Jump to content
~*Please Support the GoFundMe Campaign for HardAct*~ Read more... ×
Jason

Trump ‘at this moment’ opposes deal to avert shutdown, wants more border funding

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

There's a super easy way to illegally live in the country. Just legally enter the country with a passport or a visa and then never leave. That's how the vast majority of undocumented immigrants enter the nation. I'm not sure how a wall helps.

 

Trump’s Wall Reportedly a Gimmick Stone and Nunberg Came Up With So He’d Remember to Talk Immigration

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, nublood said:

Fair enough. But a wall physically, metaphorically, or whatever you want it to be, doesn't mean we don't want you here. It just means we want you to find the appropriate points of entry along said wall, and come into this country the right way. The current system in place just isn't working well enough.

Symbolically,  his insistence on this wall as opposed to fences means EXACTLY that. The way he sold it was a clear dog whistle to xenophobes and racists around the country and the world. That's why it's as much a moral issue as a political one. He knows what he's doing and he knows who he is trying to appeal to as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where the hell is the offer of $X billion for border security and a DACA path to citizenship, Nancy and Chuck?!?

 

That offer not only puts the Imbecile in a bind but it also puts the Senate GOP in one too which SHOULD also be the goal: force them to reject an incredibly generous, reasonable offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's worth remembering that despite Trump's request for $5B and then $5.7, any realistic estimate for an actual border wall would be between $20-70B, would involve significant land appropriations under eminent domain, cost $150M a year to maintain, and it would take an untold number of years to build. All that to maybe reduce immigration by 1%, a goal which isn't particularly worthwhile to begin with.

 

It's an unrealistic, overly expensive proposal that would have a minimal effect on a small and declining problem that no competent leader or legislative body should realistically consider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Where the hell is the offer of $X billion for border security and a DACA path to citizenship, Nancy and Chuck?!?

 

That offer not only puts the Imbecile in a bind but it also puts the Senate GOP in one too which SHOULD also be the goal: force them to reject an incredibly generous, reasonable offer.

 

Because the Democrats shouldn't offer any money to them anyway. And if the Republicans take it that makes the Democrats look weak as all hell because they should be able to do both without acceding to any demands in the first place. Trump will blink first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

Because the Democrats shouldn't offer any money to them anyway. 

Why not?  Such a proposal puts the actual GOP (not just the Imbecile) in a bind and makes them even more responsible for the ongoing debacle should they reject it.

 

And if they accept it, then there's no money for "The Wall", there's money for border security which Nancy and Chuck both claim they do want more of, and there's a DACA citizenship path.

 

Where's the downside for the Democrats here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Why not?  Such a proposal puts the actual GOP (not just the Imbecile) in a bind and makes them even more responsible for the ongoing debacle should they reject it.

 

And if they accept it, then there's no money for  "The Wall", there's money for border security which Nancy and Chuck both claim they do want more of, and there's a DACA citizenship path.

 

Where's the downside for the Democrats here?

 

Because they can get a DACA deal anyway without needing to accede to a wall which would amount to what would be a huge political loss for our side and an emboldening win for the other, which would have potential snowball effect consequences as things proceed that could be far worse (in my opinion). The wall symbolizes a lot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Greatoneshere said:

 

Because they can get a DACA deal anyway without needing to accede to a wall which would amount to what would be a huge political loss for our side and an emboldening win for the other, which would have potential snowball effect consequences as things proceed that could be far worse (in my opinion). The wall symbolizes a lot. 

BUT THEY'RE NOT ACCEDING TO "THE WALL"!!!  

 

They would be offering the same deal as the one in 2017!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

BUT THEY'RE NOT ACCEDING TO "THE WALL"!!!  

 

They would be offering the same deal as the one in 2017!

 

But they are, at this point in time, symbolically acceding to the wall. That's how it will be seen, and that's important.

 

I disagreed with the deal they offered in 2017 as well. But under a Republican controlled Congress I was willing to accept it, but with Democrats in charge of the House now? No way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with our resident fascist on this one.  Propose a generous deal to the GOP.  If they reject it, it cements the shutdown in the court of the Republicans and especially Trump.  If they accept it, DACA becomes permanent and there is more funding for more border security (but not necessarily a border wall).  Plus, those 800,000 federal workers would get paid again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

I'm with our resident fascist on this one.  Propose a generous deal to the GOP.  If they reject it, it cements the shutdown in the court of the Republicans and especially Trump.  If they accept it, DACA becomes permanent and there is more funding for more border security (but not necessarily a border wall).  Plus, those 800,000 federal workers would get paid again. 

 

It's very tempting, I agree, but I think they can get all that without agreeing to this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Why not?  Such a proposal puts the actual GOP (not just the Imbecile) in a bind and makes them even more responsible for the ongoing debacle should they reject it.

 

And if they accept it, then there's no money for "The Wall", there's money for border security which Nancy and Chuck both claim they do want more of, and there's a DACA citizenship path.

 

Where's the downside for the Democrats here?

 

A majority is already pinning the blame on Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jason said:

 

A majority is already pinning the blame on Trump.

 

Exactly. This is bigger than just the shutdown now thanks to dumbass Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jason said:

 

A majority is already pinning the blame on Trump.

 

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Exactly. This is bigger than just the shutdown now thanks to dumbass Trump. 

Yes, I saw the polling data this morning too :p

 

The problem is that 7% blame the GOP.  The objective should be to get that number higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nublood said:

Fair enough. But a wall physically, metaphorically, or whatever you want it to be, doesn't mean we don't want you here. It just means we want you to find the appropriate points of entry along said wall, and come into this country the right way. The current system in place just isn't working well enough.

 

I know you're getting swamped with notifications, but I appreciate you talking about it and being open. So here's what I think:

 

Most undocumented immigrants, first, are called undocumented by people who sympathize with them because most of them aren't sneaking into the country. They're here legally first. He makes the wall the centerpiece of his platform, but it's another political maneuver that creates a (bad) solution that doesn't actually solve a problem. We have barriers and checkpoints in place, and the original deal that Trump last-minute rejected put forward plenty of money for increased border security. Border security is fine; it's a basic thing that we need. A wall isn't a solution, nor has he really explained how it's a solution and why it's worth the money he's asking for, and the onus is on him to do so.

 

That's putting aside the fact that shutting down the government because you can't get your idea passed through Congress is a bad way to operate government. Funding the government has been a basic thing forever, but now government shutdowns happen regularly.

 

Furthermore, he's anti-immigration, straight-up. Asylum-seeking is legal; he wants to make it hard/impossible for that to happen. Anti-immigrant groups continue to get larger, and I encounter more Republicans who straight up want to lower immigration or close the borders and look down on people from other countries who want to move here. One even cited freaking climate change (that's a new one from a Republican, for sure) as to why we shouldn't let people into the country. The sentiment against people who "aren't us" continues to get stronger, and it's crazy considering many who say this describe themselves as pro-life or "All Lives Matter" (except for these people). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inhofe should really consider writing his Senator about how veto overrides work.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Exactly. This is bigger than just the shutdown now thanks to dumbass Trump. 

 

I agree with you 100% on this one. The Democrats offering some type of compromise deal, regardless of how generous, allows Trump to claim some type of victory and come out of this looking like the reasonable one to the average idiot. Optics, IMO, are going to be a key factor gearing up for 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jason said:

Inhofe should really consider writing his Senator about how veto overrides work.
 

 

 

Should we tar and feather the reporter who decided to ask Trump about declaring an SoE to get his wall built? I mean, there was zero talk about this nonsense before that press conference, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy.
 

Quote

The clock is ticking. If the current extension lapses and is not renewed by then by the Department of Homeland Security, all California driver's licenses and ID cards will be invalid for domestic air travel starting Jan. 22.

This includes the 2.4 million Californians who have already been issued a Real ID.

The DMV blamed the government shutdown and the federal government's lack of response for the delay in receiving the extension.

"The State of California has been working for the better part of a year to be deemed compliant with the REAL ID act, unfortunately due to a lack of response on the part of the Federal Government with the ongoing shutdown there has been no final confirmation. The Department, along with the Governor's Office liaison in Washington DC continues to work to get formal notification that the state has been deemed compliant," the DMV said in a statement to KABC's sister station, KFSN-TV.

The state of California has been working for the better part of a year to be deemed compliant with the REAL ID act. Unfortunately, due to a lack of response on the part of the federal government with the ongoing shutdown, there has been no final confirmation. The department, along with the governor's office liaison in Washington, D.C. continues to work to get formal notification that the state has been deemed compliant.

 

 

https://abc7.com/travel/millions-of-californians-may-be-unable-to-fly-starting-jan-22-without-extra-id/5040514/

 

I have a passport, but this is still going to turn California airports into complete shitshows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

I agree with you 100% on this one. The Democrats offering some type of compromise deal, regardless of how generous, allows Trump to claim some type of victory and come out of this looking like the reasonable one to the average idiot. Optics, IMO, are going to be a key factor gearing up for 2020.

 

Precisely - I'm thinking long game on this. 

 

16 minutes ago, Jason said:

Oh boy.
 

 

https://abc7.com/travel/millions-of-californians-may-be-unable-to-fly-starting-jan-22-without-extra-id/5040514/

 

I have a passport, but this is still going to turn California airports into complete shitshows.

 

Holy shit if I understand this correctly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your Real ID compliant drivers license doesn't mean shit if there are no TSA agents to check it at the airport. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Jason said:

Oh boy.
 

 

https://abc7.com/travel/millions-of-californians-may-be-unable-to-fly-starting-jan-22-without-extra-id/5040514/

 

I have a passport, but this is still going to turn California airports into complete shitshows.

Fuck fuck FUCK

This affects me directly... my passport is expired and I've been using my California issued Driver's license to fly, just flew out Friday for work and will probably be flying back to Cali in February some time.  This is not good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Fuck fuck FUCK

This affects me directly... my passport is expired and I've been using my California issued Driver's license to fly, just flew out Friday for work and will probably be flying back to Cali in February some time.  This is not good.

 

I'm pretty sure you'd have to get to an airport to enroll, but if you enroll in Clear you should be able to get through without needing to present ID. I think there's free trials, if you can't find one I think I can send you one. 

 

Of course, this is assuming air transportation hasn't completely ground to a halt by then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

I'm pretty sure you'd have to get to an airport to enroll, but if you enroll in Clear you should be able to get through without needing to present ID. I think there's free trials, if you can't find one I think I can send you one. 

 

Of course, this is assuming air transportation hasn't completely ground to a halt by then. 

Thanks I'll look into it. I anticipate doing a lot more flying coast to coast this year so it might be worthwhile.  I just passed a background check by the Mouse's empire so getting cleared for what you're talking about should be cake :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Thanks I'll look into it. I anticipate doing a lot more flying coast to coast this year so it might be worthwhile.  I just passed a background check by the Mouse's empire so getting cleared for what you're talking about should be cake :p

 

If you wind up keeping it you can get a discount by presenting your Delta Skymiles number, even if you don't fly Delta just make an account and you'll get a discount. IIRC you need to do the free trial without your Skymiles number and then attach it afterward. I haven't really found it particularly useful but maybe I'm not flying at the right times (one time I got hosed by the Precheck line being closed but that hasn't happened since). 

 

If you do this to avoid needing an ID in February specifically, you should probably go while TSA will still take your ID. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nublood said:

Fair enough. But a wall physically, metaphorically, or whatever you want it to be, doesn't mean we don't want you here. It just means we want you to find the appropriate points of entry along said wall, and come into this country the right way. The current system in place just isn't working well enough.

 

That could be true, but it clearly is not for the currently Republican party (and Trump). They are actively trying to turn away legal asylum seekers (and slandering them as a mob, or terrorists) who have the right to request asylum at border crossings. They are also trying to reduce legal immigration. To the GOP and Trump, immigration is bad because immigrants from Latin American countries tend to vote for Democrats more than Republicans, so therefore they are bad. Immigration is actually great for the US, however, and is the reason why the US is as powerful as it is. If the US had had its current government's stance to immigrants throughout its entire history, then the US would probably only be along the eastern coastline with a population of 30 million, and the rest of the continent would belong to some combination of Canada, a New France, Mexico, etc.

 

There is almost no situation where immigration is bad for a country as large as the US. China's population is set to peak in 2029. From that point on they are going to experience some terrible economic shocks as their population begins ageing rapidly (the same problem facing Japan, Russia, etc). The nations which will own the latter-half of the 21st century will be the ones who are open and continue to grow. Eventually the world will settled into a global-reducing population (very late 21st century, projections show, at around 11-12 billion), but even then some countries will continue to grow as people continue to flock there.

 

I can tell you for a fact that the current anti-immigration attitude in the US is benefiting Canada greatly. Canada is now effectively poaching a huge amount of talent that would normally go to the US, especially in the fields of software development, and especially from places like India. At the same time, it is also accepting a gigantically larger proportion of asylum seekers than the US. Basically, if you open your borders to all, then all will want to come. If you close it so some but not others, then the others are dissuaded because of the atmosphere it creates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I just got an alert that he stormed out of the meeting... The Art of The Deal at work folks. He's still "playing" the tough businessman man he fooled his followers into thinking he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

 

Angry orange baby man throws tantrum!

 

It's not very effective... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He just handed the Dems a gift and they have to start playing offense. They have ignore him and focus on the Republicans in the Senate now to come up with a Veto proof majority to reopen the Government.  We have a crisis alright,  a crisis of competent leadership in the executive branch and Congress has to start acting that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×