Pelosi, Schumer To Trump: "Let's Debate Border Funds in Private"

[GMDino]

But the POTUS sat with his arms crossed and said he'll shut down the government if he doesn't get  everything exactly as he wants.

I used this link because it had a video.

https://news.grabien.com/story-pelosi-schumer-tell-trump-not-discuss-border-funding-talks-p

Quote:A wild scene played out in the White House Tuesday after President Trump summoned the incoming speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and the Senate Minority leader, Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to negotiate the federal budget, including funding for the border wall.

The meeting was attempted to avert a government shutdown. Reporters were summoned after the parties apparently made headway toward an agreement.

Things took a turn, however, when Pelosi began threatening there would be a “Trump shutdown” if they couldn’t come to terms. Trump eventually said he would be “proud” to shut down the government is he was doing so to protect the border.

"If we don't get what we want," Trump said. "I will shut down the government ... I am proud to shutdown the government for border security."

Pelosi and Schumer began pleading with Trump not to discuss their budget negotiations in front of reporters, but instead keep their talks "private."
Pelosi said they came in “good faith” and never intended to discuss these negogiations “in public view.”

Speaking of the border wall, Schumer said: "It doesn't solve the problem."

Trump quickly shot back: "It totally solves the problem."

Schumer and Pelosi appeared unprepared to debate the issue in public, and Schumer asked Trump, “Let’s debate in private.”

Here’s a rush excerpt of the exchange:

TRUMP: “We need border security. People are pouring into our country including terrorists. We have terrorists — we caught 10 terrorists over the last very short period of time. Ten. These are very serious people. Our border agents, all of our law enforcement has been incredible, what they have done, but we caught 10 terrorists. These are people that were looking to do harm. We need the wall. We need — more important than anything, we need border security of which the wall is just a piece. It’s important. Chuck, did you want to say something?”

SCHUMER: “Yes. Here’s what I want to say. We have a lot of disagreements here. ‘The Washington Post’ today gave you a whole lot of Pinnocchios because they say you constantly misstate how much of the wall is built and how much is there, but that’s not the point. We have a disagreement about the wall, whether it’s effective or not —“

TRUMP: “’The Washington Post’ —“

SCHUMER: “— not on border security, but on the wall. We do not want to shut down the government. You were called 20 times to shut down the government. You said, ‘I want to shut down the government.’ We don’t. We want to come to an agreement. If we can’t come to an agreement, we have solutions that will pass the House and Senate right now and will not shut down the government. That’s what we are urging you to do. Not threaten to shut down the government.”

TRUMP: “If you don’t want to shut down the government —“

SCHUMER: “Let me just finish. Because you can’t get your way — let me say something, Mr. President. You just say, ‘My way or we shut down the government.’ We have a proposal that Democrats and Republicans will support to do a C.R. that will not shut down the government. We urge you to take it.”

TRUMP: “If it’s not good border security, I will not take it.”

SCHUMER: “It’s very good border security.”

TRUMP: “If it’s not good border security, I will not take it.”

SCHUMER: “ It’s what —“

TRUMP: “Because when you look at these numbers of the effectiveness of our border security and when you look at the job we are doing —”

SCHUMER: “You just said it is effective.”

TRUMP: “Can I tell you something?”

SCHUMER: “You just said it is effective.”

TRUMP: “These are only areas where you have the walls. Where you have walls, Chuck, it’s effective. Where you don’t have walls, it’s not effective.”

PELOSI: “Let’s call a halt to this. We have come in here with the first branch of government. Article One. The legislative branch. We are coming in in good faith to negotiate with you about how we can keep the government open.”

SCHUMER: “Open.”

TRUMP: “We are going to keep it open if we have border security. If we don’t have border security, Chuck, we are not going to keep it open.”

PELOSI: “We will have border security.”

SCHUMER: “You are bragging about what has been done. We want to do the same thing we did last year this year. That’s our proposal. If it’s good then, it’s good now and it won’t shut down the government.”

TRUMP: “We can build a much bigger section with more money.”

SCHUMER: “Let’s debate in private.”

TRUMP: “We need border security. I think we all agree that we need border security.”

SCHUMER: “Yes, we do.”

TRUMP: “See? We get along. Thank you, everybody.”

REPORTER: “You say border security and the wall. Can you have border security without the wall?”’

TRUMP: “You need the wall. The wall is a part of border security.”

REPORTER: “Can you explain what it means to have border security?”

TRUMP: “Yeah. We need border security. The wall is a part of border security and you can’t have very good border security without the wall.”

PELOSI: “That’s not true. That’s a political promise. Border security is a way to effectively honor our responsibility.”

SCHUMER: “The experts say you can do border security without a wall, which is wasteful and doesn’t solve the problem.

TRUMP: “It totally solves the problem and it’s very important.”

PELOSI: “This spiraled downward from when we came at a place to say how do we meet the needs of American people, who have needs. The economy, people are losing jobs and the market is in a mood. Our members are already —“

TRUMP: “We have the lowest unemployment that we’ve had in 50 years.”

PELOSI: “People in the Republican Party are losing their offices now because of the transition. People are not —“

TRUMP: “And we gained in the Senate. Nancy, we gained in the Senate. Excuse me. Did we win the Senate? We won the Senate.”

SCHUMER: “When the President brags that he won North Dakota and Indiana, he is in real trouble.”

TRUMP: “I did. We did win North Dakota and Indiana.”

PELOSI: “We came in here in good faith and we’re entering into this kind of a discussion in the public view.”

TRUMP: “But it’s not bad, Nancy. It’s called transparency.”

PELOSI: “I know. It’s not transparency when we are not stipulating to a set of facts and we want to have a debate about you, confront some of these facts.”

TRUMP: “You know what? We need border security. That’s what we will be talking about. Border security. If we don’t have border security, we will shut down the government. This country needs border security. The wall is a part of border security. Let’s have a talk. We will get the wall built and we have done a lot of wall already. It’s a big part of it.”

After the meeting, Pelosi and Schumer spoke to reporters outside the White House. Pelosi told reporters she wanted to keep their negotiations private because it would be rude to correct Trump in public. [Video]

“I hear the reporters or Fox reporters saying why did we not want transparency in this discussion,” she said. “We don't want to contradict the president when he was putting forth figures that had no reality to them, no basis in fact. We had to if we are going to proceed in all of this have evidence-based factual, truthful information about what works and what doesn't. I didn't want to in front of those people say you don't know what you are talking about."

Lost in the middle of this was the very stable genius explaining border security to a reporter:

Quote:REPORTER: “You say border security and the wall. Can you have border security without the wall?”’


TRUMP: “You need the wall. The wall is a part of border security.”

REPORTER: “Can you explain what it means to have border security?”

TRUMP: “Yeah. We need border security. The wall is a part of border security and you can’t have very good border security without the wall.”

He definitely has a fantastic grasp on the subject. 

[Dill]

(12-11-2018, 04:18 PM)GMDino Wrote: But the POTUS sat with his arms crossed and said he'll shut down the government if he doesn't get  everything exactly as he wants.

I used this link because it had a video.

https://news.grabien.com/story-pelosi-schumer-tell-trump-not-discuss-border-funding-talks-p

Take down of Pelosi and her elitist ilk.  Trump wants transparency and the Globalists want secrecy.

Librals want this:

[*bfine32*]

Trump is being a petulant child in this matter. It should not be his prerogative to shutdown the government. If Congress reaches a deal; he should honor it.

[BmorePat87]

Seems to go along with the claims that he cares little about details and focuses on talking points. He can't expand on what constitute "border (boarder?) security" beyond "build the wall".

He's out of his depth and it's increasingly embarrassing for this country. Unfortunately our system is increasingly favoring the opinion of the minority, so it's tough for reason to break through.

[Au165]

If he shuts down the Government it will backfire similar to the Republicans doing it in the 90's, especially if there was a viable deal on the table and he simply refused to take it because of being petulant.

[*Nately120*]

(12-11-2018, 10:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Trump is being a petulant child in this matter. It should not be his prerogative to shutdown the government. If Congress reaches a deal; he should honor it.

Trump is being Trump on this matter.  We elected him because we are sick of Congress-honoring diplomats in the White House.  We wanted a guy who is going to get what he wants to get done, come hell or high water, and so on.

[Belsnickel]

(12-11-2018, 10:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Trump is being a petulant child in this matter. It should not be his prerogative to shutdown the government. If Congress reaches a deal; he should honor it.

I think that far too often Congress will hold off on pushing through legislation if the president doesn't like it. Pass it and if it doesn't get approval then you've tried. You can override a veto or go back to the negotiating table. But the flow of legislation should not be dependent on the whims of the executive.

[*bfine32*]

(12-12-2018, 01:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think that far too often Congress will hold off on pushing through legislation if the president doesn't like it. Pass it and if it doesn't get approval then you've tried. You can override a veto or go back to the negotiating table. But the flow of legislation should not be dependent on the whims of the executive.

Exactly, we seem to do it backwards. We get POTUS' ok/veto after Congress passes it. If there's a Bill that a mixed house/senate passes and POTUS Vetos he looks like an ass. If Congress does nothing because POTUS is balking then they look like asses.  

[GMDino]

(12-12-2018, 01:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think that far too often Congress will hold off on pushing through legislation if the president doesn't like it. Pass it and if it doesn't get approval then you've tried. You can override a veto or go back to the negotiating table. But the flow of legislation should not be dependent on the whims of the executive.

This brings up something I was thinking about listening to the Brexit coverage this morning:

Has it always been a thing that they won't even bring it to a vote if they think it won't pass?  Maybe I just didn't pay attention before the last 8 years or so, but it seems the majority has been not holding votes unless they sure.

[Belsnickel]

(12-12-2018, 02:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: This brings up something I was thinking about listening to the Brexit coverage this morning:

Has it always been a thing that they won't even bring it to a vote if they think it won't pass?  Maybe I just didn't pay attention before the last 8 years or so, but it seems the majority has been not holding votes unless they sure.

I'm not a Congressional history scholar by any means, but looking at the records of vetoes per president it seems things picked up post-Civil War, then have cooled off. Bush and Obama had 12 vetoes each, which was the fewest number since Harding had 6.

I think this may be one of those trends in the post-Reagan era that we see. Things just changed so much in Washington from that point on.

[GMDino]

(12-12-2018, 02:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm not a Congressional history scholar by any means, but looking at the records of vetoes per president it seems things picked up post-Civil War, then have cooled off. Bush and Obama had 12 vetoes each, which was the fewest number since Harding had 6.

I think this may be one of those trends in the post-Reagan era that we see. Things just changed so much in Washington from that point on.

Sorry, I should have been more specific:  I meant they won't vote if it doesn't have enough votes to pass in the house or senate...not whether the POTUS will veto or not.

Although your info is interesting in and of itself.

[jj22]

On a side note, what was Pence's purpose? Could he not speak because he didn't want to lie or call Trump out for making up facts (Homeland Security, and the WH came out and said there was not 10 terrorist attacks stopped at the border this month when reached for some factual backup to Trumps claim)? Seems to me that this is how Republicans treat Trump. Like everyone fears telling him he is wrong so they just stay quiet and let him make a fool of himself.

Now granted I didn't expect Pence to call him out publicly, but he seemed so useless. Not sure what his point was. He just doesn't seem like Trumps type. Weak and Measly. Or he is secretly sabotaging him (I've read Trump doesn't trust him).

One of the most useless VP's in American History.

I agree with everyone tho. Trump doesn't have the votes or he'd have the House vote on it so he can blame the Dems in the Senate for being against "National Security" or whatever term he kept using to blend our security with his desire for a wall.

[Mike M (the other one)]

I'm on Trump's side here.

I want a wall, for many more purposes than just to keep out illegals.

And he's right, a Wall is Border Security. The CBP can't be everywhere at all time, but the wall doesn't move. It's 24/7 border security. The effectiveness of the Wall is much greater than the effectiveness of the CBP monitoring the border. Don't believe me? All we have to do is go back a few years and see how some European countries handled their immigration problem. Those countries that put up Wall? Almost 100% effective at keeping out immigrants, i would say that's very effective border security with minimal need for CBP.

And no, i'm not just repeating Trump/Fox News. I've wanted a wall for several years now. I'm not talking Fencing where people can scale and if they fall impale themselves on it. I flat out want a wall.

For those of you against, can you name a more effective way of keeping the Illegals from crossing and getting into the US?
The current system obviously isn't working considering the current number of Illegals in the US already.

As far as I'm concerned, I'd be threatening to shut Government down as well. He was elected on the Promise of better border security and because of Politics, he's been unable to deliver. So stop playing their game, make thm play yours.

[jj22]

For one can we quit acting like only illegals coming here are Mexican? That would help the debate not be so toxic.

Do Republicans care about the Europeans/Africans/Asians that are here illegally?

How about the "other" option is Immigration reform that would cover all, and not just those people Trump and his supporters seem to not like while giving passes to all the other millions of illegal immigrants in America.

We don't even hear about all the non Mexican illegal immigrants here. That's why people try to protect picking on just a certain group.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-12-2018, 05:42 PM)jj22 Wrote: For one can we quit acting like only illegals coming here are Mexican? That would help the debate not be so toxic.

Do Republicans care about the Europeans/Africans/Asians that are here illegally?

How about the "other" option is Immigration reform that would cover all, and not just those people Trump and his supporters seem to not like while giving passes to all the other millions of illegal immigrants in America.

We don't even hear about all the non Mexican illegal immigrants here. That's why people try to protect picking on just a certain group.

Didn't realize I said in my post that only Mexicans are coming here illegally?

I care about everyone that's here illegally. Putting up a wall frees up resources to go after those that Violate their visa's by overstaying.

Yaaay, Immigration reform, something that keeps getting tried, yet held up in courts left and right by the left and their circuit judges. Nope, not a permanent answer.

Any other options?

EDIT:
You are comparing apples to oranges, there is a big difference between people that come here illegally vs those that come here legally and then become illegals because of overstaying their visa's. 2 different issues.

[Dill]

(12-12-2018, 05:38 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: For those of you against, can you name a more effective way of keeping the Illegals from crossing and getting into the US?
The current system obviously isn't working considering the current number of Illegals in the US already.

As far as I'm concerned, I'd be threatening to shut Government down as well. He was elected on the Promise of better border security and because of Politics, he's been unable to deliver. So stop playing their game, make thm play yours.

What would this wall cost?

How would your desired full stop of illegal immigration affect the economy?

Without answers to those questions, it is hard to define "effective."

I liked what I saw when Trump debated Pelosi publicly.
Hope Trump sees it your way and does shut down the government, makes them play his game--
Stands before the cameras holding the government/nation hostage, spouting disinformation, repeating himself, dodging questions.
US Taxpayers, not Mexico, will pay for the wall. Or else.

[jj22]

(12-12-2018, 05:55 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Didn't realize I said in my post that only Mexicans are coming here illegally?

I care about everyone that's here illegally. Putting up a wall frees up resources to go after those that Violate their visa's by overstaying.

Yaaay, Immigration reform, something that keeps getting tried, yet held up in courts left and right by the left and their circuit judges. Nope, not a permanent answer.

Any other options?

EDIT:
You are comparing apples to oranges, there is a big difference between people that come here illegally vs those that come here legally and then become illegals because of overstaying their visa's. 2 different issues.

Actually I'm right. You guys just don't like Immigration Reform because yall only care about Mexicans. Our only border isn't Mexican/Texas. Many European (especially) illegal immigrants come from Canada border, or by boat to the east coast. See yall don't even know. That's the problem with the immigration debate. People think only illegal immigrants are Mexican/South Americans and only pick on them and that's just unfortunate. Also when has Immigration reform passed and been shot down from the courts?

I'm for no illegal immigrants (not just coming from Mexico). So can we solve that? Or must we keep dealing with a favorite political punching bag of the right (Mexicans). I prefer not to pick with a certain group of people while letting everyone else slide on by. We should do what's right and fair.

[fredtoast]

(12-12-2018, 05:38 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I'm on Trump's side here.

I want a wall, for many more purposes than just to keep out illegals.

And he's right, a Wall is Border Security. The CBP can't be everywhere at all time, but the wall doesn't move. It's 24/7 border security. The effectiveness of the Wall is much greater than the effectiveness of the CBP monitoring the border. Don't believe me? All we have to do is go back a few years and see how some European countries handled their immigration problem. Those countries that put up Wall? Almost 100% effective at keeping out immigrants, i would say that's very effective border security with minimal need for CBP.

And no, i'm not just repeating Trump/Fox News. I've wanted a wall for several years now. I'm not talking Fencing where people can scale and if they fall impale themselves on it. I flat out want a wall.

For those of you against, can you name a more effective way of keeping the Illegals from crossing and getting into the US?
The current system obviously isn't working considering the current number of Illegals in the US already.

As far as I'm concerned, I'd be threatening to shut Government down as well. He was elected on the Promise of better border security and because of Politics, he's been unable to deliver. So stop playing their game, make thm play yours.

They have ladders in Mexico.

BTW which European countries have walls that are 100% effective at keeping out illegal immigrants?  I have not heard about these countries.

[fredtoast]

(12-12-2018, 05:55 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote:  Putting up a wall frees up resources to go after those that Violate their visa's by overstaying.

No it does nit.  Putting up a wall sucks funds away from other areas and it will not stop illegal immigration because people will just use ladders and ropes to get over it.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-12-2018, 06:14 PM)Dill Wrote: What would this wall cost?

How would your desired full stop of illegal immigration affect the economy?

Without answers to those questions, it is hard to define "effective."

I liked what I saw when Trump debated Pelosi publicly.
Hope Trump sees it your way and does shut down the government, makes them play his game--
Stands before the cameras holding the government/nation hostage, spouting disinformation, repeating himself, dodging questions.
US Taxpayers, not Mexico, will pay for the wall.  Or else.

I don't care if the wall costs $25-200+ Billion to build.
In the long run it will be worth it as the number of Illegals crossing over dwindles to zero and the illegals that are here are caught and sent back or die off etc. Once complete those numbers will sky dive expotentionally as the number of anchor babies drastically dips.

*sighs I really should just save the data permanently cause I have to repeat it everytime the wall is brought up.

FAIR 2017 report estimates that there is a cost of $135 Billion annually for illegal immigrants. 135B-16B (taxes paid in) = 113B Totals that US Taxpayers foot the bill for.

https://fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers


How would it effect our economy? Well for one, they would actually have to pay for the Visa's to come here and work, so that's a plus. They would also be documented as well. The workers wouldn't be stopped from coming here, they would just need to do it legally.

These guys may seem a little high, but it's possible, I can calculate 1/3 of that amount just in the costs of anchor babies being born in the US and the cost per year to simply put them thru School. I don't have access to how much the Gov gives them for Food Stamps, paid lunches housing because they sneak them into the numbers by classifying them as USC's. I would love it if they had their own category so we could actually see how much they use of US Tax payers money.

FYI Trump has tried to enforce the Anchor baby law where 1 parent has to be a USC, was quickly put in court and thats where it sits.

Building a wall would also keep the entry points for drugs minimized so we could concentrate more in shipments coming in at check points. So big hurt to drug dealers as well. So that's a big bonus to me. You know, since 90% of all illegal drugs in the US come from the Southern Border (and it's not just Mexicans).

Now remember that $113B number?
3.6 Million Kids are expected to Graduate HS in 2018.
Average Costs per student of attending a 4 year university: $14k
3.6 mil x $14k = $50.4 Billion
$50.4B x 4 = $201.6B
$201.6B-$113B = $88.6B (now I'm sure we could find a way to get that remaining amount annually)
And now all kids that Graduate HS, can go to a 4 year College for Free.

With that in mind, we are going to have a higher educated workforce that will make more money and pay more in taxes and get back on track to being a leader in technology. I'm sure we could swindle $100B from somewhere, and remember not all of those kids will go to a 4 year college, some might elect a 2 year college or no college.