Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: Harm to Ongoing Matter The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: Harm to Ongoing Matter

01-22-2019 , 10:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosnext
That makes no sense (or I am not understanding what Kaine is saying).
He basically said that if the Senate passes this clean CR through 2/8 and Trump signs it, the Dems will definitely negotiate in good faith on the wall and they'll make agreements to give proper consideration through all the relevant Senate committees. He said that he has no problem spending plenty of money on border security, including security "barriers" as long as they are justified and experts explain how they're needed.

I can't turn that into anything other than Dems stepping up to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory... Either they cave and give up the wall, or they don't and they get blamed for the next shutdown and then cave eventually anyway.
01-22-2019 , 10:45 PM
Who cares where someone is born. It shouldn't even be in the constitution. People act like it's the ****ing bible, and the bible is full of dumb **** too.
01-22-2019 , 10:55 PM
Okay, now I better understand - but it still makes no frickin sense.
01-22-2019 , 10:58 PM
Yeah.

“**** you, no” remains the only answer.
01-22-2019 , 11:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian
At the One-Issue White House, the Standoff Over a Border Wall Displaces Other Priorities
But at a time when a president is typically finishing a collection of policies in connection with the State of the Union and previewing them to build public support, some of Mr. Trump’s aides acknowledge that the president and his senior team have been almost entirely focused on the border dispute.

Indeed, administration officials said the situation had the unintended benefit of making it easier for Mick Mulvaney, the newly installed acting White House chief of staff, to settle into his job because he did not have as many issues to juggle.

The president, who made no public appearances on Tuesday, has kept his primary attention on the fight for the border wall for weeks, making only two unrelated out-of-town trips since the shutdown began, an unannounced stop in Iraq to visit troops at Christmas time and a quick flight to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware last weekend to pay respects to the returning remains of four Americans killed in Syria. Even a day trip to New Orleans to address farmers turned into another public pitch for the wall.

Still in his inbox are a slew of important vacancies to fill, including defense secretary, interior secretary and chief of staff. His attorney general, United Nations ambassador and Environmental Protection Agency chief are all serving in an acting capacity while waiting for Senate confirmation votes of his nominees. The White House on Tuesday sent 51 judicial nominations to the Senate, returning names that had gone unacted on last year.

Mr. Trump expressed no urgency when asked by reporters recently about all the acting officials in the upper echelon of his administration. “I like acting,” he said. “It gives me more flexibility.”

Left uncertain is how Mr. Trump may pursue other goals. He vowed before the midterm election to pass a middle-class tax cut in the new Congress but has said little about it since then. He also vowed to pull out of the North American Free Trade Agreement to pressure Congress to pass his newly negotiated replacement but has yet to do so.

He has similarly talked about collaborating with Ms. Pelosi’s Democrats, who just took over the House, on possible bipartisan initiatives like rebuilding the nation’s roads, bridges and other infrastructure or bringing down the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. Neither of those ideas has come up lately and it is hard to see the current impasse establishing the sort of trust that might lead to across-the-aisle cooperation.
Hey everyone, it's infrastructure week!!!!!!
01-22-2019 , 11:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheatrich


Lol, just now saw this on a desktop. Had no idea I replied with the same video.
01-22-2019 , 11:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosnext
Okay, now I better understand - but it still makes no frickin sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dth123451
Yeah.

“**** you, no” remains the only answer.
It basically circles back to the arguments we had when this started. If you want to use this for leverage, you have to negotiate and negotiate hard. If not, you have to make it your hardline stance that you will never negotiate while anyone is being held hostage. If that's going to be your hardline stance, you shouldn't be doing a CR that only goes until February 8th, because it's just going to lead to another shutdown in which you may shoulder the blame.

The problem is, by taking the hardline stance and pushing for just a clean CR, you let the GOP out of the corner as soon as Trump cools off from his temper tantrum... Then with the government open, and negotiations beginning, you have lost the leverage he gifted you. You've also got to make damn sure it looks like you're negotiating in good faith, or else you could be blamed for the next shutdown. The key to taking the hardline stance is ALWAYS being 100% open to clean CR's every time there's a shutdown, and being the side that never wants to hold government employees hostage.

That could have long-term upside, especially when the other side has proven willing to shut down the government to get what it wants over and over... However, you're also squandering massive amounts of leverage that Trump is gifting you, and a golden opportunity to drive a wedge right through the middle of the GOP.

The elite play, I think, is to make an offer the moment the government re-opens that is seen as fair and reasonable by most Americans, but that drives that wedge through the GOP. You do this right away to set the terms of the negotiation, rather than waiting a week for Trump to fire out some garbage like he just did. If Democrats are going to negotiate with the government re-opened, they MUST do it on their terms.

Something like:

1. Immediate Citizenship for all Dreamers (not just DACA recipients).

2. Full renewal of TPS for 3 years, without any bogus conditions.

3. Expansion of legal immigration.

4. End family separation and child detention immediately.

for

1. ~$1 billion in border security money to be used on technology.

2. ~$1 billion in border security money directed to the Trump-created humanitarian crisis (food, water, shelter, medication, etc).

3. ~$500 million in funds directed to set up processing centers to process amnesty requests in our embassies throughout Central America.

Tweak the numbers as needed, but the goal is to basically say, "Look, he wanted about $5 billion, we offered half that, we're being VERY reasonable here."

Obviously this is a non-starter for Trump's base, but that doesn't matter. The goal here isn't to give him something he can sell his base, which is akin to letting the country be governed by the right-most 25%. The goal is to continue to look reasonable and responsible while he flails around and throws temper tantrums. This is also something that, in theory, with a normal Republican president, could actually pass the Senate.

If it does, you're pretty happy with taking it. None of the money you're giving up for the border goes toward the wall, none of it builds any racist monuments, and you get a couple of huge policy and moral wins coming back the other way.

If the GOP/Trump passes, you should shoulder no blame again if they shut it down. You made a reasonable offer, and your demands were supported by the majority of the country.

According to a Gallup poll last summer, 75% of Republicans and right-leaning independents support a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers. Expanding legal immigration doesn't poll well, but I think it would with an easy sell from Dems of, "Unemployment is at 4%, we need more workers, this is good for our economy and will make America richer." I'm not even going to look up polling on family separation, I'm sure a majority are for ending it. And TPS probably polls pretty neutrally, and would also be the least discussed part of the offer.
01-22-2019 , 11:59 PM
Yeah opening the govt for 2 weeks is gonna end badly

If the concession we give him to end it is to strongly consider his wall and he ends up getting a wall while it’s open, then he learned that taking the govt hostage worked

If he doesn’t get his wall and shuts it down again on 2/8, then he has a good chance of passing more blame off to democrats on this new shutdown


There is no upside here but they also don’t have a choice; if republicans are willing to pass a clean 2 week resolution then dems can’t vote against that clean bill that opens the govt
01-23-2019 , 12:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunyonAve
They could do the Canadian wall too with this kind of idea.



https://twitter.com/Politics1com/sta...16358912204801
This is phenomenal. I hope this idea catches on amongst deplorable congresspeople. Talk about shooting your own base.
01-23-2019 , 12:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicholasp27
Yeah opening the govt for 2 weeks is gonna end badly

If the concession we give him to end it is to strongly consider his wall and he ends up getting a wall while it’s open, then he learned that taking the govt hostage worked

If he doesn’t get his wall and shuts it down again on 2/8, then he has a good chance of passing more blame off to democrats on this new shutdown


There is no upside here but they also don’t have a choice; if republicans are willing to pass a clean 2 week resolution then dems can’t vote against that clean bill that opens the govt
No worries, there’s basically no way the clean 2 week CR is going to pass.
01-23-2019 , 12:10 AM
You really think republicans are gonna block the clean CR? Why would Mitch even let them vote on it then?

The narrative should 100% be they voted against a clean bill to fund the government if they do that; I guess it takes some heat off trump but it puts it right on senators, which they don’t want...doesn’t make sense, what am I missing???
01-23-2019 , 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman220
No worries, there’s basically no way the clean 2 week CR is going to pass.
I wouldn't be so sure... It's not totally clear what the deal is, but if the deal is that they won't filibuster it and will let both bills come for a vote, I think it's a huge favorite to pass. I think both bills would pass the Senate, then the clean one would go to Trump and there would be a huge showdown over whether he would veto it.

If the deal is just that they'll both be put on the floor for debate, and whatever happens happens with regard to a filibuster, then I think the most likely outcome is neither comes to a final vote.
01-23-2019 , 12:46 AM
Democrats can't be the ones to block a clean CR, ever, period. If Republicans can use that to lessen their political pain and shift blame for the next shutdown to Democrats then let them try. The messaging to counter that should be simple. Never attach any demands to the continued basic operation of the government. New legislation must pass just as it always has with no hostages used for negotiating leverage. If a piece of legislation can't pass with the current Congress, make it a campaign issue to get the Congress you want in 2020. If you can't do that then it's not an issue voters actually want. This is how the government is supposed to work.
01-23-2019 , 01:51 AM
If the shutdown is still going then Cohen can't testify right? He goes to jail in March.
01-23-2019 , 02:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirOsis
If the shutdown is still going then Cohen can't testify right? He goes to jail in March.
He'll still testify. But it doesn't sound like Mueller's going to let him spill anything good.
01-23-2019 , 03:04 AM
I commonly see people propose an increase to legal immigration as part of a compromise for the wall. Why is this considered a good trade off?

Doesn’t seem to gain political advantage for the Democratic Party. HR-1 would atleast help ensure voting rights and fight corruption.

I assume it has a negative impact on low wage/skill workers who will now face even lower demand for their labor. A lot of the Democratic party support comes from low income voters so this seems odd to me.

A lot of first generation immigrants have been very conservative in the past, I assume this to hold especially if they’re fleeing Venezuela, drug violence, or are strong Catholic as they’ll probably fall for Conservative rhetoric.
01-23-2019 , 03:54 AM
so does Cohen get extra years if he talks more?

how the **** is Flynn getting nothing and still hasnt spilled major ****
01-23-2019 , 05:36 AM
I realize we regularly see Rudy do and say dumb things but this story really cracked me up,

It involved a couple of cases where Rudy’s inability to type led to him making up previously non existent urls which then enterprising people made into real sites, including one being an anti trump site.

If this is well known, I hadn’t heard of it previously.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...f-says-no-way/
01-23-2019 , 06:15 AM
How can you own the rights when there's no collusion...
01-23-2019 , 08:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25
How can you own the rights when there's no collusion...

It was a fashion label trying to claim the rights to the word "collusion."
01-23-2019 , 08:49 AM

( twitter | raw text )
01-23-2019 , 08:52 AM
No diggity, no doubt
01-23-2019 , 08:58 AM

( twitter | raw text )
01-23-2019 , 09:00 AM

( twitter | raw text )
01-23-2019 , 09:01 AM
Grandpa's rapping now!

      
m