Airbrush

The Border Wall or Fence

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The amount isn't $0. Democrats are currently offering 1.3 billion is special appropriations in trade for getting the govt open for a month so talks can continue. If talks fail Trump could keep the 1.3 billion and shutdown the govt again. And before you argue that the 1.3 billion isn't specific earmarked for a wall can you specifically outline what Trump plans to do with the 5.7 billion he is demanding? 

I didn't say they're offering nothing for anything. I said they're offering nothing for the wall. Which was directly in contrast with what you said when you said they were offering $1.3 billion for a wall(which they weren't.) 

As for the argument that they might use it for the wall, I think it's ridiculous. Pelosi and Chuck have both openly stated they won't give anything for the wall. Not that they have $1.3 billion that may or may not go to the wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Additionally, the fact that they can't get enough votes to allow a vote on a veto indicates to me that even if they did allow a vote, it wouldn't work.

You misunderstand, or have badly communicated what you're trying to say (enough votes to allow a vote on a veto??). We're not that far through the process yet. The votes for the legislation are there, they're just not even being allowed to vote.

This is a process issue. Until the leader agrees to bring it to the floor, we remain in this holding pattern. However. McConnell continues to obstinately refuse, despite the support of the legislation and bipartisan desire to reopen the government.

Now... if they pass it and the president vetos, that's another matter, but we're not there yet. Also, given the uproar across the nation, my money is on finding enough votes to override, but this is irrelevant until the FIRST vote is allowed to happen.

Even if that "might" not work, we won't know until they try. Why wait? Let's find out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I didn't say they're offering nothing for anything. I said they're offering nothing for the wall. Which was directly in contrast with what you said when you said they were offering $1.3 billion for a wall(which they weren't.) 

As for the argument that they might use it for the wall, I think it's ridiculous. Pelosi and Chuck have both openly stated they won't give anything for the wall. Not that they have $1.3 billion that may or may not go to the wall.

It is a bill for appropriations which is separate from the DHS budget. For now the money Democrats are offering would go towards hardening existing fencing and other security assets well has increases in the number of immigration judges and agents. That is all stiff Trump has claimed some of his 5.7 billion would go towards anyways per the CBP's Security Improvement Plan. So Democrats are offering Trump some of the money Trump is demanding. That is just a fact. Democrats are also offering to continue the discussion. 

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

This is a process issue. Until the leader agrees to bring it to the floor, we remain in this holding pattern. However. McConnell continues to obstinately refuse, despite the support of the legislation and bipartisan desire to reopen the government.

This can't be stressed enough. There is enough bipartisan support to pass a budget today if McConnell would allow a vote to be held 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It is a bill for appropriations which is separate from the DHS budget. For now the money Democrats are offering would go towards hardening existing fencing and other security assets well has increases in the number of immigration judges and agents. That is all stiff Trump has claimed some of his 5.7 billion would go towards anyways per the CBP's Security Improvement Plan. So Democrats are offering Trump some of the money Trump is demanding. That is just a fact. Democrats are also offering to continue the discussion. 

This can't be stressed enough. There is enough bipartisan support to pass a budget today if McConnell would allow a vote to be held 

It looks like the US government is piling up some nice litigation, with workers not being paid. Those workers wont forget when it comes to vote in 2020. It does seem odd to me that a budget proposal has to pass Congress and the Senate; in the UK the government gets the money, if it's there, without the permission of the opposition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

. Those workers wont forget when it comes to vote in 2020

I disagree. They will forget. People vote the party. Nearly nothing moves the needle. Trump got 63 million votes in 2016 and provided he is on the ballot in 2020 I believe he will get 63 million (give of take a million) again on 2020. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

I disagree. They will forget. People vote the party. Nearly nothing moves the needle. Trump got 63 million votes in 2016 and provided he is on the ballot in 2020 I believe he will get 63 million (give of take a million) again on 2020. 

I think it will have an effect if it drags on long enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think it will have an effect if it drags on long enough.

Trump is betting the effect will be positive for him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be clear...
There is no rationale for building this wall
It is not functionally effective, nor cost effective.
And giving in to D Trump might embolden him to pull the same stunt again,

But as INow has said...
"I’m also not the one you need to convince, nor am I getting crushed by a missed paycheck tomorrow, or struggling to feed my kids due to missed food stamps, nor am I a soybean or hog farmer missing the bailout checks promised to alleviate the suffering the China trade war is causing, or any of the hundreds of thousands of other people being used as pawns by the man sworn to serve and protect us all. "

Is the government not supposed to take care of its people ?
If D Trump is going to be a jacka*ss, there isn't much that can be done about it (  short of impeachment, that's how American government runs ), so who is going to look after the people that INow has mentioned ?
Are they on their own ?
Are they pawns being used, and extorted by D Trump AND those opposed to him ?

I don't want to see a wall built either, but I REALLY don't want to see people suffer needlessly because their government is dysfunctional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Trump is betting the effect will be positive for him. 

On its own it might be but there's other stuff running in parallel which is likely to weigh heavily in the run up to 2020. I'm just wondering what will be the straw that breaks the camel's back and people finally wake up.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MigL said:

I don't want to see a wall built either, but I REALLY don't want to see people suffer needlessly because their government is dysfunctional.

Pressure should then be focused on McConnell to bring to vote in the Senate the bills (plural) the democrats have already passed (repeatedly) in the House. 

I’m reminded of the one shutdown under Obama (we’ve now had 3 under Trump in just 2 years and this is the longest in history). Under Obama republicans did the same “my way or highway” approach to quote unquote compromise. 

The reaction? Obama should have tried harder to be nice. Had beers with them, etc. Well, he did. It didn’t work then either. 

This platitude that dems just need to try harder or are somehow at fault for not laying down and showing their belly needs to die. 

Focus on McConnell. He’s the obstacle. Tell him to clear it, not those who have already compromised and capitulated repeatedly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I'm just wondering what will be the straw that breaks the camel's back and people finally wake up.

Mr. Mueller perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

On its own it might be but there's other stuff running in parallel which is likely to weigh heavily in the run up to 2020. I'm just wondering what will be the straw that breaks the camel's back and people finally wake up.

There won't be one. If Trump is on the ballot in 2020 he'll get 63 million (give or take a million) votes. Whoever his opponent is will get 68 million votes (give or take a million). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

It looks like the US government is piling up some nice litigation, with workers not being paid. Those workers wont forget when it comes to vote in 2020. It does seem odd to me that a budget proposal has to pass Congress and the Senate; in the UK the government gets the money, if it's there, without the permission of the opposition. 

It doesn't need "permission of the opposition", it needs compromise between two different bodies; one that is built with state's priorities in mind, and one that is built with the people's priorities in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

It doesn't need "permission of the opposition", it needs compromise between two different bodies; one that is built with state's priorities in mind, and one that is built with the people's priorities in mind.

What I meant was, the UK opposition has no say regarding a budget. However you spin it, it does need permission in the US from the opposition, unless they have a sufficient majority.. 

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So only 55% (or whatever constitutes the ruling party) has any say at all? All others don't even attend budget discussions?

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

It does seem odd to me that a budget proposal has to pass Congress and the Senate; in the UK the government gets the money, if it's there, without the permission of the opposition. 

I thought you were implying that the House was the opposition of the Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So only 55% (or whatever constitutes the ruling party) has any say at all? All others don't even attend budget discussions?

I thought you were implying that the House was the opposition of the Senate.

The UK government of the day has the mandate to run the budget, as it sees fit, for its term; we know its overall plans for the term from the election manifesto. Obviously, the opposition comments and if the incumbent administration does a bad job, they suffer at the next election.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think any bill with a plurality if support should automatically be brought to the floor. Filtering everything through the speaker in house or majority leader in senate is a problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

He can't do it forever. It's a democracy. 

Doesn’t seem like one lately. The GOP members of congress have not acted to be an independent check on the president, or act in the interest of the people, unless they’re very rich.

Quote

They're allowed to say no. So is Trump.

And he already claimed responsibility for the shutdown.

Quote

Additionally, the fact that they can't get enough votes to allow a vote on a veto indicates to me that even if they did allow a vote, it wouldn't work.

So what's the point?

Who says they can’t get enough votes? The wall-free vote in the senate was 100-0, in the last congress. But now McConnell won’t allow a vote 

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

...and "Trump has not acted in a fashion that's consistent with him caring about the environment"...is your opinion based on those facts.

Again...an opinion that I would not dispute...but still not a fact..

There is objective science behind whether things harm or help the environment. It’s not my opinion that e.g. more arsenic is harmful to people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, iNow said:

I think any bill with a plurality if support should automatically be brought to the floor. Filtering everything through the speaker in house or majority leader in senate is a problem. 

The UK Speaker is expected to be non-partisan. In McConnell's defence, he's only avoiding the certain formality of Trump saying ''No''. 

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The UK Speaker is expected to be non-partisan. In McConnell's defence, he's only avoiding the certain formality of Trump saying ''No''. 

At which time he can then follow the process laid out by our founders who anticipated exactly this and he can override Trumps “No.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, iNow said:

At which time he can then follow the process laid out by our founders who anticipated exactly this and he can override Trumps “No.”

Educate me. How?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

There is objective science behind whether things harm or help the environment. It’s not my opinion that e.g. more arsenic is harmful to people.

What objective science do you feel I don't agree with? Even if you could somehow correlate it with the actions of Trump (I think we can reasonably agree you could) it doesn't automatically mean he doesn't care. He could be misinformed, or care more about the economy or being re-elected, or any number of other reasons good or bad.

You can't claim as fact that he does not care. It's an opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What objective science do you feel I don't agree with? Even if you could somehow correlate it with the actions of Trump (I think we can reasonably agree you could) it doesn't automatically mean he doesn't care. He could be misinformed, or care more about the economy or being re-elected, or any number of other reasons good or bad.

You can't claim as fact that he does not care. It's an opinion.

If he's actively encouraging activities contrary to good environmental health practices, that means he doesn't care about the environment.  Your post almost seems contrary for the sake of it.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, StringJunky said:

If he's actively encouraging activities contrary to the environmental health, that means he doesn't care about the environment. 

It doesn't.

It means he prioritizes other things. I drive a vehicle. I realize it harms the environment, yet still do so. Does this mean I don't care about the environment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now