Trump should tell Congress to shove this bill up their _______

[trouble13]

Well, on a brighter note, I DID hear it was recycled paper.

Should of been written on toilet paper

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Idiometer]

Border security costs money. This legislation is about appropriating money. This absolutely IS the place to provide money for border security.

But tell me...do really expect the Dems and Reps to consider OTHER legislation that will appropriate more money for border security? If so, when do you expect that to happen? And, if it doesn't happen will you then admit that they don't care about border security?

Yes, I do expect the House Democrats to floor a bill that addresses not only spending on sensible, modern security measures, but to couple it with some much needed reforms on the immigration system as a whole, not just the southern border. And I also fully expect it to include a final resolution for the DACA kids, allowing them full citizenship. Some of those kids are veterans, ffs.

 

[Captain America]

Should of been written on toilet paper

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

View attachment 67250574

 

[justabubba]

A couple things I think need to be pointed out about some falsehoods being propagated. The first being that Trump had any intention of signing the bill in December and that changed after the right wing media complained about it. The left wing media keeps parroting that like it's a fact but Trump gave no indication if he would or would not sign the bill before he rejected it. Its false.

It's also false that Trump has given any indication if he will sign this bill either. The left is declaring this a victory like it's a done deal. The reality nobody knows what he is going to do until he does it.

I do think it's fair to say the gop has shown themselves once again to be weaker than dems when it comes to getting things they campaign on. I wont be surprised if many incumbents in the gop are primaried out again and the freedom caucus of the wing grows their seats.

Something on curious about from your perspective is how you feel about what the dems did not get in the bill. Theres nothing about e-verify, expanding guest worker visas, or settling the DACA dispute. What happens if the courts remove the stay on DACA being rescinded. Then they may begin to deport them.

The only thing they got out of this deal is they denied Trump some of the funding he wanted and for some inexplicable reason they are reducing space at detention centers.

From the Democrat side are you happy with this bill if it gets passed and if so, why? It looks to me like both sides have agreed to give the other side very little

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Pence showed up to give every indication Trump would sign off on the bill the Congress approved

It was not until Trump got blowback on faux news and Ann Coulter that he decided not to sign the original agreement which would have provided more money for his pet project

 

[uptower]

Apparently the request for a germaine response to my questions are not that easy for you. I didn't ask if there was an emergency, if the trend of crossings from last year were up or down, or whether you think the problem is manageable. In your words, I asked you how the "compromise" demonstrates that "Dems actually care about securing the border in a more effective but less costly way than what Trump prescribes?".

Explain again how doing nothing new or different, other than to encourage illegal immigration, is more effective in securing a border that is already porous? Doing nothing may be cheaper, but there is no reason to suppose doing nothing more is more more effective.


If you could restrain yourself and answer the question originally asked, "seeing A" would be unnecessary. I didn't ask you if some or most do no "real harm" in your subjective view, or if some contribute to the economy - nor did I ask how smugglers cross borders. I asked you to explain you objective benchmark (if you have one) that actually measures when a land border system is sufficient?


You do have a serious avoidance problem, don't you? If there is no actual reasoning behind your assumption, simple acknowledge it.

(How does, for example, the crossing of fewer murders and violent criminals illegally crossing an unsecured border than at our recent highest point in history magically create "sufficiency"? )


Even though you have failed to answer most of my questions regarding your "reasoning", that failure is itself an answer.

The reason why Dems support an insecure and porous border is because they like illegal aliens to sneak in over the southern border and their provision of unskilled workers for service jobs and potential new voters, more than they dislike murders, violent crime, wage impacts, social service costs, and drug smuggling; Dems have little concern over the impact of criminal aliens, illegal workers, drug smugglers, and believe that if they did show a concern, it would be indicative of their hating Hispanics.

We can discuss my answers without talking about me. This speculation on my state of mind or ability to reason borders on incivil so take the 'you, you, you' out of it and we can keep talking.

Now back to my answers, perhaps I didn't quite catch the original wording. On point A, iI don't subscribe to the idea that the status quo equals 'encouraging illegal immigration'. Congress clearly feels enough is being done already and it keeps the problem manageable. Therefore this compromise, in the form of the spending allocated in the bill shows that Dems in congress also believe resources should be allocated to border security.

On B, I don't have an objective benchmark (such as a number) just as long as people aren't streaming across bringing crime and disease and raping willy-nilly, which for the most part they are not. I don't really feel the need to impose a benchmark in order to form an opinion. My position is that illegal immigration is to a point relatively harmless. Obviously humane steps must be taken to mitigate and limit it because a country can't take in everyone forever, but yes, back to point A again, I think it's enough without a wall.

For C, maybe I didn't quite catch the meaning. Rephrase it and I'll have another crack.

For D my criteria is more or less what is already there. A massive wall or permanent barricade is unsightly, environmentally unsound, somewhat inhumane and very costly. Monitored ports of entry and trouble spots along the same lines as what exists seems a reasonable compromise to keep going.

I most certainly do not believe the notion that 'Dems support an insecure and porous border is because they like illegal aliens to sneak in over the southern border and their provision of unskilled workers for service jobs and potential new voters'. I think they're trying to deal with the problem of enforcement on multiple levels - ethical, environmental, economic, humanitarian and of course political - and therefore the solution cannot be as simple to them as throwing up a big wall to keep swarthy foreigners out.

 

[HumblePi]

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

I have said as much in other posts, in other threads. Congress...both Reps and Dems...don't give a rat's ass about border security. They care about their donors.

But tell me...why on earth would anyone expect Congress to pass a law that removes their money tree?

Neither do the republican leaders otherwise they would have already funded the wall when the controlled both houses. They are playing you like a fool. The democrat leaders are doing the same to their constituents. They have used this cheap labor to all but decimate the unions and everything they fought for in this country.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Sounds like you have a bunch of class Envy and jealousy. Why aren't you one of these rich and powerful people? Using conservative logic, you just didn't work hard enough. :lamo

No. I am not the 1%.

You really think that everyone that is not in the top 1% are lazy and did not work hard.

I have made a decent living and will be just fine for the rest of my life.

I feel sorry for all the teenagers out there inheriting the debt we have run up.
I feel sorry for the millions of hard working men and women starting out in life as we become a third world country.
I could go on but that is the legacy we are so proud of. Once again exploiting people from other countries the way the coal barons did my ancestors 100 years ago. The American dream.

 

[Mycroft]

And then she caved.

LOL!!

 

[jnug]

And then she caved.

LOL!!

So your argument is what....that Pelosi should have put her party on the wrong side of a shutdown for no more physical border $'s than would have been in the Dec 19th Bill? I would not call that a cave. I would call that smart politics. The GOP has been gaging on Trump's shutdown pledge since he made it. There was no sense at all in Pelosi taking part of that on the back of her party for no more physical barrier money than Trump could have had on Dec 19th.

 

[Mycroft]

So your argument is what....that Pelosi should have put her party on the wrong side of a shutdown for no more physical border $'s than would have been in the Dec 19th Bill? I would not call that a cave. I would call that smart politics. The GOP has been gaging on Trump's shutdown pledge since he made it. There was no sense at all in Pelosi taking part of that on the back of her party for no more physical barrier money than Trump could have had on Dec 19th.

My argument? I'm not arguing anything. I'm not saying what she should have done.

I'm simply commenting on what she DID do.

I'll leave the heartburn up to you and her base.

 

[AlphaOmega]

Lets face it, we are at an impass. Dems want illehals and drugs pouring across our borders, the rest of us don't. I wish some dems would tell us why they are traitors.

 

[jnug]

My argument? I'm not arguing anything. I'm not saying what she should have done.

I'm simply commenting on what she DID do.

I'll leave the heartburn up to you and her base.

"and then she caved" is as hyperbolic as it gets. But you are welcome to your opinion.

 

[Mycroft]

"and then she caved" is as hyperbolic as it gets. But you are welcome to your opinion.

Just left a meeting with Chuck and Nancy, a total waste of time. I asked what is going to happen in 30 days if I quickly open things up, are you going to approve Border Security which includes a Wall or Steel Barrier? Nancy said, NO. I said bye-bye, nothing else works!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 9, 2019

Less than two weeks after Trump opened things up, Nancy approves funding that includes a wall.

Yeah...she caved.

 

[jnug]

Less than two weeks after Trump opened things up, Nancy approves funding that includes a wall.

Yeah...she caved.

She made a wise political decision, continuing to hang the threat of shutdown around Trump and the GOP's neck. In fact, in keeping it hung around the GOP's neck we are avoiding another shutdown today. That IMO is not a cave. But you are welcome to your opinion.

 

[Mycroft]

She made a wise political decision, continuing to hang the threat of shutdown around Trump and the GOP's neck. In fact, in keeping it hung around the GOP's neck we are avoiding another shutdown today. That IMO is not a cave. But you are welcome to your opinion.

shrug...

Call it a "wise political decision" if you want. After all, you are entitled to your opinion.

Doesn't change the fact that she caved.

 

[jnug]

shrug...

Call it a "wise political decision" if you want. After all, you are entitled to your opinion.

Doesn't change the fact that she caved.

It apparently does not change your OPINION that she caved.

 

[Mycroft]

It apparently does not change your OPINION that she caved.

It's not an opinion.

She said no...then she caved to avoid another shutdown and said yes.

Those are her actions. Facts.

 

[marke]

I don't see why you expect either party in congress to go along with his wall. Most Americans are against it and both parties know it would take many years to complete and tens of billions of dollars. Trump would be long gone before it came even close to being finished.

So what has master negotiator Trump offered the Dems or the GOP? It'd have to be pretty good to go against the will of the people, but as far as I'm aware it's been NOTHING, zero, zilch, nada. Trump obviously doesn't want the wall badly enough if he wasn't willing to sacrifice anything for it. Now there's less funding for the wall than was offered in December before his temper tantrum.

You've been duped by a conman that obviously doesn't really want this wall built.

Maybe Trump does not want the wall built. Maybe God does not want the wall built because God intends to destroy America for turning its back on God in large numbers and supporting some of the vilest ungodly satanic wickedness ever proposed by man. Make no mistake, modern leftist liberal socialists will bring down this country to hell the same way Lenin and his gang of ungodly barbarians brought Russia down.

 

[jnug]

It's not an opinion.

She said no...then she caved to avoid another shutdown and said yes.

Those are her actions. Facts.

Interesting since your obvious preference would have been that she take the weight of shutdown backlash off the GOP's neck and place it on her own.

A cave is a capitulation. Pelosi gave up NOTHING that Trump would have had on Dec 19th. That is hardly a capitulation.

 

[marke]

To be fair, this bill addresses funding for seven agencies, so yeah...that's going to take a lot of pages.

Money that flows to different organizations and to different nations always flows through the hands of insiders who may or may not be trusted not to be skimming from the funds for themselves. For example, tens of thousands or more dollars flow from Planned Parenthood back into democrat campaign coffers each year, which explains why democrats are so adamant to keep funneling so many hundreds of millions of dollars into PP each year.

Bill Ayers was given a government grant of more than $160 million in the early 1990s and with that money he bought Obama a house and introduced him to the world from his own living room. What was a guilty American terrorist bomber doing getting $160 million from the US Treasury with no strings attached? That is politics at its corrupt insider dealing best.

 

[Mycroft]

Interesting since your obvious preference would have been that she take the weight of shutdown backlash off the GOP's neck and place it on her own.

A cave is a capitulation. Pelosi gave up NOTHING that Trump would have had on Dec 19th. That is hardly a capitulation.

I've said nothing about my preference, so no...it's not obvious.

Whether Pelosi feels a backlash is up to her base. If you are any indication...I'm not sure you are...then she won't feel it. In any case, I'm not part of her base.

She went from "no" to "yes", in less that two weeks. That is a cave.

 

[jnug]

I've said nothing about my preference, so no...it's not obvious.

Whether Pelosi feels a backlash is up to her base. If you are any indication...I'm not sure you are...then she won't feel it. In any case, I'm not part of her base.

She went from "no" to "yes", in less that two weeks. That is a cave.

She went from what was already agreed on Dec 19th to exactly that again without putting her party in jeopardy of taking blame for a shutdown. Had she not done that, we likely would be staring another shutdown in the face and an absurd discussion about who owned it. It should be obvious how politically damaging another shutdown would have been and how damaging another would have been to the entire country.

Calling something a cave that in fact the political forces you constantly support in these pages benefited from a CAVE is a laugh, but entirely predictable. Had Pelosi not acted in the interests of the country, the only people that would have been cheering are in St Petersburg Russia. Is that your preference?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Maybe Trump does not want the wall built. Maybe God does not want the wall built because God intends to destroy America for turning its back on God in large numbers and supporting some of the vilest ungodly satanic wickedness ever proposed by man. Make no mistake, modern leftist liberal socialists will bring down this country to hell the same way Lenin and his gang of ungodly barbarians brought Russia down.

If god is going to destroy America how can it be liberals? Are you saying god is a liberal?

 

[OlNate]

The issue I raised in my OP wasn't the "illegal problem". It was the "border security" problem.

Since you contend the Dems aren't lying to their base, can you quote any Dems who say they care about border security? We can then compare their quoted contentions with their votes and see exactly what they are lying...or not...about. (at this point, it would be nice if you can find Dems who are on this negotiating committee)

But given what's in this proposed legislation, it's clear that neither the Dems or the GOP care very much about border security.

:lol: Ah, Mycroft, what a frustrating day - another, in a long parade of frustrating days, I'm sure. At least it's Friday.

The wall was always a joke, always a hook to land simple minded voters, who preferred a solution consisting of four letters (W-A-L-L) to one that would actually work.

Trump won't tell whoever to shove whatever wherever, because he's going to still get something to hang his name on - albeit, something much tinnier than the "great, great wall" that was promised, but at least he get's to spend a billion dollars on something he can claim "Look, ma, I did this!!". Oh...awkward...you thought he was doing all this for you. :lol:

Border control will be a much more doable proposition with two initiatives: criminalize and prosecute people who employ illegal workers and legalize all drugs. If you don't want to do those things, that's fine...just be nicer to the people Americans have created a market for. That's right, the problem isn't whether or not you have a wall, or who is president, or what money is spent. The root cause, as it so often is with America, is America.

Frustrating day...