad support among Republicans on its own and that enshrining DACA in law would be compromise on the part of the Republicans. YMMV.

Did you read the poll posted earlier?

“Our number one goal is to make Obama a one-term President” is democracy in action? Reflexive opposition is democracy in action? Tantrums and government shutdowns instead of paying the bills are democracy in action?

Wow.

Well, that’s from a guy who thinks McVeigh’s mass murder was a “reasonable response” to democratic government actually operating. So, you know, consider the source.

Right. They had worked out a compromise that (from what I was hearing) had bipartisan support and the WH had originally said Trump would sign any bipartisan bill that protected the DREAMers. Then they went to meet with Trump, he surrounded himself with people like Tom Cotton, and he blew it up. Now McConnell doesn’t want to move forward on such a bill because Trump isn’t reliable.

Democrats didn’t cause this. Most of the rank-and-file Republicans didn’t either.

Yes, I saw your poll, sorry. I meant Senate Republicans.

Every time you put quotes around something, it should be viewed with suspicion. I didn’t say use the phrase “reasonable response”. If you can’t quote me correctly, please stop trying to.

Note the bit about “though worthy legislation.” This is where I think it’s some bullshit. If there’s something that a supermajority wants, in general I believe that should be unlinked from things that are controversial. They should not be part of negotiations. Do the things that nearly everyone wants, and save the negotiations for the controversial things.

(And yes, that’s a big piece of why I have mixed feelings about this shutdown, given that a supermajority wants the government to be funded.)

It was in obvious comparison, in a discussion about Obama’s executive orders:

I think you remember writing that.

Is that *really *an unfair presentation of your views? There’s been quite a bit of discussion in the Pit over them, and nothing you’ve said here shades them in a different light.

:dubious:

Sure looks to me like you’re agreeing with ElvisLives’s stipulated description of Obama engaging in “tyrannical overreach.” If you didn’t intend that, or if you see some daylight between “tyrannical overreach” and “tyrant”, it’d be helpful to see why.

I think you have a consistent habit of unfair presentation of your opponents views. This is the third time you’ve done it to me in the last two hours, just in this thread.

I hear what you’re saying, but the rank-and-file Republicans and the Democrats already came up with a plan and then Trump torpedoed it. If Trump is going to torpedo the exact thing that he claimed he wanted (a DACA fix), then it’s a sane strategy to shut down the government in order to force him to walk that back. There’s a reason Graham is saying he’d vote against the CR. His opposition is an attempt to force a vote on these issues rather than continuing to punt because CRs do not increase defense spending.

The phrase I used was “an overreach of executive power”. I agree with that description.

Elvislives, as is his habit, chose to contort that into “tyrannical overreach” and then ultimately “tyrant”. I did not use that word to describe Obama’s DACA EO and I don’t agree with it. He is wrong. Is that clear enough?

It would be exhausting to try to correct every single misstatement of my views that happens on the SDMB (being a conservative here is quite exhausting). I wish the default assumption were something other than if someone says “HD said ____” and HD ignored it or didn’t see it or chose not to respond to it that it must mean “HD agrees with ____”.

This is such a ridiculous cheap shot. ElvisL1ves uses the word, and HD doesn’t quarrel with it, so by the transitive property of bullshit, suddenly HD is quietly endorsing the word itself?

Does this work in all situations? Like Trump made a bunch of racist comments about shithole countries and not wanting black people to immigrate as much as white people. So far as been reported, Lindsey Graham chided the President, not Durbin. By this same transitive property of bullshit, would you accuse Durbin of quietly endorsing Trump’s words?

Of course not. Then you can treat HD with this same minimal level of respect, too.

Except, of course, for the American public; you know, those people that the government is theoretically supposed to serve and seldom does…87% of whom support DACA.

There are two tools in his argument toolbox: strawman and saying opponents are “handwaving.” Don’t let it bother you. He does this to liberals like myself, as well.

Fair enough; I completely accept both your answer and your explanation and your irritation, even though that’s three things and “both” only allows two.

If I said “Tell me how much of an asshole your boss is” and you said “Here’s a link that explains!” am I supposed to wonder if you think your boss is an asshole?

To be clear, I don’t engage with Elvis, but I don’t think LHoD was engaging in a cheap shot.

Thank you both. :slight_smile: