Say the Dems propose $800 million in humanitarian assistance and $805 million for tech and border stuff plus 75 judge teams and the measures and the system and the relief and the extension; you’d figure Trump should do — what?
The Democrats should stick to their guns on this. No wall. Period. Too often they’ve given in to Republicans thanking they will respond with honor and integrity. They never do, and all they do is de-energize their supporters. No wall, no matter what.
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
If the Dems give Trump anything just for reopening the government, what’s to keep him from doing it again and again?
(The DACA offer isn’t really an offer, since SCOTUS chose to leave DACA intact for now.)
Every such proposal should be met with “Looks pretty good, but you forgot to remove that moronic nonsense about building a wall. Take care of that and try again.”
Democrats: The wall is a stupid solution to a vastly exaggerated problem.
Republicans: The wall is essential for national security.
Democrats: Then why didn’t you fund it during the two years you controlled Congress and the White House?
Republicans: Hummena hummena hummena
This thread is about realistic ways the shutdown could end.
Can we please all accept that there will never be any real bargain where the Democrats get something they value in return for the President getting something he values?
That isn’t going to happen, because how could it happen? The President doesn’t work that way. If he puts an offer on the table, and the Democrats are foolish enough to accept the offer, that offer will no longer actually exist. You know it, I know it, the American people know it.
There’s a reason Trump’s so-called “deal” wasn’t even taken seriously enough to reject it. It wasn’t an actual offer, it was a PR stunt to give right-wing media a talking point, and is best ignored.
Looks like Trump’s going the state of emergency route after all. I hate it, but it’d end the shutdown, and there are going to be so many time-consuming legal challenges that the state of emergency and Trump’s presidency will both be over before construction of the damned wall gets too far, even if, God forbid, he wins a second term.
Before I click on that, does it in any way support your claim that these departments are set up to hand out jobs to friends of elected officials?
So let’s do a hypothetical. You are a democrat congressperson, and you just created a new bureau of whatever through legislation. You need a department head, an apointee to run the place. So, who do you recommend be appointed, someone you know, perhaps a fellow democrat, or do you just blindly pick a card out of the deck and shove it into the job, maybe even a republican?
Hell, the perfect example was just in the news for a solid month. Kavanaugh, the conservative candidate and now Supreme Court Judge. The president and Congress are not going to approve someone who opposes their views.
Do you seriouly think the people in Trump’s cabinet opposed him in the election? If you think there’s no corruption going on in Congress, go read about Abscam: Abscam - Wikipedia
So you couldn’t even point to one and explain why that program is not “necessary”?
And what exactly is the criteria for a “necessary” program anyway?
- A coup or revolution. This country is seriously overdue for one.
No such thing.
You write as if there has never been a political negotiation in the history of the country. The reason for negotiation is so that neither side loses and can claim a win.
What needs to be done is what is done in every negotiation. Trump gets part of the funding he requests for the wall. He gets to claim victory and call it a wall. The Dems get to claim victory by saying that he did not get a wall, but got fencing or border security, but certainly not the wall.
In return, the Dems get an extension of DACA. They can claim that Trump caved on amnesty while he can say that he did not.
That is negotiation. You get a little bit; the other side gets a little bit. The Dems are winning the PR battle now, but if Trump keeps coming their way and the Dem response is just no, no, no, no, no, we hate Trump!, no, no, no State of the Union!, wah, wah, then the PR will start to flip.
I have yet to see the Dems put forward any position other than “We get everything we want and you get nothing.” That is bad faith and it will start hurting them.
Fuck that noise. These are kids who came here well below any age of accountability. They deserve a permanent solution.
Would over 50,000 crime victims a year qualify for a national emergency?
Bullshit. Democrats have been putting forward bipartisan funding levels since they took the House – the same funding the Senate voted for unanimously in Dec. So they’d both be getting something – funding the government at bipartisan levels. If the Democrats cave, even a little, then it shows the hostage taking strategy of shutting down the government is effective, and thus will be used again and again. That would be disastrous. Why would the Democrats want to greatly increase the chance of future shutdowns?
Fixed it for you.
Does this quality as a nation security issue?
2011 Government Accountability Office report found nearly 3 million offenses tied to criminal aliens, including:
More than 25,000 homicide offenses.
More than 42,000 robbery offenses.
Nearly 70,000 sex crime offenses.
Nearly 15,000 kidnapping offenses.
In Texas alone, more than 250,000 criminal aliens have been arrested and charged with over 600,000 criminal offenses within the last seven years.
In fiscal year 2017, more than 8,000 criminal illegal aliens in police custody were released back into our communities as a result of sanctuary policies.
I didn’t even touch on the drug problem, weapons trafficking, human trafficking, or the abuse illegal immigrant women and children may face. It’s not like an illegal alien can call the police.
Better border security is needed to protect USA citizens. I’d say the above qualifies as a national emergency. Dems had there chance to take a deal. Time to end the shutdown.
No. Next question.
Well, you can say it but it doesn’t make it true.
Out of curiosity, what is the cut off for number of crimes? For example, would say something that causes or is related to 40,000 crimes a year be a national emergency? How about 30,000? How about 20,000? How about 10,000? What’s the cutoff for something being a national emergency for USA citizens? Whatever number you pick please provide some rational and logical justification for it.