There was a deal for what the Border Patrol asked for- a extra $1.1 billion for border security, which including fixing, improving and extending the fence already there.
So the Dems are willing to pay for what the experts have asked for - reasonable border security.
I hadn’t heard of this $1.1B. I’d heard the numbers $1.6B and $1.3B, and neither of those were described as “what the Border Patrol asked for”. Do you have a cite for this Border Patrol request?
The numbers bounced around committee to committee, but the important thing is the the Democrats were perfectly willing to spend a extra $1Billion on border security.
“The numbers bounced around committee to committee” is not a cite, but setting that aside for a moment, does “border security” include additional steel bollard barriers in your mind?
I see. So you’re willing to shut down the government, causing hardship for 800,000 federal workers, any time the President doesn’t get his way, as long as his party backs him? Helluva way to run a government.
And I don’t want to ever hear another wall supporter bitch about the deficit. You don’t get to gripe about the deficit AND demand expensive boondoggles.
More evidence in support of Bone’s “so” rule.
It’s nice Bone gave you a new means of evasion.
Bone didn’t do it. You did.
The number did bounce around a bit in various bills but the $1.6B was from the DHS FY19 budget request.
I challenge you to find mainstream Democratic opposition to that budget proposal.
Thanks for finding that. Do you not consider Nancy’s ‘I would give him $1’ “mainstream Democratic opposition to that budget proposal”?
No.
Right, and here is where you could clarify. If a poster asks you what your position is, and you are very ambiguous and contradictory, and they try to sum up their understanding of it, and ask you if that is it, you can say yes, you can say no, or you could even elaborate on what it actually is.
Bone’s “rule” is less a rule, and more of a dishonest debate tactic, allowing the person invoking the rule to attack the poster and put them on the defensive, allowing the invoker to feign offense at being misunderstood, rather than to actually engage in debate.
What you are doing is evading.
You said specifically that you are against reopening the government, as you feel that that would mean that would remove any incentive for democrats to negotiate.
Taking your feeling for reality (which I disagree, but I can play along for the sake of argument), how would you sum up your position in regards to the president shutting down the government, and putting 800,000 out of a paycheck, as a negotiating position?
Personally, I think that negotiations should be done over the actual facts and ideas. If you can’t sell your idea to the public, then you need to work on your idea better. If that doesn’t work, then shutting down the government until people are forced to accept your idea in order to prevent catastrophe is not a responsible thing to do. Do you agree?
Ok, here is a letter signed by a whole bunch of leftist groups. It says:
Is the ACLU not “mainstream” enough for you? Do all those groups just represent the loony fringe?
How? She was specifically answering a specific question regarding “Trumps wall.” She was not addressing border security, but one temper tantrum demand. How does that become opposition to a legitimate security funding proposal?
Why are you shifting the goalposts? You went from “mainstream Democratic opposition” to “a whole bunch of leftist groups.” Those are not the same thing. They certainly share many beliefs, but you are ducking and weaving and changing your own position.
steronz,
Your silence / sudden absence is disheartening, but here’s some more “challenge” material:
CNBC - Democrats dig in against border wall money after White House briefing on government shutdown
Politico - Liberal groups push Dem leaders to take harder line in shutdown talks
What do you think? Challenge resolved?
What do you mean? My position is that the list of undersigned organizations, who describe themselves as " immigrants’ rights, environmental, labor, faith, and progressive
organizations" are in fact “mainstream Democratic” and fit steronz’ criteria of:
What position do you think I’ve changed?
Challenge to one stupid, pointless demand for a costly and anti-environment fixture across hundreds of miles driven by an idiot who is simply pouting that he is not getting his way is still not a challenge to legitimate security interests or the budget to address them.
I guess this is you conceding the point?
Many of them are. Many more of them actually are in conflict with “mainstream Democrats.” I would expect a serious effort at discussion would refer to powerful members of the Democratic party as “mainstream Democrats.” Sweeping up any Left wing group and trying to pretend that that was what you really meant (but did not say) weakens any claim you have to arguing in good faith.