You are (unsurprisingly) totally wrong. There is widespread agreement between Pelosi and everybody here that no wall funding should be part of the compromise funding bill that reopens the government. The framework for that bill already exists and has passed in the house and senate, though because there is a new Congress now it never reached the president’s desk. The references to hostages are all talking about how Dems won’t add wall funding to THAT bill to reopen the government

Dems are saying pass that bill, open the government, then we can negotiate about 5 billion for more physical barriers at the border. This is obv something that is on the table in terms of a negotiation. Note that 580 miles of fencing/barriers already exist that nobody has ever made a big deal about tearing down. So Clovis Clovising and comparing it to building a hitler statue/whatever nonsense he was spewing or even just existing confederate monuments is dumb. If republicans want it badly enough it can get done.

PS. You’re described perfectly by this quote. It’s really uncanny.

Here is Pelosi, two days ago, saying the wall is an immorality. It’s not who we are as a nation.

But I’m totally nuts and way off base.

I’m sure she actually meant it’s a minor symbolic annoyance.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...der-wall-video

families being torn apart does not hurt clovis in any way. he doesnt know or care about those ppl. a hurts his fee fees tho.

and it's not just employee abuse. It's hurts them in all regards.

Dems should offer trump his 5B (10B or more, what the heck it's gimmicky peanuts anyway) in return for immediate full citizenship rights for all illegal immigrants in the USA. If they can get an agreement it applies to future illegal immigrants then all the better - after all the trumpie wall will 100% stop em coming anyway (not sure even trump will fall for that but it's worth a go)

I'm not keeping up with all the derail details nor am I a tax expert but Clovis is not just disagreeing with AOC. Krugman is arguing the innovation thing is wrong. And reasonable people are not claiming a 70% marginal rate would rake in tons of extra income.


https://twitter.com/DanRiffle/status...12862015139841

You are totally arguing in good faith.

The thing is, $5 billy isn't going to come close to building the wall.

The other thing is, Trump is incompetent and even if $5 billy was anywhere near enough, the odds of him actually accomplishing anything in the next two years other than making some right wing grifters about $4.9 billy richer are extremely low.

The last thing is, even if he manages to build some small section of it, as long as Dems win in 2020 we can just authorize a $5 billion project in which we solicit Dreamer engineering grads to come up with the most creative, fun way to tear down the small section of wall. Then we can hire recent Latin American immigrants to do the fun stuff.

All while getting Dreamers citizenship, which means like 3.6 million new voters (note I said Dreamers not DACA)... If just over half of them turn out in 2020, they'd account for somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5% of the vote based on 2016 numbers.

And if he tells Chuck and Nancy to pound sand, that's fine too... Dems look very reasonable, he looks like a petulant five year old and we proceed accordingly.

Lastly, if anyone wants to argue about negotiating with a hostage taker and all that, I'd make a few points:

1. Trump is really taking himself and the GOP hostage here politically. I know the gov't workers are getting screwed right now, and I feel bad for them, but in a political sense Trump's shutdown has given the Dems leverage. To pass a clean CR lets him off the hook without utilizing the leverage.

2. We already have a long precedent of government shutdowns and negotiations to re-open the government. This isn't exactly the same as when he took DACA recipients hostage.

3. It may well also be the quickest way to get the gov't workers their paychecks again.

4. I'm repeating myself a bit because it's important. Would you rather negotiate in a situation in which nobody has any inherent leverage or you have the leverage? And if your viewpoint is "**** the wall, no matter what," I simply have to disagree. Like yeah, **** the wall, but we can tear it down and that will be an inspiring and fun moment... but they're not going to be able to tear down the types of things we'd need to get in the deal to consider it. It'd be a huge long-term win in terms of policy.

5. There's a lot of concern being expressed for what Hispanic-Americans and Latinos around the world will think if we let Trump build his huge middle finger monument to them... as if they don't already think/know that millions of Americans are racists who hate them and don't want them here? Like, I'm pretty sure they've figured that out in the last 3 years since Trump ran/won. In fact, I'm pretty damn sure most of them had already figured that out.

One's willingness to "compromise" and "negotiate" with a fascist President is less about one's desires for good things (like DACA) than it is about your view of the Wall (both symbolically and in reality).

Especially in a world in which the courts and executive branch could well diminish/dilute/remove the good things after you have agreed to give them their bad things.

There are many here among us who feel that the Wall is an immoral, racist, abhorrent symbol that is totally unacceptable under any circumstances. Everyone knows that there are better and more cost-effective ways to enhance border security if that is a priority.

Not to mention, as many have pointed out above, you don't negotiate with terrorists. If you give in this time, Fascist President will employ other terrible and hurtful tactics to get what he wants in the future (as his reprehensible wants in this arena are unlimited).

So let's tamp down the vitriol regarding people's views on giving Trump $5B for the Wall as some sort of litmus test on their view toward DACA.

You know who isn’t arguing in good faith? Nancy Pelosi, who voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which built much of the existing physical barriers at the border. I have no problem with what she’s doing. She’s playing her hand and playing it well. But if you don’t realize she’s taking a hard line now because it is to her benefit you’re clovising again.

no ****ing ****,

this literally has nothing to do with what we're raging back and forth about

you think this quote is profound on its face, but the irony is strong in this one because junior was a demented cuck who was actually describing his own powerless self. jokes on you buddy

I will give Trump credit. He finally got people to, mostly, stop talking about Russia for the time being.

What is this ' we don't negotiate with terrorists' thing?

Of course we do. And so we should when it can help end devestating consequences for people and communities.

Aside from how you assign the negative meaning of the wall, the positive meaning to Trump and his supporters and how that empowers them matters. It’s nice to think we are sonning the idiots who would give something of real value for something of little to no “real” value to their cause because it’s a stupid idea, but they gained power behind these stupid ideas.

What we could really use is another forum so that we can engage in meaningful conversations with the terrorists

It would be nice if we all remembered we are on the same side itt. Sure we disagree on a few things but the internet tendency to always assume the worst and to assume any difference of opinion means that person is your mortal enemy gets tedious.

It's obviously far from ideal but the idea that we wouldn't take something real that would massively improve the lives of millions of people because of an, I agree genuine, opaque concern of the future battle for ideas is abhorrent. There's lots of good consequences from doing right by all these people as well.

'we dont negotiate with terrorists' is the sort of thing that normally comes from the Daily Mail type right wing press. In practice of course we negotiate and we have a responsibility to do so. Even Thatcher negotiated with terrorists although being from the right she had to keep it secret.

You don’t negotiate with terrorists because the methods they use are unacceptable. Once you give into their demands you’ve demonstrated that those methods can work and you open yourself to being beholden to any group willing to use those methods. You’ve never met a deplorable person you wouldn’t support so I don’t expect you to understand.

Hey ****nuts, what are your thoughts on Moby Dick? "Dense symbolist tome" or "reads like a great opium dream"?

I feel like a network should have Daniel Dale providing live interpretation of Trump’s SOTU address.



https://mobile.twitter.com/ddale8/st...11781835444226

Moby Dick is an actual thing that exists, unlike this hypothetical “$5B for Medicare For All” deal that everyone agrees isn’t going to ever happen but still can’t stop arguing about. Also, it is a very good book.

seems like poor timing tbh, mueller hasnt shown anything recently so getting bad press right now is probably the worst thing for him, during the "calm"

tbf this is wrong and america DOES negotiate with terrorists, trading prisoners and such

( twitter | raw text )

wow, a compromise. today is the day trump finally became president.