The five billion dollar wall

[steronz]

@HurricaneDitka

What do you think I"m missing about Pelosi’s comment? That’s what you were referring to as a “negotiating tactic”, right?

She was asked about Trump’s wall, right? Do you think the $1.6B previously approved in the senate, that you describe as “fence” or whatever, would that colloquially count as “Trump’s wall?” Would Trump describe it as such? Of course not, that’s why he’s rejected that offer altogether. So Trump gets a $0 dollar offer for his wall, which has nothing to do with the $1.6B DHS requested for some new barrier.

@HurricaneDitka

I’ve shared mine, but what’s your impression? You said you were convinced the Dems would fund $1.6B in border fencing, right?

Yes, if they’re negotiating in good faith over a DHS request. That is no longer the case, the debate is now over Trump’s wall, the one he promised during his campaign.

I’ll say it again – if Trump were to remove himself from the process, DHS would get their money from a bipartisan vote, the government would restart, and life would go on. But that ship has sailed, this is now about fulfilling Trump’s campaign promise, despite your colorful characterization of his position as something else entirely.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@HurricaneDitka

More evidence in support of Bone’s “so” rule.

Cadet’s Corollary: if one consistently is misinterpreted by peopel saying “so…”, one needs to become better at stating one’s points clearly.

@HurricaneDitka

I’m confident our readers can figure out who was wrong here.

You. Definitely. There’s a pretty firm consensus on that, too.

[k9bfriender]

There seem to be two different negotiation tactics here.
You have the democrats, who had the position of being for what DHS wanted, 1.6 in increased funding, who approved and passed legislation to that effect. After the deal was agreed to, the deal changed on Trump’s side, with him now demanding 5.7 b for a wall. A very natural negotiation tactic in that scenario is to say, “Well, now you are getting nothing, as you can not hold to your end of the bargain that you made.”

Then you have Trump, who got the increased funding that was asked for by DHS, who then was told by right wing media that he looked weak if he took the deal. So, after he has agreed to it, he changes it. In order to have a position, rather than appeal to voters, or appeal to reason or logic, he instead appeals to holding 800,000 people, along with pretty substantial parts of the economy, hostage, to get what he, not the voters, not Law enforcement, not DHS, wants.

The first there is a fairly standard reaction to someone who has gone back on what they agreed to, and is the only way to deal with someone who will not deal in good faith.

The second is not honest, it is just bullying people to get your way, no matter who is harmed in the process.

I find the first to be entirely defensible, logical, reasonable, and moral.

I do find the latter to be, while not defensible, reasonable, or moral, entirely logical, however, as there is a reason why criminals take hostages in order to get their way. Then there are those who defend that tactic.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Cadet’s Corollary: if one consistently is misinterpreted by peopel saying “so…”, one needs to become better at stating one’s points clearly.

You. Definitely. There’s a pretty firm consensus on that, too.

You’re not really one of the “readers” though, are you?

It’s rather routine for the libs here to deliberately mis-characterize conservative positions.

And by “readers” I’m not really referring to the posters on our incredibly-left-wing forum, I’m talking about the more diverse group of people that lurk or stumble across this thread from elsewhere.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@HurricaneDitka

It’s rather routine for the libs here to deliberately mis-characterize conservative positions.

And you have examples in mind, I’m sure.

[SingleMalt]

@k9bfriender

There seem to be two different negotiation tactics here.
You have the democrats, who had the position of being for what DHS wanted, 1.6 in increased funding, who approved and passed legislation to that effect. After the deal was agreed to, the deal changed on Trump’s side, with him now demanding 5.7 b for a wall. A very natural negotiation tactic in that scenario is to say, “Well, now you are getting nothing, as you can not hold to your end of the bargain that you made.”

Then you have Trump, who got the increased funding that was asked for by DHS, who then was told by right wing media that he looked weak if he took the deal. So, after he has agreed to it, he changes it. In order to have a position, rather than appeal to voters, or appeal to reason or logic, he instead appeals to holding 800,000 people, along with pretty substantial parts of the economy, hostage, to get what he, not the voters, not Law enforcement, not DHS, wants.

The first there is a fairly standard reaction to someone who has gone back on what they agreed to, and is the only way to deal with someone who will not deal in good faith.

The second is not honest, it is just bullying people to get your way, no matter who is harmed in the process.

I find the first to be entirely defensible, logical, reasonable, and moral.

I do find the latter to be, while not defensible, reasonable, or moral, entirely logical, however, as there is a reason why criminals take hostages in order to get their way. Then there are those who defend that tactic.

Of course, there’s also the fact that $5.7 billion is a lot of money for a mnemonic device.

[andros]

HurricaneDitka, I’d really like to hear your response to this:

@k9bfriender

…You have the democrats, who had the position of being for what DHS wanted, 1.6 in increased funding, who approved and passed legislation to that effect. After the deal was agreed to, the deal changed on Trump’s side, with him now demanding 5.7 b for a wall. A very natural negotiation tactic in that scenario is to say, “Well, now you are getting nothing, as you can not hold to your end of the bargain that you made.”

Then you have Trump, who got the increased funding that was asked for by DHS, who then was told by right wing media that he looked weak if he took the deal. So, after he has agreed to it, he changes it. In order to have a position, rather than appeal to voters, or appeal to reason or logic, he instead appeals to holding 800,000 people, along with pretty substantial parts of the economy, hostage, to get what he, not the voters, not Law enforcement, not DHS, wants.

Clearly you feel this is a misrepresentation of the facts. Would you please enumerate which of the above statements is incorrect to your thinking?

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@HurricaneDitka

It’s rather routine for the libs here to deliberately mis-characterize conservative positions.

Possible alternative explanation: conservative positions have become so nonsensical and wrongheaded (see also: the recent republican attempt to pretend that the 5 billion dollars in question are not actually about the wall) that any position conservatives tend to stake out is basically indefensible if it’s coherent at all. Because liberals attempt to take those positions as though they were internally consistent and supposed to make actual policy sense, they end up unintentionally misinterpreting conservatives - which conservatives then turn into a conspiracy theory - because on the right everything is a conspiracy - that liberals here have it out for them.

I mean, it makes as much sense as what you’re saying.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

Let’s not pretend that anyone other than Trump is responsible for the shutdown.

In a sign of growing unease about the partial government shutdown, some Senate Republicans came off the sidelines to hash out a deal that would reopen the government as Congress worked toward a broader agreement tying wall funds to protection for some undocumented immigrants and other migrants.

But before those negotiations could gain momentum, they collapsed. Vice President Mike Pence and other members of Mr. Trump’s team let it be known privately that the president would not back such a deal.

Trump started this, Trump claimed he would own it, Trump is continuing this. Trump, Trump, Trump and only Trump. No mischaracterization here.

[eschereal]

I am beginning to see a new trend forming. Here and there, the suggestion is being put forth that this Wall thing should be addressed in the same manner as we deal with gun violence.

thoughts and prayers for the Wall

[septimus]

@SingleMalt

Of course, there’s also the fact that $5.7 billion is a lot of money for a mnemonic device.

When you’re too bat-shit right-wing crazy even for Forbes, that’s pretty bat-shit!

@Forbes.com

“Inside Trump’s circle, the power of illegal immigration to manipulate popular sentiment was readily apparent, and his advisers brainstormed methods for keeping their attention-addled boss on message,” writes Joshua Green, author of Devil’s Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Nationalist Uprising. “They needed a trick, a mnemonic device. In the summer of 2014, they found one that clicked.”
… The concept of the Wall did not click right away with the candidate. “Initially, Trump seemed indifferent to the idea,” writes Green. “But in January 2015, he tried it out at the Iowa Freedom Summit, a presidential cattle call put on by David Bossie’s group, Citizens United. ‘One of his pledges was, ‘I will build a Wall,’ and the place just went nuts,’ said Nunberg. Warming to the concept, Trump waited a beat and then added a flourish that brought down the house. ‘Nobody,’ he said, ‘builds like Trump.’”

[off-topic]The Forbes website goes berserk goes ape-shit with its Javascripts or whatever-the-f**k and locks up my laptop. To read that page I must hit Ctrl-U and blow away the main tab. :smack:

[iiandyiiii]

Somehow the “master negotiator” Trump has failed to realize that he might actually have to give something that the Democrats want (but he doesn’t) in order to get the thing that he wants but the Democrats don’t (the racist symbol that is the wall).

[bobot]

If Trump himself had written The Art Of The Deal it would have fit on one page and read like one of his idiot tweets.

1. Make ridiculous demad.
2. Take and mistreat hostages.
3. Stew in the corner like a child.

[scr4]

@iiandyiiii

Somehow the “master negotiator” Trump has failed to realize that he might actually have to give something that the Democrats want (but he doesn’t) in order to get the thing that he wants but the Democrats don’t (the racist symbol that is the wall).

Only if the wall is the real goal. I don’t think it is. Getting attention and appearing strong is his real goal, and he thinks he’s getting that now.

[k9bfriender]

@bobot

If Trump himself had written The Art Of The Deal it would have fit on one page and read like one of his idiot tweets.

1. Make ridiculous demad.
2. Take and mistreat hostages.
3. Stew in the corner like a child.

Exactly, that is his negotiation tactic. He doesn’t negotiate in good faith, he finds some sort of leverage with which to bully his opponent.

The 800,000 workers, the services that they provide, and the ripple effects to the economy are not in any way related to the wall. They are simply leverage that he has to get what he wants.

In real estate, he didn’t negotiate in good faith, he bullied others, contractors or sellers or buyers, and used leverage on them to get favorable deals for himself.

That’s why no one was willing to deal with him anymore.

[k9bfriender]

@scr4

Only if the wall is the real goal. I don’t think it is. Getting attention and appearing strong is his real goal, and he thinks he’s getting that now.

Distracting from the criminal investigations into his candidacy, his presidency, and himself is the real goal, IMHO.

[bobot]

A cool write up about the history of Trump’s claims about the wall. (With cool wall graphics that change as you scroll through.) Washington Post, the guys who got Nixon.

Trump’s changing vision of the wall

[eschereal]

@HurricaneDitka

… I’m not really referring to the posters on our incredibly-left-wing forum …

The evidence seems to indicate that ignorance (which we struggle against here) has a strong right-wing bias. Sorry about that.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

Seth Myers had a wonderful set of clips tracing the cost of the wall over time as spoken by Trump himself. It starts at $5 billion, and goes to 6, 7, 8, 10-12, 20 and 25 billion. Then he played a clip of Trump denigrating those people who say the wall would cost $20 or $25 billion as well as one of him insisting the wall would be made of hardened concrete.

I have to assume that the segment will never be shown on Fox News. Even after Trump is impeached.

[nelliebly]

Despite all Trump’s efforts, the majority of Americans oppose the wall and blame him for the shutdown, and his disapproval rating is up 5 points, according to a new CNN poll.

56% oppose a wall
39% favor it

52% do NOT believe there’s an immigration crisis
45% believe there is a crisis.

Among those who do see the situation as a crisis, most feel that a border wall would help improve things. The subset who feels that way, however, amounts to only 31% of US adults.

By party:

80% of Republicans support the wall
10% of Dems

70% of GOP think there’s a crisis at the border
66% of them think a wall would fix it.

75% of Dems say there is no crisis
4% think there is, and a wall would fix it

Trump’s Approval rating:

57% disapprove
37% approve

While his approval rate is the same, the increase in his disapproval rating comes from non-college-educated white males. They still support the wall, but they blame Trump for the shutdown.