• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Border security talks have not progressed through weekend, growing concern deal won't come together

sangha said:
And so, once again, the repubs demands for more money will lead to a govt shutdown

Because it worked so well for them the last time
Click to expand...

The state of Washington declared a state of emergency over a few inches of snow this weekend. The federal government has a case to declare a state of emergency over this. We had 58 national emergency requests in U.S history. President Trump definitely can do it because it is totally legal, 100%.
 
Chomsky said:
Source: Border security talks have not progressed through weekend, growing concern deal won't come together

I used CNN as my source here, but the talks faltering is being widely reported by other reputable sources. In fact, CNN seems a bit more cautious in their use of the term "concerned", since most other sources are calling the talks "stalled".

In an effort to provide a balanced OP, I quoted an introductory excerpt of the topic itself, followed by a Dem commentary excerpt and a Republican commentary excerpt. They all seem to corroborate each other.

According to the article's claims, it seems the Dems may be willing to go part of the way to meeting Trump's demands for his wall, but expect compromise or concession on ICE detainment - something the Republicans seem not willing to negotiate.

So, what do you think? Should both sides make concessions? Should the Repubs hold their ground? Should the Dems? Should Nancy throw it back to Trump, and tell him: "It's your wall, you figure it out"?
Click to expand...

Well your last option is really off the table. The government is open. It stays open regardless of Trump unless the congress does not pass a spending bill and closes those unfunded departments.

The question as to should one side or the other compromise talks to the sad state our country is in. Of course there should be compromise. That should be the case in just about every issue where sides don't agree. Who in real life doesn't compromise with a spouse,employer/employee etc.

The question would be absurd if we were not talking about partisan politics. To bad it controls so much of our lives.
 
Helix said:
mostly closing LaGuardia seemed to be enough to stop the shutdown by that afternoon. they should do that again. as for the crash, i'm afraid that there has been so much stupid that it has become basically inevitable. it sucks, because i can't afford another one, but i was pretty sure that it would happen once another round of trickle down passed. i hope that i'm incorrect about that.
Click to expand...
Well, the bolded is a fair point. The same morning as La Guardia though, there was also other contributory events that came into play. But you may be right: An air shutdown would likely bring any standoff to a quick close. So, I see what you're getting at here.
 
Chomsky said:
Well, the bolded is a fair point. The same morning as La Guardia though, there was also other contributory events that came into play. But you may be right: An air shutdown would likely bring any standoff to a quick close. So, I see what you're getting at here.
Click to expand...

it's not ideal. i'd prefer to avoid a shutdown and enact legislation that takes shutdowns off of the table from now on.
 
marke said:
Several democrats have expressed a willingness to compromise with Trump. If Pelosi refuses to compromise does that not make her a part of the problem and not the solution?
Click to expand...
We don't know. We haven't heard from her on this latest impasse'. But quite honestly, if I were her I might consider throwing up my hands and give it all back to Trump to figure-out on his own. It's his demand.
 
Bucky said:
The state of Washington declared a state of emergency over a few inches of snow this weekend. The federal government has a case to declare a state of emergency over this. We had 58 national emergency requests in U.S history. President Trump definitely can do it because it is totally legal, 100%.
Click to expand...

Funny that it was never a National Emergency when a Republican Senate, Republican House and Republican President was in charge. So Bucky, you only prove your comments to be idiotic.
 
Captain Adverse said:
This may push him to declaring a "national emergency," something the Dem's may hope for but I do not.

It seems to me that Trump's $5.1 Billion was for comprehensive improvements (like hiring more agents, more immigration judges, and building more "people friendly" holding facilities) with a portion desired for wall repair and extension.

Offering less than half, while demanding more concessions does not seem like any reasonable compromise where once upon a time they were willing to support $25 Billion.

Now if the offer is $2 Billion for the wall specifically, and additional funding specifically allocated for hiring, and detention/processing improvements? I would support that as a reasonable compromise.
Click to expand...
And so would I. In fact, I'd call it quite generous.
 
Chomsky said:
Source: Border security talks have not progressed through weekend, growing concern deal won't come together

I used CNN as my source here, but the talks faltering is being widely reported by other reputable sources. In fact, CNN seems a bit more cautious in their use of the term "concerned", since most other sources are calling the talks "stalled".

In an effort to provide a balanced OP, I quoted an introductory excerpt of the topic itself, followed by a Dem commentary excerpt and a Republican commentary excerpt. They all seem to corroborate each other.

According to the article's claims, it seems the Dems may be willing to go part of the way to meeting Trump's demands for his wall, but expect compromise or concession on ICE detainment - something the Republicans seem not willing to negotiate.

So, what do you think? Should both sides make concessions? Should the Repubs hold their ground? Should the Dems? Should Nancy throw it back to Trump, and tell him: "It's your wall, you figure it out"?
Click to expand...

Yes, both sides should make concessions. That's how politics works, give a little, get a little, then tell your constituents that you won the battle.

Maybe a small but impressive section of the wall could be built so Trump could pose in front of it for a photo op. Meanwhile, he could admit that separating children from parents is still going on, is a purely evil practice, and a massive effort to reunite families is to be made. Democrats could free up a few more dollars for "border security," including making that all important section of the wall. Republicans and Democrats could both admit that enforcing e verify would do more to end illegal immigration than anything else, and then follow up by actually enforcing the law.

But, that would take a functioning government. Hyper Partisanship dictates that the government will once again be shut down, government workers will not be paid, a lot of them will find employment elsewhere, and the shutdown will cost more than even the Great Wall of Trump would have.
 
Why even call it "border security talks" when it's not a comprehensive discussion. It's about one man who wants a wall. That's the whole underlying premise.

It's disappointing to see the Dems maybe giving ground on a partial wall. I ask why?? A wall is untenable to maintain. We already have plenty of data on how untenable border walls are from our pre-existing fences and walls. It's just a black pit of money and does nothing to stop the majority of illegals who enter the country, most of whom are visa overstays.

I wish our budgets and government plans didn't all rest on the vanity of one or a few people. This isn't a monarchy.
 
washunut said:
Well your last option is really off the table. The government is open. It stays open regardless of Trump unless the congress does not pass a spending bill and closes those unfunded departments.

The question as to should one side or the other compromise talks to the sad state our country is in. Of course there should be compromise. That should be the case in just about every issue where sides don't agree. Who in real life doesn't compromise with a spouse,employer/employee etc.

The question would be absurd if we were not talking about partisan politics. To bad it controls so much of our lives.
Click to expand...
Yeah, in that first (bolded) paragraph, I was assuming she would pass a fully funded budget or CR. She has to do her constitutionally mandated responsibility of funding the government.
 
Off-Topic:

Chomsky said:
Source: Border security talks have not progressed through weekend, growing concern deal won't come together
I used CNN as my source here, but the talks faltering is being widely reported by other reputable sources. In fact, CNN seems a bit more cautious in their use of the term "concerned", since most other sources are calling the talks "stalled".

...
Click to expand...
Red:
As goes the headline you've included in your post, CNN's correlate to other networks' "talks have stalled" is "talks have not progressed through weekend," not that concern over a deal's not resulting from the talks.​


  • [*=1]Action --> Talks stall or have temporarily (over the weekend) halted
    Result of the action --> Folks are concerned a deal may not derive from the talks as a whole.
CNN's diction, "have not progressed through the weekend," provides contextual information the "blunt object" verb "stalled" does not. Now, is CNN's diction more "cautious?" Yes, but not due to the use of "concerned," but rather because it leaves less to reader's imagination by defining a clear limit on the temporal extent of the structured talks' apparent cessation.​


​
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, both sides should make concessions. That's how politics works, give a little, get a little, then tell your constituents that you won the battle.

Maybe a small but impressive section of the wall could be built so Trump could pose in front of it for a photo op. Meanwhile, he could admit that separating children from parents is still going on, is a purely evil practice, and a massive effort to reunite families is to be made. Democrats could free up a few more dollars for "border security," including making that all important section of the wall. Republicans and Democrats could both admit that enforcing e verify would do more to end illegal immigration than anything else, and then follow up by actually enforcing the law.

But, that would take a functioning government. Hyper Partisanship dictates that the government will once again be shut down, government workers will not be paid, a lot of them will find employment elsewhere, and the shutdown will cost more than even the Great Wall of Trump would have.
Click to expand...
Your middle paragraph solution (bolded) is pretty much what my ideal solution would look like, and I'm glad you included E-Verify! :thumbs:
 
Chomsky said:
Yeah, in that first (bolded) paragraph, I was assuming she would pass a fully funded budget or CR. She has to do her constitutionally mandated responsibility of funding the government.
Click to expand...

Please remember that not only does she have to pass something, it has to be something the senate will also pass. This means getting 60 votes. So it needs compromise in the senate not the house.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, both sides should make concessions. That's how politics works, give a little, get a little, then tell your constituents that you won the battle.

Maybe a small but impressive section of the wall could be built so Trump could pose in front of it for a photo op. Meanwhile, he could admit that separating children from parents is still going on, is a purely evil practice, and a massive effort to reunite families is to be made. Democrats could free up a few more dollars for "border security," including making that all important section of the wall. Republicans and Democrats could both admit that enforcing e verify would do more to end illegal immigration than anything else, and then follow up by actually enforcing the law.

But, that would take a functioning government. Hyper Partisanship dictates that the government will once again be shut down, government workers will not be paid, a lot of them will find employment elsewhere, and the shutdown will cost more than even the Great Wall of Trump would have.
Click to expand...

So your idea of Republicans "making concessions" is to agree to fix a mistake they made by separating all those children with zero tolerance? Sorry I fail to see that as a good concession for a wall that Trump said Mexico will pay for. Nor do I look at Trump's temporary 3 year DACA reprieve since he is the one that made that mess by taking away that protection that in the first place.

Is "Republicans fixing their own damn mistakes that they caused" really a concession? No it isn't.
 
Praxas said:
So your idea of Republicans "making concessions" is to agree to fix a mistake they made by separating all those children with zero tolerance? Sorry I fail to see that as a good concession for a wall that Trump said Mexico will pay for. Nor do I look at Trump's temporary 3 year DACA reprieve since he is the one that made that mess by taking away that protection that in the first place.

Is "Republicans fixing their own damn mistakes that they caused" really a concession? No it isn't.
Click to expand...

Isn't that straight out of Trumps play book? Do something outrageous and then walk it back with a slightly less outrageous and then act like he saved the day.
 
Who knows what the final proposal will be. But if this proposal turns out to be less than what the experts in border security claim they need to do their job efficiently screw it.

Frankly, I am fed up with Congress critters not doing their job in securing the border for friggin decades!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. One of the few friggin jobs the Constitution gave them the responsibility and the friggin arseholes can't even do that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

Enough of this happy horse ****, I hope Trump tells the left and the right, screw you and calls for a national emergency using funds they know damn well they have a right to.
 
washunut said:
Please remember that not only does she have to pass something, it has to be something the senate will also pass. This means getting 60 votes. So it needs compromise in the senate not the house.
Click to expand...
Well, that's a two-way political dance that's dependent upon a willing & reasonable partner. And right now, the Senate has deferred their oversight and responsibility in deference to the wishes of Trump. So I'm not so sure she can successfully negotiate with them.
 
SCrider said:
Isn't that straight out of Trumps play book? Do something outrageous and then walk it back with a slightly less outrageous and then act like he saved the day.
Click to expand...
Yep! He claims he saved us from impending war with North Korea. And I bet there's some that believe him!
 
SCrider said:
Isn't that straight out of Trumps play book? Do something outrageous and then walk it back with a slightly less outrageous and then act like he saved the day.
Click to expand...

And that is why Pelosi currently has the upper hand. There isn't anything substantial that Trump or the Republicans have offered to the Dems for the wall. All Republicans and Trump have offered is, they will spend less on the wall than they originally said, "maybe" a 3 year temporary DACA reprieve or fixing some of the problems Republicans and Trump made. That isn't an offer, that's a slap in the face so Pelosi is DOING THE RIGHT THING by not giving in to Trump.

Not only that but with Trump constantly talking about declaring a National Security Emergency why should Pelosi make a deal with Trump for wall funding. Let him declare an emergency then. Although, I would wager Trump declaring a National Emergency for a wall will get just as far as Mexico paying for the wall.
 
Chomsky said:
Yep! He claims he saved us from impending war with North Korea. And I bet there's some that believe him!
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, that lie was a doozy and some of his supporters went full on retard for that one.

His supporters went so far to defend him to say "Well we are at war with NK because we have an armistice and not a peace treaty ending the Korean War". Problem with that logic is Trump specifically said if not for him we WOULD be at war with NK. So that isn't him talking about an armistice that's him talking about actual war where we have attacks going on. And that claim is bull**** because only Trump was the one who was leading us to a war with NK with his rhetoric.
 
Chomsky said:
Yeah, that's why in my post at the end, my final option was Pelosi simply tossing it all back to Trump to figure it out himself. It's been reported elsewhere that the Dems are offering 2B to the wall. I can see Nancy Telling Trump, "take-it-or-leave-it, it's your wall".
Click to expand...

and honest, it's the right thing to do.

Trump has been all over the place with this wall and he had two years with both houses to get it done.

He is so freakin incompetent.
 
vesper said:
Who knows what the final proposal will be. But if this proposal turns out to be less than what the experts in border security claim they need to do their job efficiently screw it.

Frankly, I am fed up with Congress critters not doing their job in securing the border for friggin decades!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. One of the few friggin jobs the Constitution gave them the responsibility and the friggin arseholes can't even do that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

Enough of this happy horse ****, I hope Trump tells the left and the right, screw you and calls for a national emergency using funds they know damn well they have a right to.
Click to expand...
I was with you, until the last paragraph. But I don't support a President trying to circumvent constitutional order.
 
Chomsky said:
I was with you, until the last paragraph. But I don't support a President trying to circumvent constitutional order.
Click to expand...

What constitutional order? The president has a Congress with their hands up their arses playing political games with our security. And as far as I see it he has every constitutional right to secure this country even if the arses in the Congress don't. Trump is on solid ground constitutionally on this one.
 
Praxas said:
And that is why Pelosi currently has the upper hand. There isn't anything substantial that Trump or the Republicans have offered to the Dems for the wall. All Republicans and Trump have offered is, they will spend less on the wall than they originally said, "maybe" a 3 year temporary DACA reprieve or fixing some of the problems Republicans and Trump made. That isn't an offer, that's a slap in the face so Pelosi is DOING THE RIGHT THING by not giving in to Trump.

Not only that but with Trump constantly talking about declaring a National Security Emergency why should Pelosi make a deal with Trump for wall funding. Let him declare an emergency then. Although, I would wager Trump declaring a National Emergency for a wall will get just as far as Mexico paying for the wall.
Click to expand...

Straight-up, throughout these negotiations I haven't heard of one thing Trump or the GOP conceded in exchange for wall funding. How is that negotiating, when only one side demands?
 
vesper said:
What constitutional order? The president has a Congress with their hands up their arses playing political games with our security. And as far as I see it he has every constitutional right to secure this country even if the arses in the Congress don't. Trump is on solid ground constitutionally on this one.
Click to expand...
Constitutional order: Going through Congress.

Trump is trying to go around Congress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom