I don’t think I said that. Here is the post you actually cited in your post:
I’m not seeing the quote you ascribed to me.
This is factually inaccurate. The government was shutdown when the Senate passed a bipartisan bill to fund the government, and then Trump said that he would shut down the government to get his $5B in wall funding, and the GOP-led House refused to have a vote on that bipartisan Senate bill (that was not filibustered and was supported by Democrats) which would have funded the government. Trump said that he would shut down the government, and then the GOP-led House went along with his shutdown threat. The Democrats did not shut down the government – this is an entirely false assertion.
The Democrats lead the House now and have passed multiple government-funding bills that use the same bipartisan level of funding previously passed by the Senate, but the GOP-led Senate refuses to even consider these bipartisan government funding bills. The Democrats are taking action to fund the government at levels already voted upon as acceptable to both parties. The Republicans (and Trump) are doing pretty much nothing to open the government. Except for a handful of Republicans who are actually voting for the bipartisan level of funding – good for them for actually taking action to open the government, unlike McConnell and Trump.
Ha. Okay, maybe you’ll like this better:
The government is shut down because Trump takes his oath to protect the country seriously and knowing that an additional 240 miles of barrier will help make the border more secure (as per the border patrol) he cannot in good conscience allow the petty politics of the Pelosi and Schumer (whose #1 motivation is hate for him and #1 goal is to make sure he is not reelected as they try to mollify an increasingly batshit leftist party) to result in a less safe country.
Better?
I stopped reading after your first four words. You might not like it, it might be proven wrong, but what I wrote is not “factually incorrect”. Maybe look those words up before using them again.
Feel free to ignore the factual sequence of events, if you like. I related the factual sequence of events of this shutdown – the Senate passed bipartisan funding, then Trump threatened a shutdown for wall funding, and the GOP-led House refused to vote on this bipartisan funding, so the government shut down. Now the Democratic House is continuing to vote on funding bills at bipartisan levels previously accepted by both parties, while Trump and the GOP-led Senate do nothing.
But I apologize if I hurt your feelings – I’ll gladly withdraw those four words if you’re actually interested in discussing the factual events of this topic. If you’re not interested in the factual events that led to this shutdown, then no worries.
My response was mostly facetious but please refer to iiandyiiii. Again, I have to wonder where you’re getting these opinions, because someone is lying to you.
(And for once, it’s not necessarily Donald Trump, because he fucking owned that shit!)
Guess you didn’t look up the words. You should, because nothing you wrote here makes what I wrote factually inaccurate.
Do you want to know why we aren’t listening to what he’s saying now? Because he’s a liar that says whatever benefits him at the moment. The question is why is anyone taking seriously anything he is saying now when it is at total odds with what he’s been saying up till now? At what point do you stop listening to a serial liar? I guess if he’s saying the lies you want to hear, never…
No, they didn’t ask for any such “concession”. Another lie, smaller than some others, but still a lie.
I joked that Trump had offered to build the Wall out of California redwoods as a concession to Democrats. I was joking, and if he says it this afternoon, its not my fault!
It also didn’t get a wall built.
I deeply apologize, and happily retract those four words. Now, hopefully, we can talk about the factual sequence of events related to this shutdown, if you’re interested. Again – the Senate passed bipartisan funding, then Trump threatened a shutdown for wall funding, and the GOP-led House refused to vote on this bipartisan funding, so the government shut down. Now the Democratic House is continuing to vote on funding bills at bipartisan levels previously accepted by both parties, while Trump and the GOP-led Senate do nothing.
Nope. It didn’t. Which he’s trying to get 240 miles of it built now. But it appears that the Dems are still intent in not having a secure border. Go figure, with their oath of office and everything.
Illegal entry is down 80%. As I’ve asked before, how does “this bad thing is down by 80%, now we are in a crisis!” make any sense?
I repeat: down 80%. It’s already changed, no shutdown needed.
You lost me here. Does them refer to politicians courting white nationalist votes? If so, we are in total agreement.
I’m sure Trump is happy you’re spreading his propaganda, but “supporting Trump’s wall” is not the only way to support a secure border. One can be for a secure border, but oppose Trump’s wall vision, for a variety of reasons.
He is proudly right to own this:
"The government is shut down because Trump takes his oath to protect the country seriously and knowing that an additional 240 miles of barrier will help make the border more secure (as per the border patrol) he cannot in good conscience allow the petty politics of the Pelosi and Schumer (whose #1 motivation is hate for him and #1 goal is to make sure he is not reelected as they try to mollify an increasingly batshit leftist party) to result in a less safe country. "
Rightly so.
Now, most adults realize that in order to have an impasse you need two parties, two different positions. When they can’t agree on a compromise, the impasse remains. In this case, one side has and is willing to compromise (240 miles, something more fence-like, possibly less money) and the other side unwilling to compromise and give any money (oops, may $1) for any barrier.
Let’s look at the potential downside from each side, beyond pissing off their respective bases:
Trump: the border remains porous and gang members, rapists, human trackers, murderers, pedophiles, and drugs will continue to flow into our country.
Pelumer®: Trump wins. AAGGHHHH. And that might help him win in 2002. And, “Dammit!—the damn border will be more secure than ever! Fuck!!”
Recent polls do not support this … theory? Is that the right word? You are looking at things through the fox news filter. Reality doesn’t look like that.
A compromise involves give and take. Trump has offered NOTHING he’s willing to give. Trump had previously rejected an actual give-and-take compromise – DACA for wall funding. Now he’s just demanding wall funding without offering to give anything at all. That’s not a negotiation. That’s just a toddler screaming that he wants his toy now.
The offer now is $5.7B of physical barriers for re-opening the portions of the government that are currently shut down.
I’m actually agnostic on “a wall”. I am in favor of securing the border. And it seems like physical barriers are going to be part of any serious plan (along with technology and addition personnel). You like to experts in the field, right. Well, the border patrol says it would be very helpful. At least as helpful as theo existing miles of serious barrier they have. Another expert is Israel, with their barrier on their southern border with Egypt. Here’s a good article.
It’s also a good primer on how to make a barrier effective.
But perhaps you can help me. I’ve heard tell that “there are better ways to secure the border”. But I’ve yet to be shown what those ways are. Thoughts?