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

[Stonyhands]

(02-20-2019, 09:11 PM)Dill Wrote: Recent example--a presidential candidate promised to build a wall and make MEXICO pay for it.
When elected, he decided the taxpayers would do it. And then he didn't really do much to get THAT done when his party controlled the house and senate.

When he lost control of the house, and a talk show host and a columnist told him to shut down the government to get 1/5 of the wall money he could have gotten a year earlier had he signed a deal offered by the opposing party, his followers called it "keeping a promise."

So it isn't just politicians who are the problem. This guy got elected because he got enough people to actually believe that, once Hillary was locked up, he WOULD get Mexico to pay for the wall. And when he didn't, they then believed he could--and should--get taxpayers to pay for it.  The belief is so strong that they will accept all manner of incompetence and misbehavior on this guy's part, if he just keeps saying "the wall of concrete," " the wall of steel," "the wall work on which has already begun," " the combination of concrete and steel walls and fences," "the fences."

...and this post right here is why Democrat’s stand zero chance in 2020. They just don’t understand and they actually believe that they know what the right is thinking and why we vote the way we do. I can tell you that what you posted is 100% incorrect from my standpoint and 100% incorrect from every single one of my conservative friends, co-workers, and family. But do not let that stop you from beating that same dead horse the media has been beating...See how that works out for you come 2020.

[Dill]

(02-20-2019, 11:26 PM)Stonyhands Wrote: ...and this post right here is why Democrat’s stand zero chance in 2020.  They just don’t understand and they actually believe that they know what the right is thinking and why we vote the way we do.  I can tell you that what you posted is 100% incorrect from my standpoint and 100% incorrect from every single one of my conservative friends, co-workers, and family.  But do not let that stop you from beating that same dead horse the media has been beating...See how that works out for you come 2020.

You can "tell" me. LOL.  If I had it wrong you would be explaining/demonstrating how I had it wrong.  And how would you do that--prove he didn't say Mexico would pay for the wall? Prove he wasn't lying when he said the wall was already under construction? Prove that he didn't blow a chance to get 22 billion for his wall and shut down the government for a quarter of the amount--only to back down anyway?

You aren't doing that because you can't.   

It is 100% correct that you put a man in office whose incompetence and divisiveness shames us before the world and puts national security at risk at home and abroad, a man who employs "fixers" to take care of problems like hush money to porn stars, who gets his foreign policy from conspiracy websites, who embarrasses the intelligence services who work daily for our security by taking the word of our major adversary over theirs--in public--and who cannot even work with his own party to get legislation passed because he is so focused on getting their help to shut down multiple investigations into his criminal behavior and undermine the FBI and CIA. A man who spends most of his "executive time" watching Fox and his weekends playing golf--even during his own declared "national emergency."

And it is 100% correct that as long as Fox and the 1% can throw what-the-media-says as in front of Trump's base as "fake news" then, like the proverbial red cape before the bull, they can twist you whichever way they want. What is it you "understand" that could excuse this?

But Trump has taught the "independents" and protest voters and sit-at-homes quite a lesson, those who don't want all this lying, incompetence and misogyny normalized as the Right ignores or defends it. Even if he makes it to 2020 still in office, the overwhelming majority of the nation who disapprove of his muddled policies, boorish and immoral behavior, criminal/authoritarian instincts, daily lying, and ignorance of how government works, will throw him out regardless of whom the Democrats put against him.

[fredtoast]

(02-20-2019, 11:26 PM)Stonyhands Wrote: ...and this post right here is why Democrat’s stand zero chance in 2020.  They just don’t understand and they actually believe that they know what the right is thinking and why we vote the way we do.  I can tell you that what you posted is 100% incorrect from my standpoint and 100% incorrect from every single one of my conservative friends, co-workers, and family.  But do not let that stop you from beating that same dead horse the media has been beating...See how that works out for you come 2020.

Since you know exactly why every conservative votes the way he does then I am eager to hear why Republicans lost so many House Seats in the last election. 

What happened?  Why the changing minds?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-20-2019, 09:11 PM)Dill Wrote: Recent example--a presidential candidate promised to build a wall and make MEXICO pay for it.
When elected, he decided the taxpayers would do it. And then he didn't really do much to get THAT done when his party controlled the house and senate.

When he lost control of the house, and a talk show host and a columnist told him to shut down the government to get 1/5 of the wall money he could have gotten a year earlier had he signed a deal offered by the opposing party, his followers called it "keeping a promise."

So it isn't just politicians who are the problem. This guy got elected because he got enough people to actually believe that, once Hillary was locked up, he WOULD get Mexico to pay for the wall. And when he didn't, they then believed he could--and should--get taxpayers to pay for it.  The belief is so strong that they will accept all manner of incompetence and misbehavior on this guy's part, if he just keeps saying "the wall of concrete," " the wall of steel," "the wall work on which has already begun," " the combination of concrete and steel walls and fences," "the fences."

Yes I'm disappointed that he didn't get his money when the Repubs had complete control.

Actually disappointed that a lot more didn't get done, but that's more on the Politicians than Trump, He can request and pressure them, but they are the final voters.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-20-2019, 08:49 PM)Au165 Wrote: Power is something I’d have to do more research on to figure out what areas are able to support it or not. I figure even putting a 7k resolution camera every quarter mile (overkill) of the 2k miles you’d be looking somewhere around 100 Million dollars with install and pole mounting. Even if you had to run infrastructure along the entire border your looking at less than a billion dollars all in with added benefits of electrical and network infrastructure along the border.

Where to put stations isn’t really a big deal as I think it just depends. In a lot of the areas now that don’t have stations it’s because the terrain is so bad that it takes people days on foot to get to a road. If we alarm early enough you’ll meet up with them before they hit the road. To me that’s almost based on each individual area. Obviously it would take a some time to figure out the logistics but my main point is I think we can improve security on the border for a fraction of what is now 8 Billion not including upkeep over time.

I'd rather do the overkill in the event that one camera goes out, the others can still maintain coverage over that area as well.

My only beef with a power grid would be that it needs to be able to supply electric from both directions, that way if one goes out, only that one goes out. I'm sure it's easily manageable though with out adding a lot of $$ to the project.

I would have no problems committing to this and using however much it takes to update the system to allow from Passport scanning of all people coming and going via international airports, all ships and anyone entering via land, so we can track in and outs much better from all angles. Find out exactly how many are really overstays, be able to narrow it down by country and start limiting those countries even more.

But I'm still all in favor of changing Jus Soli to Jus Sanguinis (from birth on soil to birth by blood). I don't mind people from other countries coming here to have babies for the medical benefits side, but they should not be allowed to become USC's if neither of their parents are.

I know there is better ways besides a wall, but I think Trump is hooked on the psychological deterrent side of it.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-19-2019, 08:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Ah, I see you have decided to put words in someone's mouth again.

While the article you quote is correct that there have been exceptions, none of the exceptions carved out apply in this scenario. It's not likely the Insurrection Act applies, either, just based on the requirements for it to be invoked. If it were invoked for this situation it would set a very dangerous precedent moving forward.

Anyway, the court battles that will likely be the longest fought will be with those who own border property.

Is the CBP a civilian Law enforcement agency or Federal Government.
This will have a big impact on the SOE I believe.

[Au165]

(02-21-2019, 02:14 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I'd rather do the overkill in the event that one camera goes out, the others can still maintain coverage over that area as well.

My only beef with a power grid would be that it needs to be able to supply electric from both directions, that way if one goes out, only that one goes out. I'm sure it's easily manageable though with out adding a lot of $$ to the project.

I would have no problems committing to this and using however much it takes to update the system to allow from Passport scanning of all people coming and going via international airports, all ships and anyone entering via land, so we can track in and outs much better from all angles. Find out exactly how many are really overstays, be able to narrow it down by country and start limiting those countries even more.

But I'm still all in favor of changing Jus Soli to Jus Sanguinis (from birth on soil to birth by blood). I don't mind people from other countries coming here to have babies for the medical benefits side, but they should not be allowed to become USC's if neither of their parents are.

I know there is better ways besides a wall, but I think Trump is hooked on the psychological deterrent side of it.

I think the other thing we really need to do is go after the businesses that employ illegal immigrants. It makes sense that if you can't find meaningful work here if you aren't here legally there is less of an interest in coming. We need to eliminate the ignorance defense and add more of a penalty for not properly vetting out employees. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-21-2019, 03:01 PM)Au165 Wrote: I think the other thing we really need to do is go after the businesses that employ illegal immigrants. It makes sense that if you can't find meaningful work here if you aren't here legally there is less of an interest in coming. We need to eliminate the ignorance defense and add more of a penalty for not properly vetting out employees. 

Of course, and I'm all for allowing those that are here illegally a chance to pay for a green card. But you have to go thru the process like anyone else. Be checked for criminal history, get medically cleared, and get a GC renewable every 5 years, but those that go thru this are never allowed to become full USC's. Their children can become USC's but not them. It's a fair trade off, you wanted to come here to work and be productive member of society, and give your child a better future. Mission accomplished, but you came here illegally to begin with so no USC for you.

As far as DACA, I would do the same, 5 year renewable GC's as long as you pay and go thru the process.

[Dill]

(02-21-2019, 01:48 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Yes I'm disappointed that he didn't get his money when the Repubs had complete control.

Actually disappointed that a lot more didn't get done, but that's more on the Politicians than Trump, He can request and pressure them, but they are the final voters.

Not sure about that.  He/they got the big tax cut through just fine, when he didn't have to lead much.

I really don't think Trump was leading very strongly on the wall issue until others held his feet to the fire. He wasn't doing the ground work that other presidents have done in the past. George HW Bush was known for "workin' the phone" into the late hours and all weekend to get people to cross the aisles or get his own people on board. Trump seems to be watching a lot of tv and golfing.

I also think that his lack of experience led him to think he could get a better deal than the one offered a year ago, and when the Republicans still had the House.  The bluster and bluff and walk out of the room thing that may sometimes work in NY real estate doesn't work in DC.  Without McConnell (who does know what he is doing) to balance out Pelosi, the Republicans would be in serious trouble this coming year. But McConnell has to more manage Trump than work with him.  Trump keeps a base of support no matter what, but he is a liability when it comes to actually governing and legislating. I am pretty sure that is how McConnell sees him.

[*Nately120*]

(02-21-2019, 03:01 PM)Au165 Wrote: I think the other thing we really need to do is go after the businesses that employ illegal immigrants. It makes sense that if you can't find meaningful work here if you aren't here legally there is less of an interest in coming. We need to eliminate the ignorance defense and add more of a penalty for not properly vetting out employees. 

Yeah, makes you wonder why a guy like Trump would knowingly lure dangerous rapists here just so he could save a few bucks by not having to hire a taxpaying citizen.  Oh well, punishing rich white guys wouldn't work...right?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-22-2019, 12:35 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Yeah, makes you wonder why a guy like Trump would knowingly lure dangerous rapists here just so he could save a few bucks by not having to hire a taxpaying citizen.  Oh well, punishing rich white guys wouldn't work...right?

Uhm his companies are in charge of that, not Trump direct, also Trump has companies in other countries, so why would his company not allow legal transfers? And if so then they are vetted via H-1B's, big difference. You have no clue other than MSM telling you if they are here legally or not, just that his companies hire "foreigners to work there" so they must be illegal.

This is one of those examples of all bark and no bite.

Silicon Valley does this same thing en masse, yet you hardly anyone complains about them doing the same practice. And they are much more worse about it, they use it to keep wages down in the IT world and we have plenty of unemployed IT graduates to fill those jobs.

[*Nately120*]

(02-25-2019, 04:41 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Uhm his companies are in charge of that, not Trump direct, also Trump has companies in other countries, so why would his company not allow legal transfers? And if so then they are vetted via H-1B's, big difference. You have no clue other than MSM telling you if they are here legally or not, just that his companies hire "foreigners to work there" so they must be illegal.

This is one of those examples of all bark and no bite.

Silicon Valley does this same thing en masse, yet you hardly anyone complains about them doing the same practice. And they are much more worse about it, they use it to keep wages down in the IT world and we have plenty of unemployed IT graduates to fill those jobs.

So we are sure Trump had no clue he had illegals working for him because....he's too important to know that detail?  Ehh, he should have to tell it to the judge. Honestly, the most compelling logic behind Trump employing illegals is that employing illegals saves money, and Trump is a god amongst men because he makes lots of money.

Also, hiring illegals didn't really strike me as a big deal until Trump himself started going on about how illegals being in this country are like having ISIS running about unchecked. Hell, when Bush was in office illegals were here because liberal union American workers were just too lazy and spoiled rotten to work. My how the narrative changes.

[BmorePat87]

(02-25-2019, 05:39 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Also, hiring illegals didn't really strike me as a big deal until Trump himself started going on about how illegals being in this country are like having ISIS running about unchecked.  

I don't know why this part is so hard to grasp. A private citizen not campaigning against something is very different than a public official pushing policy. 

Trump businesses hiring illegal immigrants is noteworthy because.. he's the president and he ran on limiting legal and illegal immigration and has worked to enact that. 

[*Nately120*]

(02-25-2019, 06:53 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't know why this part is so hard to grasp. A private citizen not campaigning against something is very different than a public official pushing policy. 

Trump businesses hiring illegal immigrants is noteworthy because.. he's the president and he ran on limiting legal and illegal immigration and has worked to enact that. 

Maybe Hillary will run in 2020 on a platform of locking Trump up for hiring illegals.  

But all joking aside, if illegal immigrants are a national emergency, people who hire them should be considered treasonous criminals.  Can Trump really say we are in imminent danger, but I didnu nuffin to bring illegals here!

[Belsnickel]

Resolved (Senate and House) in Congress assembled, That, pursuant to section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622), the national emergency declared by the finding of the President on February 15, 2019, in Proclamation 9844 (84 Fed. Reg. 4949) is hereby terminated.

— Brian Schatz (@brianschatz) February 26, 2019

[*Nately120*]

(02-26-2019, 11:43 AM)Belsnickel Wrote:

Resolved (Senate and House) in Congress assembled, That, pursuant to section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622), the national emergency declared by the finding of the President on February 15, 2019, in Proclamation 9844 (84 Fed. Reg. 4949) is hereby terminated.

— Brian Schatz (@brianschatz) February 26, 2019

So does that mean the the whole "It's not an emergency, but I'm saying it is in order to get what I want" emergency is null and void, or does it mean Trump just has to do something else to deny the will of the people?

[fredtoast]

(02-26-2019, 12:13 PM)Nately120 Wrote: So does that mean the the whole "It's not an emergency, but I'm saying it is in order to get what I want" emergency is null and void, or does it mean Trump just has to do something else to deny the will of the people?

It has not been passed.  That is just what they are proposing.

Apparently some Republicans claimed they did not have time to read the proposal.

[*Nately120*]

(02-26-2019, 12:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It has not been passed.  That is just what they are proposing.

Apparently some Republicans claimed they did not have time to read the proposal.

They're probably too busy getting "massages" from the illegals they don't mind being here.  Ahh, there I went and cross-contaminated the board by braining up 2 threads.

[Belsnickel]

(02-26-2019, 12:13 PM)Nately120 Wrote: So does that mean the the whole "It's not an emergency, but I'm saying it is in order to get what I want" emergency is null and void, or does it mean Trump just has to do something else to deny the will of the people?

(02-26-2019, 12:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It has not been passed.  That is just what they are proposing.

Apparently some Republicans claimed they did not have time to read the proposal.

As Fred is saying, it hasn't passed yet. What is happening is the Democrats in the House want to put all of the Republicans on record with regards to the emergency declaration. The NEA allows for Congress to cancel a declared emergency, but a court case later said the POTUS has veto authority over such a resolution. Democrats know they aren't going to get a veto-proof majority in either chamber but since the majority of Americans see the wall and the declaration as unnecessary, and because it is an example of gross executive overreach that would've bunched the britches of any real conservatives under a different POTUS, they want to put these votes on record.

I can tell you right now that Democratic leadership is going to use this precedent to bypass Congress in the future. I think it's wrong, and I'm going to hate every minute of it, but I can tell you that the next time they take the White House they will use this precedent to fund universal healthcare and/or environmental policies to combat climate change. So they want these votes on record to when Republicans complain, because they will, they can point to them and call them out on it. They will be called hypocrites, but they will say they are playing by the rules set by Republicans.

[*Nately120*]

(02-26-2019, 12:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: As Fred is saying, it hasn't passed yet. What is happening is the Democrats in the House want to put all of the Republicans on record with regards to the emergency declaration. The NEA allows for Congress to cancel a declared emergency, but a court case later said the POTUS has veto authority over such a resolution. Democrats know they aren't going to get a veto-proof majority in either chamber but since the majority of Americans see the wall and the declaration as unnecessary, and because it is an example of gross executive overreach that would've bunched the britches of any real conservatives under a different POTUS, they want to put these votes on record.

I can tell you right now that Democratic leadership is going to use this precedent to bypass Congress in the future. I think it's wrong, and I'm going to hate every minute of it, but I can tell you that the next time they take the White House they will use this precedent to fund universal healthcare and/or environmental policies to combat climate change. So they want these votes on record to when Republicans complain, because they will, they can point to them and call them out on it. They will be called hypocrites, but they will say they are playing by the rules set by Republicans.

I must say, I'm impressed that "Mr. Outsider" Trump has truly opened pandora's box by making the government into an even bigger "we know what is best" big brother than ever.  The guy with the selling point of "no political experience" is ushering in a golden age of tyrannical bureaucracy.

This can be so terrible that the proverbial odometer has looped back around to zero.  Astounding.