This bit right here is what you got wrong, which is some kind of feat given how many times I’ve clarified it in this thread.
The problem may be that you either have some fine fine nuance in your position that causes different posts to make me (and others apparently) think your position keeps changing… or your position keeps changing. For example:
This makes me think that the idea of a wall just isn’t all that important if other things are being done to improve border security.
This makes me think that any deal of border security has to include some version of the wall, no matter what else is in the deal.
I guess these positions make perfect sense in your mind, but when I look at two posts like this next to each other, I’m not totally clear how important a wall is to you. Especially after I made a comment that it seems like there’s a lot better things to spend money on for border security, which you seemed to take issue with… I’m left with the feeling that you don’t care about the wall that much but it would bother you if the Dems “won” on this issue.
I suppose you may tell others to go reread the same posts that seem contradictory to many of us. Or you could just answer a question like, “If there was a bill that had $3.5 billion in new technology and agents (twice as much as last year’s funding) but no money for a wall, would Congressman HD support or oppose that?”
I could be mean and point out that it’s no more a feat than misquoting a wikipedia article in such a way that you cut out a snippet of a sentence so that it looks like it says the exact opposite of what it really says, but instead let’s just focus on this:
You’re just wrong. Nothing about this is true.
Oppose. Would Congressman Ravenman support or oppose $3.4 billion in new technology and agents and $0.1 billion for however many miles of steel bollard physical barriers that buys (not many, I imagine)?
I’m confident that readers can see the cites I posted upthread (and repeated in post #261 for your benefit) and reach their own conclusions.
I wouldn’t have a problem with that. Would you support it?
Further question: would you reopen the government while talks on border security continue? I would.
The best chance Trump had for his wall was when there was a deal on the table for billions for the wall in exchange for DACA. That was when the Republicans were in charge of the House. But Trump said no.
Now the Democrats have the House. And Trump is still offering nothing in exchange for the wall. And the Republican-controlled Senate is doing nothing. Only the Democrats in Congress are doing something – passing bills to open the government at funding levels the Republicans already voted for.
That’s probably a bit of a lowball for me. I was mostly trying to understand if yours was a moral opposition to ANY additional barriers on our southern border, or you just didn’t think the price was right. I suspect the two sides will eventually land somewhere in between the $5B and $1.6B originally offered by each side (although, there’s so much emotion wrapped up in it now, who knows).
No. Reopening the government would, I imagine, remove any incentive for the Dems to “negotiate” at all.
Well gosh, I hope they clicked through and read for context. 
Sounds like you’re starting to realize the Sisyphean nature of trying to explain/defend Trump policies. Getting a rational person to understand (let alone agree) is the boulder that keeps slipping away, though if they feel like mocking you especially cruelly, they might let you think you’ve almost convinced them and you might succeed with just a… little… more… clarification… and, oops, down the hill again.
I think it is a despicable to take hostages during a political negotiation, especially when the hostages have literally nothing to do with the controversy.
Deliberately messing with the livelihoods of ordinary people seems to be part of this psychopathy that has infected politics over the last decade or so. it’s not enough to have a disagreement – or even heated one – with someone who disagrees with you. Looking at the opposition (or in this case, just regular people who are engaged in some kind of public service or another) in a way that dehumanizes them into pawns who should be yanked around in order to get what someone wants is a deeply immoral act. It’s as though the political class has resolved that honoring the the phrase “my fellow Americans” with real action is now a betrayal of one’s expected first allegiance, one’s political party.
For anyone curious what’s going on here, this article may have some insight.
… Yeah. Yikes.
But you do acknowledge that congressional Democrats are not in opposition to “ANY additional barriers on our southern border,” right? I mean, they’ve been pretty clear that they are willing to fund fencing and other physical barriers, where appropriate and effective and in addition to other appropriate and effective security measures.
They are currently unwilling to fund these things to the degree you’d prefer, but that’s a policy debate that can occur while the government is operational and Federal employees are not missing rent and utility payments. Right? We can take POTUS’ magic WALL off the table and discuss funding priorities like grownups?
Yes, they already had said Ok to about a billion $ in border security measures, which included improving the already existing fence.
This is insane! The only way to properly “negotiate” with Democrats is to shut the government down and hold it hostage? That isn’t negotiation-that is a hijacking of the government.
I think Congressional Democrats have been unclear about what they’re willing to fund. The other day Pelosi was asked about it and here’s what she said:
ETA: if she’s backtracked from that intransigent position and is now offering some number of billions of dollars for physical barriers, I’d be delighted to hear about it.
Yes. She said that about “Trump’s border wall”.
So has Trump. Reports over the weekend say that Pence offered a lower number, but then Trump (while at the table with Schumer, Pelosi, etc) denied that Pence was authorized to make such an offer.
And to that end, Democrats signed off on last year’s funding for fixing fences and deploying more technology. It isn’t just talk, that’s what they voted for last year.
You forgot to remove the context, HD.
Enough. If you want to take shots at another poster, do it in the Pit. Not here.
[/moderating]