Lie: Democrats Say They're Deeply Concerned About Trump's 'Racism' On Immigration.

[SunsetBengal]

(01-16-2018, 09:57 PM)GMDino Wrote: Tell that to the POTUS.  He said he'd sign whatever they brought him.

But nonetheless it could have been a starting point as it was bipartisan....IF Trump had said it was ok.  But as we all know he lies so much it was never gonna happen.

Be that as it may, still not a passed piece of legislation.


Besides, you won't even give the Pres' credit for wanting to fix a wrong that's been going on for years, now.  An unconstitutional executive order has been being used to completely circumvent US immigration law, for quite some time now.  That is the entire premise of forcing Congress to pass something...

When they bring him a passed piece of legislation, he will sign it.

[GMDino]

See it's all about that ego trip wall.  The one Mexico is paying for. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-calls-daca-agreement-from-bipartisan-group-of-senators-a-big-step-backwards/

Quote:President Trump on Friday expressed opposition to the "agreement in principle" struck by a bipartisan group of senators to protect so-called "Dreamers" and to enhance border security.

In a series of tweets, Mr. Trump said that it is a "big step backwards" and that his proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border was "not properly funded."

Not about anything else.  He thought he could force Democrats to agree to funding his vanity project wall, and when he didn't get his way he stomped his feet and took his ball and went to Mar Lago home.

Quote:On Thursday afternoon, a group of GOP and Democratic senators said that they had reached a deal while other lawmakers rejected their agreement.

"President Trump called on Congress to solve the DACA challenge," said a joint statement released by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina; Dick Durbin, D-Illinois; Jeff Flake, R-Arizona; Michael Bennet, D-Colorado; and Bob Menendez, D-New Jersey. "We have been working for four months and have reached an agreement in principle that addresses border security, the diversity visa lottery, chain migration/family reunification, and the Dream Act—the areas outlined by the president. We are now working to build support for that deal in Congress."

Fortunately congress has fewer crybabies and is working together on a solution despite the very stable genius.

While I'm sure no one wants to take the time to read what is being offered/discussed when they just say the POTUS was right....

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/16/16879632/daca-bill-durbin-graham

Quote:When President Trump indelibly called African countries “shitholes” (or perhaps “shithouses”) in a White House meeting Thursday, he wasn’t just ranting. He was criticizing a proposed immigration deal struck by a bipartisan group of US senators — the only bipartisan proposal so far that could provide a solution for the 690,000 unauthorized immigrants facing the end of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in time to avoid a government shutdown at the end of this week.

Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) reportedly left the meeting horrified by Trump’s comments ... then proceeded to continue trying to gather congressional support for the deal Trump had just panned.


Even after Trump’s temper tantrum Thursday (and his tweets over the weekend declaring a DACA deal “dead” and blaming Durbin), most observers agree that, just as he promised in a televised meeting last Tuesday, Trump will sign a bill that gets to his desk.


Getting it there, through both chambers of Congress, is the tricky part.


There are still some big questions about the Graham-Durbin proposal. They haven’t released bill text or even a one-pager. But on balance — if the most recent reports are accurate — it’s a left-of-center compromise.


It would slightly decrease the number of people coming into the US legally each year and give Trump the resources to start his “wall” in exchange for substantially increasing the number of current immigrants — both legal and unauthorized — eligible for permanent legal status.


If that doesn’t address the concerns of enough members of Congress, they can keep negotiating — or perhaps an alternative framework will arise that can be more broadly supported, maybe from the working group of congressional leaders like Senate Majority Leader John Cornyn (R-TX), Senate Minority Whip Durbin, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD).


The White House may not be satisfied with the Durbin-Graham proposal, but that raises the question of what it would endorse that could still get 60 votes in the Senate.


Graham and Durbin are betting that as the deadline nears, congressional leadership’s desire to get the DACA issue off the table will override their reluctance to support a deal without political cover from the president. It’s possible that an alternative proposal might materialize, but for now, the Graham-Durbin framework is the only game in town.


What we know about the Graham-Durbin immigration framework


The framework that Sens. Graham and Durbin agreed to, along with Sens. Michael Bennet (D-CO), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Cory Gardner (R-CO), and Bob Menendez (D-NJ), covers the four areas that the White House and congressional leaders agreed to after Tuesday’s meeting: a DACA fix, a wall, restrictions on “chain migration,” and an end to the diversity visa lottery program.


For the most part, though, the proposal finds the least disruptive way possible to satisfy those demands. It eliminates the “lottery” part of the diversity visa lottery but retaining some support for the “diversity” part. It gives access to legal status and green cards to DACA recipients (and those who would have qualified for the program) and to immigrants who are facing the loss of their Temporary Protected Status under the Trump administration. And it limits “chain migration” only for parents of DREAMers legalized under the bill — not by slashing family-based immigration more broadly.


Young unauthorized immigrants who came to the US as children would get legal status — and eventual citizenship. The deal would allow hundreds of thousands (potentially, depending on the details, a million or more) of unauthorized immigrants who came to the US as children, and meet educational and criminal requirements, to apply for provisional legal status in the US. After a certain number of years, they’d be eligible to apply for green cards — and after another three or five years, like other green card holders, they would be able to apply for US citizenship.


The qualifications for immigrants to legalize haven’t yet been released in detail; according to reports, they represent a compromise between the DREAM Act, supported by Democrats and some Republicans, and a Republican alternative called the SUCCEED Act.


Legalization wouldn’t just be open to the 690,000 immigrants who were protected under the DACA program when Trump started winding it down in September; it would also include immigrants who qualified for DACA and never applied (or whose protections expired without renewal), or who meet the requirements set forward in the bill, as well as immigrants under 15 who weren’t able to apply for DACA. And unlike DACA, it would be permanent.


It prevents “chain migration” by barring DREAMers from sponsoring their parents. Under the Graham-Durbin proposal, parents of DREAMers would be allowed to get a form of legal status that could be renewed every few years — but that would not, by itself, make them eligible for green cards. They wouldn’t be able to get green cards through their children who would be legalized under this bill, either.


This is the big open question about the whole framework — one that could make the difference in a few million unauthorized immigrants becoming US citizens.


According to some reports, the bill would place a restriction on the immigrant parents rather than the (eventual US citizen) children, making it impossible for them to get sponsored for green cards through their kids. In one respect, that could be more punitive toward millions of immigrants than current law.

Currently, the five million native-born US citizens with at least one unauthorized parent (many of whom also have DREAMers in their families) are able to sponsor their parents once they turn 21; if parents were banned from green cards categorically, a US-born child with a DREAMer older sister would never be able to sponsor her parents for green cards.


But other observers familiar with the talks say that possibility has been rejected, and that the restriction would only be on DREAMers sponsoring their parents — not on native-born citizens sponsoring them.


These immigrants would (eventually) be eligible for green cards under current law anyway — as long as they’re not permanently barred from legal status because of their immigration history. But the Graham-Durbin proposal would give them a form of legal status to bridge the gap until they could become citizens. If the reports of a more permissive “chain migration” fix are true, it would make the bill unequivocally dovish in its approach to current unauthorized immigrants.


The diversity visa lottery would be eliminated, and those 50,000 visas would be reallocated. When President Trump started going after the “visa lottery” after a failed terrorist attack in New York, it made a certain amount of sense: Republicans had been railing for a while against the idea of handing visas out by lottery instead of merit. Many Democrats are willing to give that up if those visas are used for other things they want — though the Congressional Black Caucus is very worried about the impact on African countries, which tend to benefit the most from the visa lottery.


The Trump administration is moving aggressively to end temporary legal protection for hundreds of thousands of immigrants who’ve been in the US for years or decades, while calling on Congress to solve the problem with a permanent solution.
The proposed DACA deal would kill two birds with one stone. It would eliminate the visa lottery. But instead of just allowing 50,000 fewer immigrants into the US legally each year, it would reallocate those visas. Some of them would go to immigrants from underrepresented countries, just on a non-lottery basis (such as holding spots for underrepresented countries in current visa categories); other visas would go to immigrants who currently have TPS, opening the door for them to apply for green cards.


A few billion dollars for the border. NBC’s Leigh Ann Caldwell reported that the deal as presented to Trump would have included $1.6 billion for physical barriers (which Caldwell called a fence but the White House would probably call a wall), surveillance tech, and agent training — and another $1.2 billion for “other priorities” on border security. Those numbers are roughly in line with what the White House asked for a single year on the border in its 2017 supplemental funding requests, and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) dismissively characterized them as only funding the wall “for a year.”


There’s some room for negotiation in this framework — but not a ton


“I expect there will be more negotiations,” Graham said to the Washington Post Monday. “We wrote a proposal that over time, we can make it better.”


Maybe.


The problem is that in addition to the balancing act of any compromise — that making the bill more conservative might lose liberal votes, and vice versa — the Graham-Durbin proposal doesn’t have a ton of room for policy negotiation without opening up a much bigger can of worms than can be resolved in a single four-day week, or even the month that Congress could buy by passing another short-term continuing resolution to keep the government open.

On the left, House Democrats are frustrated that the deal gives Trump any semblance of “wall” funding — Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY), the chair of the House Democratic Caucus, told the Post it’s “not a deal I could support” — and that it was put together without their involvement.


On the right, some conservatives are concerned that the deal doesn’t provide enough money for the border — Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and James Lankford (R-OK) claim to have left the bipartisan negotiations over this issue. Reportedly, Republicans including Cornyn are also stressing the importance of tightening asylum laws as a means to “secure the border,” given how many of the people apprehended by Border Patrol in recent years have been Central American asylum seekers (often children or families).


Cotton, a leading immigration hawk, appears especially frustrated that the bill doesn’t do more to restrict family-based legal immigration — for example, eliminating the lower-priority visa categories that allow adult children and siblings of US citizens to come to the US. Those categories are the main targets of opponents to “chain migration,” but getting rid of them would create a couple of big policy headaches.


Legislators would have to figure out what to do with the millions of people who’ve applied for those visas but are stuck in backlogs due to annual limits. They’d have to decide whether the visas should be given to other people — and which sort of other people — or eliminated entirely, as they are in Cotton’s RAISE Act.


Ultimately, though, immigration hawks’ objections to the Graham-Durbin deal are holistic. They think the DACA fix should instead come from Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)’s immigration bill — which essentially attaches legalization for DACA recipients, with no pathway to a green card, to an omnibus of immigration enforcement proposals including mandatory use of the E-Verify program to check the legal status of all workers.


That bill is a nonstarter for Democrats — and it’s probably not the bill that moderate Republicans want, either.


There is no “shithole countries” compromise


No one in Congress appears to be discussing how to make an immigration deal address the complaints Trump made at the Thursday meeting. He didn’t want a bill that allowed Haitian immigrants to stay in the US, and he wanted more immigration from countries like Norway (and, according to some reports, Asia) and fewer from “shithole” (or “shithouse”) African countries.


There’s no discussion about addressing those complaints because those aren’t actually complaints about immigration policy.


Trump complained about the “lottery” part of the diversity visa lottery, so the Graham-Durbin group eliminated it — but it turned out that, at least as of Thursday, his real problem was with some of the countries it benefits.


You can’t make a deal that preserves diversity visa slots for Norway (which currently qualifies) but not for Namibia, on the basis that Trump doesn’t like Namibia. You can’t make a deal that provides green cards to Salvadorans with TPS but not to Haitians, because Trump wants Haitians to leave.


It’s impossible to negotiate with the White House right now because it’s impossible to know which White House will show up. 
It’s all but certain that Trump, in a vacuum, would have agreed to this deal — in fact, he “expressed pleasure” with it in a Thursday morning phone call with Durbin, according to the Post.


But key White House advisers, including Stephen Miller, legislative director Marc Short, and Chief of Staff John Kelly, didn’t like that deal. And it’s not clear what deal they would support. Republicans in Congress blamed Miller for trying to blow up negotiations last week; no White House official has told Congress what the White House’s real deal breakers are, pointing instead to a five-page list of demands issued in October and a $19 billion, 10-year plan for the border wall.


The only real option the White House has is to veto the bill — would Trump really do that and cause a government shutdown?



Without any guidance from hawks or the White House about what a bipartisan alternative to Graham-Durbin would look like, it’s hard to imagine that anyone in Congress will be able to come up with a deal between now and Friday. If Democrats decide to block any funding bill until DACA is addressed, and if Republican leadership decides that avoiding a shutdown is more important than their qualms over an immigration bill — both of which are big ifs — Graham-Durbin will go from a legislative outcast to an emergency bipartisan win.

[GMDino]

(01-16-2018, 10:06 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Be that as it may, still not a passed piece of legislation.


Besides, you won't even give the Pres' credit for wanting to fix a wrong that's been going on for years, now.  An unconstitutional executive order has been being used to completely circumvent US immigration law, for quite some time now.  That is the entire premise of forcing Congress to pass something...

When they bring him a passed piece of legislation, he will sign it.

I answered all of this int he post before I saw your reply.

He doesn't care...he wants his wall.

That's all this is about.  The king of negotiations is gonna make you pay for his wall.

[StLucieBengal]

We should just surcharged money transfers to Mexico until the Wall is paid. That will send some of these illegals home as well.

[GMDino]

(01-16-2018, 11:41 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We should just surcharged  money transfers to Mexico until the Wall is paid.  That will send some of these illegals home as well.

Except that's not it.  You are going to pay.

[StLucieBengal]

(01-16-2018, 11:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: Except that's not it.  You are going to pay.

I’m fine with paying. It comes down to national defense and that’s what the government should be doing.

[GMDino]

(01-16-2018, 11:54 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I’m fine with paying.   It comes down to national defense and that’s what the government should be doing.

Mexico is supposed to pay.

If we can't afford education and healthcare we can't afford this vanity project.

You voted for Mexico to pay.

Lied.

[StLucieBengal]

(01-17-2018, 12:04 AM)GMDino Wrote: Mexico is supposed to pay.

If we can't afford education and healthcare we can't afford this vanity project.

You voted for Mexico to pay.

Lied.

I didn’t vote for the wall to be paid by Mexico. I voted for a point system, deportations, and a wall. These are national defense items and that is well within the scope of the federal government as stated in the constitution.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

The citizens of the United States voted the current government into office. The agendas of that government were not a secret, hence people voted for that agenda. To criticize the current government for trying to enact that agenda is to display the understanding of a two year old. You can disagree with that agenda, and many do. But to say they shouldn't pursue it, when that is precisely what they were elected to do, is just, well, stupid.

[GMDino]

(01-17-2018, 11:58 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The citizens of the United States voted the current government into office.  The agendas of that government were not a secret, hence people voted for that agenda.  To criticize the current government for trying to enact that agenda is to display the understanding of a two year old.  You can disagree with that agenda, and many do.  But to say they shouldn't pursue it, when that is precisely what they were elected to do, is just, well, stupid.

Yet folks say "they didn't vote for" whatever part of the agenda they didn't like...even though the voted for the candidate espousing that agenda.

I guess that's okay?

If part of the agenda is giant vanity project that virtually every agrees is a waste of time and money should we NOT voice opposition and try to stop it just because the guy won?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-17-2018, 12:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yet folks say "they didn't vote for" whatever part of the agenda they didn't like...even though the voted for the candidate espousing that agenda.

What "folks" are you talking about?  Generalities aren't helpful in this regard.

Quote:I guess that's okay?

Assuming your statement contains some degree of accuracy, I would also point out that it would be close to impossible for a person to agree with every single position a candidate espouses.  Generally, in the adult world, we vote for the person we agree with the most, or who agrees with us on the issues we feel to be the most important.

Quote:If part of the agenda is giant vanity project that virtually every agrees is a waste of time and money should we NOT voice opposition and try to stop it just because the guy won?

Who is "we"?  You and the Dems?  The Dems would oppose him regardless, they made that clear on 11/08/17 when they already started talking impeachment.  Not that the GOP was much more fair to Obama, but at least they had control of Congress to justify their obstructionism, checks and balances and all.


The bottom line is this, the Dems (the minority party in every regard) are, apparently, willing to shut down the federal government, an action that will hurt US citizens, because they aren't getting what they want on the subject of people who are in the country illegally.  This is a fact, no amount of lipstick will make that pig any prettier.

[GMDino]

(01-17-2018, 12:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What "folks" are you talking about?  Generalities aren't helpful in this regard.

Perhaps you should read more. There are stories of people losing their healthcare that said they didn't think Trump would really push for it. There are people on this board who won't hold Trump to his statements about Mexico paying for the wall and quite happy for US taxpayers to pay for it when that's not what his agenda was.

(01-17-2018, 12:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Assuming your statement contains some degree of accuracy, I would also point out that it would be close to impossible for a person to agree with every single position a candidate espouses.  Generally, in the adult world, we vote for the person we agree with the most, or who agrees with us on the issues we feel to be the most important.

100% accuracy. And I understand that. And if they are opposed to part of the agenda, even if they voted for the candidate, they should speak up about it.

(01-17-2018, 12:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Who is "we"?  You and the Dems?  The Dems would oppose him regardless, they made that clear on 11/08/17 when they already started talking impeachment.  Not that the GOP was much more fair to Obama, but at least they had control of Congress to justify their obstructionism, checks and balances and all.

"we" includes anyone who opposes a waste of time and money like "the wall". That is democrats and republicans.

As you say, the Democrats are in the minority. Not much they can do but try to point out how bad an idea/bill/suggestion is. The GOP has control and can do as they please for the most part.

But my question remains the same: Do we have to not try and stop a stupid thing simply because the party I belong to is in the minority?

(01-17-2018, 12:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The bottom line is this, the Dems (the minority party in every regard) are, apparently, willing to shut down the federal government, an action that will hurt US citizens, because they aren't getting what they want on the subject of people who are in the country illegally.  This is a fact, no amount of lipstick will make that pig any prettier.

The Democrats can not shut down the government. All the power lies with the GOP and your boy Trump. And Trump will do it because he can't get his ego trip wall paid for by you and me.

Spinning enough will only make you dizzy.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-17-2018, 12:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: Perhaps you should read more.  There are stories of people losing their healthcare that said they didn't think Trump would really push for it.  There are people on this board who won't hold Trump to his statements about Mexico paying for the wall and quite happy for US taxpayers to pay for it when that's not what his agenda was.

I read plenty.  You made a claim, it's your responsibility to actually back it up.

Quote:100% accuracy.  And I understand that.  And if they are opposed to part of the agenda, even if they voted for the candidate, they should speak up about it.

Why?  Maybe they accept that part, even though it's not a policy they agree on?  Adults make compromises and a good compromise leaves everyone unhappy.

Quote:"we" includes anyone who opposes a waste of time and money like "the wall".  That is democrats and republicans.  

"Like" the wall?  You were just talking about the wall, what else are you now referring to?  The wall is a waste in your opinion, not everyone shares that opinion.

Quote:As you say, the Democrats are in the minority.  Not much they can do but try to point out how bad an idea/bill/suggestion is.  The GOP has control and can do as they please for the most part.

Incorrect (so much for 100% accuracy).  If this was true this wouldn't be a topic of discussion.  The Dems can stimie anything they want on the Senate, and they have chosen, apparently, to shut down the federal government in an effort to protect people in the country illegally.  Whatever your feelings on this topic, the fact remains that they are willing to harm US citizens for people who are in the country illegally.

Quote:But my question remains the same:  Do we have to not try and stop a stupid thing simply because the party I belong to is in the minority?  

Of course "stupid" being subjective.  I consider many/most of your posts to be stupid, I'm sure you don't.

Quote:The Democrats can not shut down the government.  All the power lies with the GOP and your boy Trump.  And Trump will do it because he can't get his ego trip wall paid for by you and me.

Again incorrect.  Did you fail basic civics in high school?  I ask because you seem rather ignorant of how Congress works.

Quote:Spinning enough will only make you dizzy.

A typical maneuver of yours, accuse others of a tactic in an attempt to invalidate the entirety of their points.  If you think I'm spinning with my straight-forward, factual, posts feel free to show how.

[BmorePat87]

(01-16-2018, 08:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sorry, but that's how politics works.  The GOP is in power, they have the right to govern as the people voted them in.  The Dems can either compromise or get nothing they want, betting that they will be in a better position after the 2018 elections.  There is no way around the factual point that the Dems are willing to shut down the federal government in an effort to help people who are in the country illegally.  Also, the D in DACA stands for deferred, meaning it was never supposed to be a permanent solution.

I feel bad for people in that position, but I also don't think the United States is the only country in the world that should have no say in who is allowed within it's borders.  If you allowed it there'd be 500 million Chinese people who would move here tomorrow.  I don't see anyone advocating for that.

That really doesn't change what I said about the person creating the issue being the one who started playing politics with it, it just excuses it as business as usual, which I know it is. 

I can't slap someone and then accuse them of starting a fight. 

[GMDino]

(01-17-2018, 12:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I read plenty.  You made a claim, it's your responsibility to actually back it up.

http://time.com/4863859/trump-voters-healthcare-reform-obamacare-poll/
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/19/politics/cnn-poll-tax-bill-opposition-grows/index.html
https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2017-06-26/poll-president-trump-voters-oppose-his-education-agenda

Read this board. Plenty of folks who say they won't hold Trump to what he said because they never believed it.

(01-17-2018, 12:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Why?  Maybe they accept that part, even though it's not a policy they agree on?  Adults make compromises and a good compromise leaves everyone unhappy.

And that still doesn't answer the question:  If they voted for a and b but strongly disagree with c should they just be quiet?  I say no.  I say people should be willing to admit they oppose things even from people they support.  

I'd like to think that most people would stand up to things they think are wrong.

(01-17-2018, 12:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: "Like" the wall?  You were just talking about the wall, what else are you now referring to?  The wall is a waste in your opinion, not everyone shares that opinion.

Pick an agenda item and more people voted against it than for it (in the general election).

As to the border wall:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/351752-poll-support-drops-for-deportation-border-wall
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/344631-rasmussen-poll-most-dont-want-border-wall
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/08/25/most-americans-dont-want-the-wall-dont-think-mexico-will-pay-for-it-and-dont-believe-it-will-happen/?utm_term=.a296e6f317ca
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/24/trump-says-his-base-really-wants-a-border-wall-polls-show-most-americans-dont/?utm_term=.69dee7ab025e

It's an ego trip that is a waste of time and money.

(01-17-2018, 12:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Incorrect (so much for 100% accuracy).  If this was true this wouldn't be a topic of discussion.  The Dems can stimie anything they want on the Senate, and they have chosen, apparently, to shut down the federal government in an effort to protect people in the country illegally.  Whatever your feelings on this topic, the fact remains that they are willing to harm US citizens for people who are in the country illegally.

I thought you read a lot?

(01-17-2018, 12:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: As you say, the Democrats are in the minority.  Not much they can do but try to point out how bad an idea/bill/suggestion is.  The GOP has control and can do as they please for the most part.

But my question remains the same:  Do I have to not try and stop a stupid thing simply because the party I belong to is in the minority?  

(01-17-2018, 12:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Of course "stupid" being subjective.  I consider many/most of your posts to be stupid, I'm sure you don't.

Oh, quite the contrary.  I know I've posted stupid things.  I know and admit I've been wrong, made mistakes, been confused, been corrected.  I'd bet anyone who thinks "many/most" of my posts were stupid simply disagreed more often than not.  Either way I'm not insulted or bothered by it.

I am sure it is a waste of time and is certainly a waste of money that could be put to better use elsewhere.  The majority agree with me.

(01-17-2018, 12:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again incorrect.  Did you fail basic civics in high school?  I ask because you seem rather ignorant of how Congress works.

The GOP can't get their own members to vote for their own agenda and they want to blame the Democrats for not helping.

That's adorable.

(01-17-2018, 12:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A typical maneuver of yours, accuse others of a tactic in an attempt to invalidate the entirety of their points.  If you think I'm spinning with my straight-forward, factual, posts feel free to show how.

No...this is opinion:

(01-17-2018, 12:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The bottom line is this, the Dems (the minority party in every regard) are, apparently, willing to shut down the federal government, an action that will hurt US citizens, because they aren't getting what they want on the subject of people who are in the country illegally.  This is a fact, no amount of lipstick will make that pig any prettier.

And it is spin.

Your boy Trump doesn't care about anything except Trump looking good.  And he wants that ego trip wall built and he wants you to pay for it.

And he'll lie about who to blame just like he lies about almost everything else.

[Dill]

(01-17-2018, 12:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: But my question remains the same:  Do we have to not try and stop a stupid thing simply because the party I belong to is in the minority? 

I believe he was saying something like that--but it's kind of unclear.

Apparently we can criticize the opposing party's agenda, but we can't say they shouldn't pursue it.

Some might think it hard to do one without implying the other.

E.g., if Trump promised to relax regulations on flight safety, you could warn it would lead to higher incidence of air traffic fatalities, but you should not say he shouldn't pursue the policy. He won the election.  That is a step too far. Somehow.

[Dill]

(01-17-2018, 01:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: The GOP can't get their own members to vote for their own agenda and they want to blame the Democrats for not helping.

This is rather puzzling. The GOP controls both houses and the presidency.  But people in this forum talk as if Democrats will get and deserve the blame for any budget obstruction.


Are there any thoughtful Republican conservatives out there who can explain why Republicans do not control the government they own now?

[GMDino]

Those blasted DEMOCRATS!  Making the POTUS tweet that if he doesn't get the wall there is no deal!  Those DEMOCRATS are holding the government budget and DACA hostage by making Trump do this!

It's all the DEMOCRATS fault!




https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/18/trump-pushes-back-against-john-kelly-over-border-wall/1043328001/

Quote:Early Thursday, however, Trump was having none of it. He began tweeting at 6:15 a.m. that nothing has changed with the wall — including who will pay for it.


"The Wall is the Wall, it has never changed or evolved from the first day I conceived of it," he tweeted. "Parts will be, of necessity, see through and it was never intended to be built in areas where there is natural protection such as mountains, wastelands or tough rivers or water....."
Ten minutes later, the president re-upped his demand that Mexico foot the bill.


"....The Wall will be paid for, directly or indirectly, or through longer term reimbursement, by Mexico, which has a ridiculous $71 billion dollar trade surplus with the U.S," he wrote. " The $20 billion dollar Wall is “peanuts” compared to what Mexico makes from the U.S. NAFTA is a bad joke!"

Quote:[/url]


Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

The Wall is the Wall, it has never changed or evolved from the first day I conceived of it. Parts will be, of necessity, see through and it was never intended to be built in areas where there is natural protection such as mountains, wastelands or tough rivers or water.....
6:15 AM - Jan 18, 2018

In a final flourish two hours later, Trump fell back on his campaign theme on the wall, saying it was needed to stop the inflow of drugs from Mexico, which he called the "number one most dangeorus country in the world."


The presidential blowback comes amid attempts by Kelly and others to craft an immigration package that could pass both houses of Congress and head off a possible shutdown of the government on Saturday. The cost and scope of the proposed wall is a key element in any legislative deal.

Quote:

[url=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/953951365532876800]
Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

....The Wall will be paid for, directly or indirectly, or through longer term reimbursement, by Mexico, which has a ridiculous $71 billion dollar trade surplus with the U.S. The $20 billion dollar Wall is “peanuts” compared to what Mexico makes from the U.S. NAFTA is a bad joke!
6:25 AM - Jan 18, 2018

Kelly went public with his view of the project in the Fox News interview only hours after meeting with Congressional Hispanic Caucus.


“Campaign to governing are two different things,” Kelly said. “And this president has been very, very flexible in terms of what is within the realm of the possible.”


“There's been an evolutionary process that this president has gone through... and I pointed out to all the members that were in the room that they all say things during the course of campaigns that may or may not be fully informed,” Kelly said.


Kelly said Trump has “adjusted the way he's looked at” a number of issues, including his strategy in Afghanistan and toward DACA, the Obama-era program that shields undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children from deportation.

As for the wall, Kelly said experts talked to Trump about how there “are places where, geographically, a wall would not be realistic.”


On Trump's insistence that Mexico pay for the wall, Kelly said: “In one way or another, it's possible that we could get the revenue from Mexico but not directly from their government.”


As for a deal with Democrats over DACA, Kelly said Trump wants 700 miles of additional border wall and $20 billion in funding.

In a tweet Thursday, Trump wrote flatly that a wall is needed "for the safety and security of our country." "If there is no Wall, there is no Deal!" he wrote.

[Belsnickel]

(01-17-2018, 11:58 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The citizens Electoral College of the United States voted the current government into office. The agendas of that government were not a secret, hence people voted for that agenda. To criticize the current government for trying to enact that agenda is to display the understanding of a two year old. You can disagree with that agenda, and many most do. But to say they shouldn't pursue it, when that is precisely what they were elected to do, is just, well, stupid.

Fixed that for you. I get what you're saying, but the fact here is that the Trump administration does not have a mandate to lead. He didn't win the popular vote and his approvals are in the toilet. But, I fully expect him to do whatever the hell he wants because he doesn't understand the job, so it doesn't much matter to me. I'm more irritated at Congress for their strong words behind closed doors but only finding him "concerning" in public.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-18-2018, 12:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Fixed that for you. I get what you're saying, but the fact here is that the Trump administration does not have a mandate to lead. He didn't win the popular vote and his approvals are in the toilet. But, I fully expect him to do whatever the hell he wants because he doesn't understand the job, so it doesn't much matter to me. I'm more irritated at Congress for their strong words behind closed doors but only finding him "concerning" in public.

Your fix would be correct if I was only talking about Trump.  I was not, I was referring to the GOP controlled Congress as well.  Whether Trump has a mandate or whether his approval ratings (which are likely as useful and accurate as the myriad polls that said he'd lose on election day) doesn't change the fact that he was elected and should attempt to effect his agenda for entirety of his term.  The point I've been making is that the GOP is doing what they said they'd do, the Dems are minority party in every possible way and still conduct themselves as if they should get whatever they want however they want it.

I'll reiterate, the Dems want to shut down the federal government, a move that will hurt US citizens, because they aren't getting exactly what they want for people in the country illegally.  This isn't really disputable.