(01-25-2019, 05:11 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019, 04:25 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Part of me is not happy, but the other part takes some positives from this:
1. SOTU address is back on where he has a massive audience to speak to while Nancy sits back there sucking her lips.
2. Dems have to show they are willing to negotiate these next 3 weeks like they promised they would if the government was re-opened. Kind of puts the ball back in their court
3. In 3 weeks time, migrant caravans will be closer to border helping make case stronger.
Let's see how the next 3 weeks play out.
Funny how "migrant caravans" show up right when Trump needs a boost. In politics, as in poker, there are no coincidences.
Democrats do have to negotiate, and I expect they'll immediately offer up additional funding for border security, probably for upgrades and repairs to existing wall segments, but I sincerely doubt you'll see any concessions made for new wall funding, and you definitely won't see Trump risk shutting down the government again. It failed spectacularly for him this time--he's doing the exact deal that Democrats have been pushing for weeks with no promise of wall funding on the back end.
I expect a long speech about how our borders are insecure and it's all the Democrats' fault. Oh, and the GDP is up or something. But mostly, dammit, your children are going to be raped and killed by a Mexican, and it's the Democrats' fault. I'll be curious to see who Democrats select for the rebuttal. I've seen Barack Obama's name come up on a few different sites, but I'm kind of thinking the Democrats might use this as an opportunity to put Joe Biden out there on a national stage and let him loose on Trump without running the risk of a young gun saying something stupid about a 70% income tax rate. Biden was considered very moderate until he was drafted as VP to one of the farthest left Presidents in US history.
This is not a win for anyone. The issue is still unresolved and the Dems cost the taxpayer more than ten times what Trump was asking for. Boy really showed him. Not to mention they are now backed into a corner and forced to negotiate in good faith. There is no hiding behind emotion now. And guess what, Pelosi still hasn't said a damn thing about addressing border security. Another failure and there will be another shutdown, once again, and without question, on the reneging Democrats. What an embarrassment for all leaders involved. the end, an Emergency will be claimed for security and financial reasons.
So Trump blinked first. If nothing changes in two weeks it will be interesting to see the narrative.
(01-25-2019, 09:42 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]So Trump blinked first. If nothing changes in two weeks it will be interesting to see the narrative.
He's certainly giving the House plenty of opportunity to make this right. I would've preferred that he stick to the shut down, but in the long term he will be the one who was willing to compromise, even if the media never ever ever admits it.
(01-25-2019, 10:11 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019, 09:42 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]So Trump blinked first. If nothing changes in two weeks it will be interesting to see the narrative.
He's certainly giving the House plenty of opportunity to make this right. I would've preferred that he stick to the shut down, but in the long term he will be the one who was willing to compromise, even if the media never ever ever admits it.
"Make this right?"
They don't owe him anything!
He can say no to them and they can say no to him.
if one of them should have the right to demand that the other do what they want, it's true then more people voted for Trump then for Democrats in Congress, but that's just a fluke of midterm voting. The Democrats earned a majority of the votes that were cast in 2018.
None of the branches of government have the right to compel any other, but if one did it would be the house right now.
(01-25-2019, 11:39 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019, 10:11 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]He's certainly giving the House plenty of opportunity to make this right. I would've preferred that he stick to the shut down, but in the long term he will be the one who was willing to compromise, even if the media never ever ever admits it.
"Make this right?"
They don't owe him anything!
He can say no to them and they can say no to him.
if one of them should have the right to demand that the other do what they want, it's true then more people voted for Trump then for Democrats in Congress, but that's just a fluke of midterm voting. The Democrats earned a majority of the votes that were cast in 2018.
None of the branches of government have the right to compel any other, but if one did it would be the house right now.
Lol, Presidents dont write budgets here in the real world.
(01-26-2019, 12:06 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019, 11:39 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]"Make this right?"
They don't owe him anything!
He can say no to them and they can say no to him.
if one of them should have the right to demand that the other do what they want, it's true then more people voted for Trump then for Democrats in Congress, but that's just a fluke of midterm voting. The Democrats earned a majority of the votes that were cast in 2018.
None of the branches of government have the right to compel any other, but if one did it would be the house right now.
Lol, Presidents dont write budgets here in the real world.
No, but they can pull the Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House into a room and say, "Hey guys, I'm going to veto any budget that does/doesn't...".
(01-26-2019, 12:13 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2019, 12:06 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, Presidents dont write budgets here in the real world.
No, but they can pull the Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House into a room and say, "Hey guys, I'm going to veto any budget that does/doesn't...".
Seems we had a nice shouting match last time he tried that approach. The President has yet to veto anything because the Congress hasn't sent him anything. Stupid Trump.
(01-26-2019, 12:06 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019, 11:39 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]"Make this right?"
They don't owe him anything!
He can say no to them and they can say no to him.
if one of them should have the right to demand that the other do what they want, it's true then more people voted for Trump then for Democrats in Congress, but that's just a fluke of midterm voting. The Democrats earned a majority of the votes that were cast in 2018.
None of the branches of government have the right to compel any other, but if one did it would be the house right now.
Lol, Presidents dont write budgets here in the real world.
all the more reason that it's dumb for him to demand that money be spent on a specific thing.
If your expecting any movement of public support for the wall, it’s not gonna happen. Public opinion held steady against it from before and throughout the shut down. Low 50’s against low 40’s for. Trump’s had an entire month to convince people, and the arguments are mostly falling flat outside of his base. Overall 71% of people were against using the shut down to get the wall, that number includes even some wall supporters. He might be bull headed enough to try again but another shut down would be the second kick from the mule.
I think most people see illegal immigrants and mostly see people that are seeking a better life, sure there are bad ones, but demonizing them as a whole isn’t a compelling argument in itself. I think most people want a secure border to whatever that extent is possible, but no a wall isn’t some kind of game changing item.
If you look at what the real immigration hardline think tanks, organization and lobbyists think, that really don’t put a wall high on the priority list. Probably because they know it’s not really all that effective. That’s why there hasn’t been a DACA for wall deal, because why would you trade something of value for something of little?
Facts remain the same, number of illegal crossings are at or near multi decade lows, most illegal immigrants overstay their visas than illegally cross. Drugs are smuggled almost overwhelmingly through ports of entry. Immigrants requesting asylum turn themselves in at legal points of entry which is their legal right. A wall would make little difference. All these fly in the face of the justifications that were laid out. Not to mention the efficacy of a wall vis a vis ways to go under and around it and other ways people will adapt.
This was just a stupid campaign slogan/promise like “Hope and Change” but this one is one that is simple to be kept or broken. So he’s going to have to pay some sort of price if it doesn’t happen. He really has only two options both are bad, he could sign off on an increase in border security spending with little wall money and try to claim victory pissing off his base, or he could strike a larger DACA/TPS deal with a path to citizenship plus other stuff for wall money still pissing of his base but in a different way.
(01-26-2019, 12:34 PM)jradMITEX Wrote: [ -> ]If your expecting any movement of public support for the wall, it’s not gonna happen. Public opinion held steady against it from before and throughout the shut down. Low 50’s against low 40’s for. Trump’s had an entire month to convince people, and the arguments are mostly falling flat outside of his base. Overall 71% of people were against using the shut down to get the wall, that number includes even some wall supporters. He might be bull headed enough to try again but another shut down would be the second kick from the mule.
I think most people see illegal immigrants and mostly see people that are seeking a better life, sure there are bad ones, but demonizing them as a whole isn’t a compelling argument in itself. I think most people want a secure border to whatever that extent is possible, but no a wall isn’t some kind of game changing item.
If you look at what the real immigration hardline think tanks, organization and lobbyists think, that really don’t put a wall high on the priority list. Probably because they know it’s not really all that effective. That’s why there hasn’t been a DACA for wall deal, because why would you trade something of value for something of little?
Facts remain the same, number of illegal crossings are at or near multi decade lows, most illegal immigrants overstay their visas than illegally cross. Drugs are smuggled almost overwhelmingly through ports of entry. Immigrants requesting asylum turn themselves in at legal points of entry which is their legal right. A wall would make little difference. All these fly in the face of the justifications that were laid out. Not to mention the efficacy of a wall vis a vis ways to go under and around it and other ways people will adapt.
This was just a stupid campaign slogan/promise like “Hope and Change” but this one is one that is simple to be kept or broken. So he’s going to have to pay some sort of price if it doesn’t happen. He really has only two options both are bad, he could sign off on an increase in border security spending with little wall money and try to claim victory pissing off his base, or he could strike a larger DACA/TPS deal with a path to citizenship plus other stuff for wall money still pissing of his base but in a different way.
Polls said Hillary won in a landslide. We will get a wall.
(01-26-2019, 12:41 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2019, 12:34 PM)jradMITEX Wrote: [ -> ]If your expecting any movement of public support for the wall, it’s not gonna happen. Public opinion held steady against it from before and throughout the shut down. Low 50’s against low 40’s for. Trump’s had an entire month to convince people, and the arguments are mostly falling flat outside of his base. Overall 71% of people were against using the shut down to get the wall, that number includes even some wall supporters. He might be bull headed enough to try again but another shut down would be the second kick from the mule.
I think most people see illegal immigrants and mostly see people that are seeking a better life, sure there are bad ones, but demonizing them as a whole isn’t a compelling argument in itself. I think most people want a secure border to whatever that extent is possible, but no a wall isn’t some kind of game changing item.
If you look at what the real immigration hardline think tanks, organization and lobbyists think, that really don’t put a wall high on the priority list. Probably because they know it’s not really all that effective. That’s why there hasn’t been a DACA for wall deal, because why would you trade something of value for something of little?
Facts remain the same, number of illegal crossings are at or near multi decade lows, most illegal immigrants overstay their visas than illegally cross. Drugs are smuggled almost overwhelmingly through ports of entry. Immigrants requesting asylum turn themselves in at legal points of entry which is their legal right. A wall would make little difference. All these fly in the face of the justifications that were laid out. Not to mention the efficacy of a wall vis a vis ways to go under and around it and other ways people will adapt.
This was just a stupid campaign slogan/promise like “Hope and Change” but this one is one that is simple to be kept or broken. So he’s going to have to pay some sort of price if it doesn’t happen. He really has only two options both are bad, he could sign off on an increase in border security spending with little wall money and try to claim victory pissing off his base, or he could strike a larger DACA/TPS deal with a path to citizenship plus other stuff for wall money still pissing of his base but in a different way.
Polls said Hillary won in a landslide. We will get a wall.
Pelosi won in a landslide two years later.
If we get a wall, at the very least she will demand something in return.
(01-26-2019, 11:11 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2019, 12:06 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, Presidents dont write budgets here in the real world.
all the more reason that it's dumb for him to demand that money be spent on a specific thing.
Lolz. Bills require his signature for a reason.
(01-26-2019, 01:02 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2019, 12:41 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Polls said Hillary won in a landslide. We will get a wall.
Pelosi won in a landslide two years later.
If we get a wall, at the very least she will demand something in return.
He's already offered.
(01-26-2019, 01:02 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2019, 12:41 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Polls said Hillary won in a landslide. We will get a wall.
Pelosi won in a landslide two years later.
If we get a wall, at the very least she will demand something in return.
Pelosi never has a serious challenge in her district.
(01-26-2019, 01:51 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2019, 01:02 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Pelosi won in a landslide two years later.
If we get a wall, at the very least she will demand something in return.
Pelosi never has a serious challenge in her district.
I meant more the way that her party won the nationwide votes for congressional seats.
(01-26-2019, 01:44 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2019, 11:11 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]all the more reason that it's dumb for him to demand that money be spent on a specific thing.
Lolz. Bills require his signature for a reason.
if you can find one other example, in all of the history of our constitution, of the president holding up ordinary business until he gets a new appropriation that he wants, I'd be really interested to know about it.
(01-26-2019, 01:44 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-26-2019, 01:02 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Pelosi won in a landslide two years later.
If we get a wall, at the very least she will demand something in return.
He's already offered.
Obviously what he's offered isn't enough.
He either needs to offer more, or wait.
(01-26-2019, 01:44 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2019, 11:11 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]all the more reason that it's dumb for him to demand that money be spent on a specific thing.
Lolz. Bills require his signature for a reason.
(01-26-2019, 01:02 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Pelosi won in a landslide two years later.
If we get a wall, at the very least she will demand something in return.
He's already offered.
You mean his offer not to deport Dreamers for three years? How thoughtful.
(01-26-2019, 02:57 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-26-2019, 01:44 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Lolz. Bills require his signature for a reason.
if you can find one other example, in all of the history of our constitution, of the president holding up ordinary business until he gets a new appropriation that he wants, I'd be really interested to know about it.
Quote: "At the time, Republicans controlled the House, and Democrats held the Senate.
Obama had said he would veto any bill that defunded Obamacare. His veto threat and the Democratic-controlled Senate doomed any measure that undermined the fledgling health care program.
The House passed several bills that eliminated Obamacare funding, and the Senate kept stripping out those provisions."
https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact...owns-same/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe not exactly the same, but close enough in my opinion. I was present in DC during the 2013 Obama government shutdown (and the subsequent grand re-opening), I got to witness firsthand how hardheaded politicians can be. Still the same today. I can't believe sometimes how party lines divide our country. Politicians seem to covet personal winning more than the people they serve. How can we get them to work together for the better?
(01-26-2019, 03:49 PM)Sammy Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2019, 02:57 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]
if you can find one other example, in all of the history of our constitution, of the president holding up ordinary business until he gets a new appropriation that he wants, I'd be really interested to know about it.
Quote: "At the time, Republicans controlled the House, and Democrats held the Senate. Obama had said he would veto any bill that defunded Obamacare. His veto threat and the Democratic-controlled Senate doomed any measure that undermined the fledgling health care program.
The House passed several bills that eliminated Obamacare funding, and the Senate kept stripping out those provisions."
https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact...owns-same/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe not exactly the same, but close enough in my opinion. I was present in DC during the 2013 Obama government shutdown (and the subsequent grand re-opening), I got to witness firsthand how hardheaded politicians can be. Still the same today. I can't believe sometimes how party lines divide our country. Politicians seem to covet personal winning more than the people they serve. How can we get them to work together for the better?
That was to continue an existing appropriation.
(01-26-2019, 02:57 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2019, 01:51 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Pelosi never has a serious challenge in her district.
I meant more the way that her party won the nationwide votes for congressional seats.
(01-26-2019, 01:44 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Lolz. Bills require his signature for a reason.
if you can find one other example, in all of the history of our constitution, of the president holding up ordinary business until he gets a new appropriation that he wants, I'd be really interested to know about it.
(01-26-2019, 01:44 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]
He's already offered.
Obviously what he's offered isn't enough.
He either needs to offer more, or wait.
Meh, the President's party usually loses some ground in mid-terms, and they added seats on the Senate side. Meanwhile, Trump is still President.
(01-26-2019, 05:33 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2019, 02:57 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I meant more the way that her party won the nationwide votes for congressional seats.
if you can find one other example, in all of the history of our constitution, of the president holding up ordinary business until he gets a new appropriation that he wants, I'd be really interested to know about it.
Obviously what he's offered isn't enough.
He either needs to offer more, or wait.
Meh, the President's party usually loses some ground in mid-terms, and they added seats on the Senate side. Meanwhile, Trump is still President.
Yup. whether it's designed that way or not, our system often makes it so the two parties have to negotiate with each other for anything to get done.
I don't think the name calling and allegations of encouraging rape and drug trafficking help matters.
(01-25-2019, 11:39 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019, 10:11 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]He's certainly giving the House plenty of opportunity to make this right. I would've preferred that he stick to the shut down, but in the long term he will be the one who was willing to compromise, even if the media never ever ever admits it.
"Make this right?"
They don't owe him anything!
He can say no to them and they can say no to him.
Why then do you blame him for the shut down?
Sounds like you agree that he's just doing what he's allowed to do. Much like how Pelosi isn't negotiating in good faith.