The Trump Shutdown

[Swill Merchant]

1 hour ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

Well, apart from the fact that we won't have $25 billion because we spent it on something useless...

 

It is going to require the seizure of private lands via eminent domain. There actually are long term environmental concerns, but I doubt you give a hot deuce about those.

I have to think that having your land forcibly sold away from you might bother people.

 

Especially for such a colossal waste.

Don't forget the kitchen sink.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

So you talk to most of them, huh? You tell them you worship Trump? I'd love to see a video of you talking to them, that would be great! 

 

I don't worship Trump. None of this is about Trump... 

 

For someone who keeps saying the other side is only driven by partisan politics, you sure do keep falling back on your own blind partisanship to explain away anyone or anything that runs contrary to your talking points. Might want to reexamine why that is.

[Koko78]

25 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Moving the goal posts, not dealing with facts or the topic. No one is arguing a wall will STOP the crime from happening. The argument is it will stem the tide and flow towards areas with better/easier coverage which will decrease supply and increase arrests while saving lives.

 

One would think that the primary purpose of the wall being to funnel people to more easily managed entry points would be a simple concept to grasp. Of course, any logical position that isn't DNC-approved does not compute with the NPCs.

 

These are the same dipschiffs that think posting 'Drug-Free Zone' or 'No Guns Allowed' signs deter crime.

[jrober38]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The republic party was destroyed by Trump in '16. It's not the same GOP, it's been gutted (44 retirements/not running again) as the central neoconservative core was shown the door. The only reason the death of the GOP isn't bigger news is because it's now Trump's party. 

 

The DNC is in the process of being destroyed exactly what you're laying out above: they're being hijacked by extremists on the progressive left who are forcing those who operate in the middle (especially fiscally) out of the party. 

 

This will take more than one or two election cycles to clear out, but change is happening and has been happening since November 2016.

 

Agreed. The democrat party as it's run now is horrible. Their leadership and their policies are a joke. 

 

I just don't get how someone can't run as a moderate. Take abortion and gay marriage off the table, and say you support them, while offering a reasonable spending approach to keep taxes in check and figure out ways to reduce spending. Most Americans agree with all of those things, and then let the crazies worry about the social stuff no one wants to talk about and the increased spending no one wants to pay for. 

[Deranged Rhino]

4 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Really?

 

What policies has he enacted that have led to the construction of a border wall?

 

He's had 2 years. Why has nothing happened on that front yet?

 

The answer is that he was never serious about actually doing it.

 

Because you need 60 votes in the Senate. 

 

Look at his EOs, his policies passed, and every time he speaks on this issue (which he's done a ton over the past two years). If you do, you can't deny the fact he's never wavered on this being important for him. Human trafficking and stopping it has been a central theme for him since day one of his campaign. He's backed this up with tremendous action while in office (more arrest of traffickers under his administration in its first two years than the combined 8 year total of the last administration is one such example). He's signed EOs combating global trafficking, he's delivered multiple speeches on the issue... 

 

But human trafficking isn't covered much (until last week) by the media. 

 

The real question you should ask is why.

1 minute ago, jrober38 said:

 

Agreed. The democrat party as it's run now is horrible. Their leadership and their policies are a joke. 

 

I just don't get how someone can't run as a moderate. Take abortion and gay marriage off the table, and say you support them, while offering a reasonable spending approach to keep taxes in check and figure out ways to reduce spending. Most Americans agree with all of those things, and then let the crazies worry about the social stuff no one wants to talk about and the increased spending no one wants to pay for. 

 

You're 100% correct, moderates don't stand a chance in today's political environment because we've become so divided. But the primary cause (imo) is the mob justice mentality many on both sides of the aisle have taken to. Politicians and (more importantly) the establishment media are driven by FEAR of the twitter/social media reaction to their decisions. Because of the import put on people's outrage on twitter, politicians have allowed themselves to be boxed in by this fear. 

 

The usual routine is to campaign on the fringes and govern in the middle. It was understood in years past that campaign rhetoric was often just that and went bye-bye once they started actually governing. But the past 5 years (roughly) that's shifted. Largely because a big chunk of both bases have grown up believing the campaign rhetoric and promises are real. 

 

Dangerous times these are. /yoda 

 

 

[jrober38]

4 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

One would think that the primary purpose of the wall being to funnel people to more easily managed entry points would be a simple concept to grasp. Of course, any logical position that isn't DNC-approved does not compute with the NPCs.

 

These are the same dipschiffs that think posting 'Drug-Free Zone' or 'No Guns Allowed' signs deter crime.

 

I think the issue is that if you build a wall, and next to nothing changes, then what?

 

It's been reported by the DEA that only a tiny percentage of drugs cross the border outside legal ports or entry, and also reported that the vast number of illegal aliens originally entered the country legally, and chose to overstay their visa. 

 

A wall isn't solving any of those issues. So if the wall gets built, and the drug epidemic continues and violent crime by non-citizens continues, then what?

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I'm not saying it, CBP/DHS/ICE agents are saying that a wall will do more to stop the flow of human trafficking and smuggling along the southern border than not having a wall will do. A wall alone is not enough, nor the only thing Trump is asking for. It will require more manpower and technology as well, but those without a wall are not as helpful. 

 

Most of the drugs do not come in from other places, most of the drugs coming into this country cross through the southern border. Ditto with human trafficking and other illegal smuggling. This isn't even debatable, it's a stone cold fact. 

 

No one, not Trump or anyone else, is asking for a wall across the entire border or claiming a wall alone will permanently solve the issue. They are merely saying it will greatly help curb the flow and drive the smugglers towards more policed and covered areas when they attempt to cross. That will increase security, arrests, and save lives. 

 

There is a political gain for Trump here. No one questions that or disputes it. The wall was his signature issue and if he can get it, it would be a tremendous political victory for 2020. Just as denying him a wall would be a victory in 2020 for the left and DNC. The difference between the two is that there is more than just politics to Trump's position, and there's nothing but politics on the DNC's side of this coin. 

 

Pain coming. The shutdown will hurt the left far more than the right starting tomorrow when the first checks are missed. 

 

Who wants to stop the flow of drugs?  Drugs are fun.  It's the brown people we have an issue with. 

1 hour ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

Well, apart from the fact that we won't have $25 billion because we spent it on something useless...

 

 

I gotta ask ya.  How you feel about bullet trains? 

[jrober38]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Because you need 60 votes in the Senate. 

 

Look at his EOs, his policies passed, and every time he speaks on this issue (which he's done a ton over the past two years). If you do, you can't deny the fact he's never wavered on this being important for him. Human trafficking and stopping it has been a central theme for him since day one of his campaign. He's backed this up with tremendous action while in office (more arrest of traffickers under his administration in its first two years than the combined 8 year total of the last administration is one such example). He's signed EOs combating global trafficking, he's delivered multiple speeches on the issue... 

 

But human trafficking isn't covered much (until last week) by the media. 

 

The real question you should ask is why.

 

I think that if he wanted it built, he'd have figured out how to get it built by now.

 

No serious plan was ever developed or prepared, and as a result they're stuck battling a democrat controlled house and chasing about 20% of the money needed to actually build the wall. 

 

I think Trump always liked the wall as something he could get people fired up about, and not something he was ever serious about actually building. That's just my opinion though. 

[Koko78]

8 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

I think the issue is that if you build a wall, and next to nothing changes, then what?

 

It's been reported by the DEA that only a tiny percentage of drugs cross the border outside legal ports or entry, and also reported that the vast number of illegal aliens originally entered the country legally, and chose to overstay their visa. 

 

A wall isn't solving any of those issues. So if the wall gets built, and the drug epidemic continues and violent crime by non-citizens continues, then what?

 

So, they keep statistics on drugs that are moving undetected through open spaces of the border?

 

Again: Drugs are just one of the problems. The wall alone is not a panacea, but apparently everyone who actually works on the border thinks it will help. These are not hard concepts to understand.

11 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Who wants to stop the flow of drugs?  Drugs are fun.  It's the brown people we have an issue with. 

 

That too, since we're all immoral racists for wanting some sort of control over our country's borders.

[Swill Merchant]

We should take no steps to reduce pollution until and unless someone presents a cheap and effective plan that eliminates polution in its entirety.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Swill Merchant

[jrober38]

1 minute ago, Koko78 said:

 

So, they keep statistics on drugs that are moving undetected through open spaces of the border?

 

Again: Drugs are just one of the problems. The wall alone is not a panacea, but apparently everyone who actually works on the border thinks it will help. These are not hard concepts to understand.

 

I'm not saying it won't help, but I'm yet to read anyone who is an expert on the border who thinks it will actually have a tangible effect on the drug trade or stop people from overstaying visas they were legally granted. 

 

The issue is that Trump is advertising this to his base as a panacea. 

 

Building the wall will stop drugs. Building the wall with stop illegal immigration. Building the wall will reduce crime. 

 

None of those things will actually happen in a way that makes a difference on people's lives.

 

If your house is on fire and you use a fire extinguisher, sure, it'll help, but it's not putting out the fire. Same goes in this situation. A wall will help, but it won't change the other things that will continue happening. 

 

A simple solution to a complex problem almost certainly won't be successful. I'm in favour of building a wall (like you said, it'll help), I just get bothered when I see people making ridiculous claims like a wall alone will solve so many problems when that clearly won't actually be the case. 

[Foxx]

20 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I know about the case and I know Trump's rhetoric "Rapists, murderers, drugs, invasion, disease etc." He is scapegoating the immigrants and screwing up the system any way he can. 

 

The second part is correct. Immigrants are great. But you have no idea what they think so stop putting words in their mouths. 

no. you just have a severe case of TDS and can't see logic and reason.... at all.

[Chef Jim]

17 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

One would think that the primary purpose of the wall being to funnel people to more easily managed entry points would be a simple concept to grasp. Of course, any logical position that isn't DNC-approved does not compute with the NPCs.

 

 

I think Trump needs to stand up, hold a funnel over his head, motion to it, drop the mic and walk away. 

[Swill Merchant]

2 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

I'm not saying it won't help, but I'm yet to read anyone who is an expert on the border who thinks it will actually have a tangible effect on the drug trade or stop people from overstaying visas they were legally granted. 

 

The issue is that Trump is advertising this to his base as a panacea. 

 

Building the wall will stop drugs. Building the wall with stop illegal immigration. Building the wall will reduce crime. 

 

None of those things will actually happen in a way that makes a difference on people's lives.

 

If your house is on fire and you use a fire extinguisher, sure, it'll help, but it's not putting out the fire. Same goes in this situation. A wall will help, but it won't change the other things that will continue happening. 

 

A simple solution to a complex problem almost certainly won't be successful. I'm in favour of building a wall (like you said, it'll help), I just get bothered when I see people making ridiculous claims like a wall alone will solve so many problems when that clearly won't actually be the case. 

In actuality, the beauty of the plan is its simplicity. Once a plan becomes too complex everything can go wrong.

 

I'm not doubting you've heard people claim a wall will cure all ills, but I don't know of any.

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

16 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Who wants to stop the flow of drugs?  Drugs are fun.  It's the brown people we have an issue with. 

 

I gotta ask ya.  How you feel about bullet trains? 

 

Ehh, I don't hate them, but you have to plan it well and make sure that it's a profitable route.

 

And thanks for showing the true views of Trumpism on brown people 

23 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Oh look, you ran away and hid because of the facts hurting your "feelz"!

 

Or did you get triggered by seeing a cartoon of a brown person? Do you need your safe space?

[B-Man]

 

Quote

 

Saagar Enjeti‏Verified account @esaagar 1h1 hour ago

.@POTUS at an roundtable with Border Patrol with seized guns and drugs before him. Seated on the right of the President is Reggie Singh, brother of fallen Police Officer Ronil Singh, killed by an illegal immigrant

 

 

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

Ehh, I don't hate them, but you have to plan it well and make sure that it's a profitable route.

 

 

So you hate them.  At least our Browndoggle here in California.  And that is in honor of our illustrious ex-Governor whose idea this was not the people you THINK we don't like.  Why do you think we dislike people from the other side of our southern border? 

[Koko78]

18 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

If your house is on fire and you use a fire extinguisher, sure, it'll help, but it's not putting out the fire. Same goes in this situation. A wall will help, but it won't change the other things that will continue happening. 

 

A simple solution to a complex problem almost certainly won't be successful. I'm in favour of building a wall (like you said, it'll help), I just get bothered when I see people making ridiculous claims like a wall alone will solve so many problems when that clearly won't actually be the case. 

 

I actually rather like this analogy. The Democrat's current position is that since there's no evidence the fire extinguisher will completely eliminate the fire, you shouldn't try.

 

As for your second paragraph, I agree. Hyperbole aside, a wall is going to help the multitude of problems on the southern border, but standing alone will not be a solution.

[jrober38]

1 minute ago, Swill Merchant said:

In actuality, the beauty of the plan is its simplicity. Once a plan becomes too complex everything can go wrong.

 

I'm not doubting you've heard people claim a wall will cure all ills, but I don't know of any.

 

I'm not a conservative, but sometimes listen into conservative talk radio and try to listen to opinions from a variety of sources across the spectrum to gauge where people are coming from. It's a small sample, but some of the people who call in literally sound like they think a "wall" will completely block the flow of people across the southern border. It's as if they have no idea whatsoever how much commerce occurs there, and that those ports of entry where people cross legally and where so many tons of drugs come through undetected will remain open with a wall. 

 

A simple solution is good in theory, but it's not practical. 

 

Human beings have fled their homelands due to war, genocide, disease and famine for thousands of years, and that instinct isn't going to change suddenly with the creation of a wall.

 

Desperate people with no hope or opportunity to better themselves or support their families will continue trying to get into the United States for as long as the reward outweighs the risk.

 

The journey is too dangerous? Your risk getting raped or killed along the way? Not as bad as staying put and watching your kids starve to death due to the extreme poverty you face with no way out. 

[Dante]

On 1/9/2019 at 10:03 AM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Better get that wall up sooner rather than later. Venezuela is only going to get worse and once the neighboring countries grow weary of the migrants you know they are heading here. No way they are stopping in Mexico they are coming here. The last thing we need is a mass influx of dumb commie/ socialists. Got enough of them coming from higher education.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/01/10/us-must-take-action-on-venezuelas-humanitarian-crisis-as-maduro-wins-second-term/

 

Edited January 10, 2019 by Dante

[jrober38]

Just now, Koko78 said:

 

I actually rather like this analogy. The Democrat's current position is that since there's no evidence the fire extinguisher will completely eliminate the fire, you shouldn't try.

 

As for your second paragraph, I agree. Hyperbole aside, a wall is going to help the multitude of problems on the southern border, but standing alone will not be a solution.

 

Agreed. 

 

The Democrats position is absurd. Saying it's too expensive when the US Budget is like $2 trillion is ridiculous. 

 

With that said, they've heavily weighed the pros and cons, and they've made a calculated decision where they essentially are conceding the 2020 election if they let Trump build his wall. 

 

Without the construction of his wall, the conservative pundits will fracture off, and his base won't show up to vote and he'll get obliterated at the polls in a landslide. 

 

The Dems have no platform, and because they can't run on the economy, or health care, the only thing they've got is trying to disappoint Trump's base, and they'll go to any length to get that done. 

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

7 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

So you hate them.  At least our Browndoggle here in California.  And that is in honor of our illustrious ex-Governor whose idea this was not the people you THINK we don't like.  Why do you think we dislike people from the other side of our southern border? 

...because you said the problem was brown people?

[Chef Jim]

Just now, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

...because you said the problem was brown people?

 

And you believed be me because....................

[Koko78]

11 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Agreed. 

 

The Democrats position is absurd. Saying it's too expensive when the US Budget is like $2 trillion is ridiculous. 

 

With that said, they've heavily weighed the pros and cons, and they've made a calculated decision where they essentially are conceding the 2020 election if they let Trump build his wall. 

 

Without the construction of his wall, the conservative pundits will fracture off, and his base won't show up to vote and he'll get obliterated at the polls in a landslide. 

 

The Dems have no platform, and because they can't run on the economy, or health care, the only thing they've got is trying to disappoint Trump's base, and they'll go to any length to get that done. 

 

If they had anyone at the DNC with an IQ over 60, they'd horsetrade full funding for the wall/border security in exchange for DACA and amnesty/path to citizenship for adult illegals. That allows them to claim that they were the adults in the room, that they care about our nation's security, and that they really gave up nothing to protect the vulnerable Dreamers and migrants. We all damn well know Trump will give away the store to claim a an easily-negated victory on the wall funding.

 

Of course, the dumbschiffs would rather just paint themselves into a corner, then cry collusion.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Koko78

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

11 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Agreed. 

 

The Democrats position is absurd. Saying it's too expensive when the US Budget is like $2 trillion is ridiculous. 

 

With that said, they've heavily weighed the pros and cons, and they've made a calculated decision where they essentially are conceding the 2020 election if they let Trump build his wall. 

 

Without the construction of his wall, the conservative pundits will fracture off, and his base won't show up to vote and he'll get obliterated at the polls in a landslide. 

 

The Dems have no platform, and because they can't run on the economy, or health care, the only thing they've got is trying to disappoint Trump's base, and they'll go to any length to get that done. 

It's not "too expensive"

 

It's useless.

 

It doesn't stop the flow of people.

It doesn't stop the flow of drugs.

It won't lower crime

No one knows if it will stop human trafficking

Building it means forcibly selling land from private citizens

It is going to continue to be a massive expenditure to maintain and staff.

 

In short, if you want to wave your dick around about national security, put that money into things that might, I don't know, actually work, like hiring more border agents. Getting more lawyers to process asylum claims. Rework the path the legal residency and/or citizenship which reflects the reality of the situation and establish a way to track people who are here.

 

As for the Democratic platform...well, the newcomers have some ideas. It remains to be seen if Pelosi is able to take them.

 

7 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

If they had anyone at the DNC with an IQ over 60, they'd horsetrade full funding for the wall/border security in exchange for DACA and amnesty/path to citizenship for adult illegals. That allows them to claim that they were the adults in the room, that they care about our nation's security, and that they really gave up nothing to protect the vulnerable Dreamers and migrants. We all damn well know Trump will give away the store to claim a an easily-negated victory on the wall funding.

 

Of course, the dumbschiffs would rather just paint themselves into a corner, then cry collusion.

Actually, I think that might happen.

 

The problem is that we need to separate the shutdown from immigration.

 

The continuing resolutions that can get passed expire in three months, and if Trump knows that he can make insane demands on a whim every three months and they'll cave, he'll keep doing it.

 

Addition: In the meanwhile, unless opinion radically shifts, they can let Trump keep shooting himself in the foot for 2020.  Polls have people blaming Trump more for the shutdown than Democrats, and if they keep sending bill after bill for a clean passage to open the government and then negotiate for the wall, they keep looking reasonable while Trump keeps killing off votes for anyone outside of his cult.

Edited January 10, 2019 by WhitewalkerInPhilly

[IDBillzFan]

3 hours ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

...I mean, that's an extremely low bar to set. But yes, I can rebuke that.

 

You see, we managed to get through that humanitarian crisis with compassion without completely disregarding the rule of law. 

 

 

How can you fit so much wrong into a single post?

 

We didn't manage to get through ANYTHING. It's still going on. And it's still going on because Obama did what he always did; give a pretty speech, go back to his office and light up a Pall Mall before having his staff cancel a wedding so he could play a golf course.

 

Nothing changed. Nothing.

 

Someone wants to change it.

 

And what does the left want to do: go home, smoke a Pall Mall and play golf.

[jrober38]

5 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

If they had anyone at the DNC with an IQ over 60, they'd horsetrade full funding for the wall/border security in exchange for DACA and amnesty/path to citizenship for adult illegals. That allows them to claim that they were the adults in the room, that they care about our nation's security, and that they really gave up nothing to protect the vulnerable Dreamers and migrants. We all damn well know Trump will give away the store to claim a an easily-negated victory on the wall funding.

 

Of course, the dumbschiffs would rather just paint themselves into a corner, then cry collusion.

 

100%.

 

They could ask for practically anything right now and Trump would give it to them.

 

They have no plan, and no strategy for actually winning the election in 2020. They're still operating on the 2016 game script which is letting Trump implode on himself, and voters viewing them as the next best option, but people don't go out to the polls for that reason.

 

Letting Pelosi and Schumer run the party is a disaster in the making. They're both wildly unpopular among moderate voters, and they're going to wind up in a situation where whoever wins the nomination next year has to pick up the pieces from the disaster they will have created. 

 

At this stage I honestly don't see the shut down ending anytime soon if ended on a compromise. The Dems will not let him build the wall, and Trump will not agree to anything that doesn't fund the wall.

 

The only solution will be for Trump to declare an emergency and fund it on his own, and then the Dems will go full into how he's a tyrant, he doesn't respect the rule or law, blah, blah, blah. 

[DC Tom]

Just now, jrober38 said:

 

100%.

 

They could ask for practically anything right now and Trump would give it to them.

 

They have no plan, and no strategy for actually winning the election in 2020. They're still operating on the 2016 game script which is letting Trump implode on himself, and voters viewing them as the next best option, but people don't go out to the polls for that reason.

 

Letting Pelosi and Schumer run the party is a disaster in the making. They're both wildly unpopular among moderate voters, and they're going to wind up in a situation where whoever wins the nomination next year has to pick up the pieces from the disaster they will have created. 

 

At this stage I honestly don't see the shut down ending anytime soon if ended on a compromise. The Dems will not let him build the wall, and Trump will not agree to anything that doesn't fund the wall.

 

The only solution will be for Trump to declare an emergency and fund it on his own, and then the Dems will go full into how he's a tyrant, he doesn't respect the rule or law, blah, blah, blah. 

 

It either ends with that, or with enough Republicans coming over to the Democrats to override a veto.

[Chef Jim]

2 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

It's not "too expensive"

 

It's useless.

 

It doesn't stop the flow of people.  How do you know?

It doesn't stop the flow of drugs.   How do you know?

It won't lower crime    How do you know?

 

 

I'll answer the questions in red for you. You don't.  $5b is pennies in the budget to find out.  The US government spends about that much everyday.  

[jrober38]

9 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

It's not "too expensive"

 

It's useless.

 

It doesn't stop the flow of people.

It doesn't stop the flow of drugs.

It won't lower crime

No one knows if it will stop human trafficking

Building it means forcibly selling land from private citizens

It is going to continue to be a massive expenditure to maintain and staff.

 

In short, if you want to wave your dick around about national security, put that money into things that might, I don't know, actually work, like hiring more border agents. Getting more lawyers to process asylum claims. Rework the path the legal residency and/or citizenship which reflects the reality of the situation and establish a way to track people who are here.

 

As for the Democratic platform...well, the newcomers have some ideas. It remains to be seen if Pelosi is able to take them.

 

I never said it would do any of those things. 

 

I more look at it as $5 billion spent (or $20 billion if they built the whole thing) to show everyone that building a wall isn't a real solution, and that a real plan needs to be implemented. 

 

As long as one side thinks a wall will solve their problems and the other says it won't is never going to result in meaningful progress. 

 

Stalemate isn't a solution. 

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

It either ends with that, or with enough Republicans coming over to the Democrats to override a veto.

 

That won't happen. 

 

Voting against Trump as a Republican appears to be career suicide. His supporters will go out and primary you if you vote against his major policy plans. 

Edited January 10, 2019 by jrober38

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

7 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

100%.

 

They could ask for practically anything right now and Trump would give it to them.

 

They have no plan, and no strategy for actually winning the election in 2020. They're still operating on the 2016 game script which is letting Trump implode on himself, and voters viewing them as the next best option, but people don't go out to the polls for that reason.

 

Letting Pelosi and Schumer run the party is a disaster in the making. They're both wildly unpopular among moderate voters, and they're going to wind up in a situation where whoever wins the nomination next year has to pick up the pieces from the disaster they will have created. 

 

At this stage I honestly don't see the shut down ending anytime soon if ended on a compromise. The Dems will not let him build the wall, and Trump will not agree to anything that doesn't fund the wall.

 

The only solution will be for Trump to declare an emergency and fund it on his own, and then the Dems will go full into how he's a tyrant, he doesn't respect the rule or law, blah, blah, blah. 

I already said this, but it answers your question: Right now, Democrats have zero reason to bend.

 

And, if they want to do ANYTHING in the next two years, they have to separate any deal from a government shutdown.

 

The continuing resolutions that can get passed expire in three months, and if Trump knows that he can make insane demands on a whim every three months and they'll cave, he'll keep doing it.

 

 In the meanwhile, unless opinion radically shifts, they can let Trump keep shooting himself in the foot for 2020.  Polls have people blaming Trump more for the shutdown than Democrats, and if they keep sending bill after bill for a clean passage to open the government and then negotiate for the wall, they keep looking reasonable while Trump keeps killing off votes for anyone outside of his cult.

 

If Trump declares a national emergency for his wall, and then refuses to open the government...whew, I think even Teflon Don is not surviving that.

If Trump declares a national emergency for his wall, and then the government opens...oh hey, legal challenge that will stop it like his travel ban. And even then, it will take a year to actually start building, and there's no way the wall gets down before 2020.

 

They don't have to do anything while Trump continues to stick his dick in the meat grinder.

 

 

9 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

TIMMMAAAHHHHh!!!!!!!

Always good to hear sounds coming from the short bus

Edited January 10, 2019 by WhitewalkerInPhilly

[jrober38]

2 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

I already said this, but it answers your question: Right now, Democrats have zero reason to bend.

 

And, if they want to do ANYTHING in the next two years, they have to separate any deal from a government shutdown.

 

The continuing resolutions that can get passed expire in three months, and if Trump knows that he can make insane demands on a whim every three months and they'll cave, he'll keep doing it.

 

 In the meanwhile, unless opinion radically shifts, they can let Trump keep shooting himself in the foot for 2020.  Polls have people blaming Trump more for the shutdown than Democrats, and if they keep sending bill after bill for a clean passage to open the government and then negotiate for the wall, they keep looking reasonable while Trump keeps killing off votes for anyone outside of his cult.

 

If Trump declares a national emergency for his wall, and then refuses to open the government...whew, I think even Teflon Don is not surviving that.

If Trump declares a national emergency for his wall, and then the government opens...oh hey, legal challenge that will stop it like his travel ban. And even then, it will take a year to actually start building, and there's no way the wall gets down before 2020.

 

They don't have to do anything while Trump continues to stick his dick in the mean grinder.

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

The only resolution here is Trump declaring an emergency and funding the wall on his own.

 

The Dems will not cave. Trump will not cave.

 

This is political stalemate where neither side has any motivation to compromise. 

Relying on Trump to shoot himself in the foot isn't a political strategy that actually works. His base love him, and they will continue vote for him until he gives them a reason not to.

 

Not being Trump won't be a winning campaign in 2020. 

Edited January 10, 2019 by jrober38

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

I already said this, but it answers your question: Right now, Democrats have zero reason to bend.

 

And, if they want to do ANYTHING in the next two years, they have to separate any deal from a government shutdown.

 

The continuing resolutions that can get passed expire in three months, and if Trump knows that he can make insane demands on a whim every three months and they'll cave, he'll keep doing it.

 

 In the meanwhile, unless opinion radically shifts, they can let Trump keep shooting himself in the foot for 2020.  Polls have people blaming Trump more for the shutdown than Democrats, and if they keep sending bill after bill for a clean passage to open the government and then negotiate for the wall, they keep looking reasonable while Trump keeps killing off votes for anyone outside of his cult.

 

If Trump declares a national emergency for his wall, and then refuses to open the government...whew, I think even Teflon Don is not surviving that.

If Trump declares a national emergency for his wall, and then the government opens...oh hey, legal challenge that will stop it like his travel ban. And even then, it will take a year to actually start building, and there's no way the wall gets down before 2020.

 

They don't have to do anything while Trump continues to stick his dick in the meat grinder.

 

 

Always good to hear sounds coming from the short bus

 

And you believed me because..............

[DC Tom]

4 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

I never said it would do any of those things. 

 

I more look at it as $5 billion spent (or $20 billion if they built the whole thing) to show everyone that building a wall isn't a real solution, and that a real plan needs to be implemented. 

 

As long as one side thinks a wall will solve their problems and the other says it won't is never going to result in meaningful progress. 

 

Stalemate isn't a solution. 

 

That won't happen. 

 

Voting against Trump as a Republican appears to be career suicide. His supporters will go out and primary you if you vote against his major policy plans. 

 

It won't happen because if Trump senses it's starting to happen he'll immediately declare a national emergency to avoid any diminution of his ego by Congress.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

12 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

It's not "too expensive"

 

It's useless.

 

It doesn't stop the flow of people.

It doesn't stop the flow of drugs.

It won't lower crime

No one knows if it will stop human trafficking

Building it means forcibly selling land from private citizens

It is going to continue to be a massive expenditure to maintain and staff.

 

In short, if you want to wave your dick around about national security, put that money into things that might, I don't know, actually work, like hiring more border agents. Getting more lawyers to process asylum claims. Rework the path the legal residency and/or citizenship which reflects the reality of the situation and establish a way to track people who are here.

 

As for the Democratic platform...well, the newcomers have some ideas. It remains to be seen if Pelosi is able to take them.

 

Actually, I think that might happen.

 

The problem is that we need to separate the shutdown from immigration.

 

The continuing resolutions that can get passed expire in three months, and if Trump knows that he can make insane demands on a whim every three months and they'll cave, he'll keep doing it.

 

Addition: In the meanwhile, unless opinion radically shifts, they can let Trump keep shooting himself in the foot for 2020.  Polls have people blaming Trump more for the shutdown than Democrats, and if they keep sending bill after bill for a clean passage to open the government and then negotiate for the wall, they keep looking reasonable while Trump keeps killing off votes for anyone outside of his cult.

Not long ago, polls had a large portion of the population dvr'ing the Hillary Rodham Clinton Coronation and Uranimum Sale Jamboree. 

 

So, there's that. 

[DC Tom]

3 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

The continuing resolutions that can get passed expire in three months, and if Trump knows that he can make insane demands on a whim every three months and they'll cave, he'll keep doing it.

 

 

Conversely, if Trump caves, the House Democrats know they can make insane demands and he'll cave again.

 

THAT'S THE ISSUE.  Not a wall.  A power struggle between two equally entrenched and inflexible positions, that doesn't end until one breaks the other - and these are all stupid, stubborn, unimaginative people who don't break easily.  It's why I said earlier that to end this quickly you pretty much have to shoot all parties involved.

[Buffalo_Gal]

11 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

It either ends with that, or with enough Republicans coming over to the Democrats to override a veto.

I would not place bets against this happening.  While a lot of RINOs got voted out, and many Rs see the "winning" strategy of holding firm, there will always be some GOPe-squishes hiding under the seats in Congress. 

Edited January 10, 2019 by Buffalo_Gal
autocorrect is possessed

[Swill Merchant]

11 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

I'm not a conservative, but sometimes listen into conservative talk radio and try to listen to opinions from a variety of sources across the spectrum to gauge where people are coming from. It's a small sample, but some of the people who call in literally sound like they think a "wall" will completely block the flow of people across the southern border. It's as if they have no idea whatsoever how much commerce occurs there, and that those ports of entry where people cross legally and where so many tons of drugs come through undetected will remain open with a wall. 

 

A simple solution is good in theory, but it's not practical. 

 

Human beings have fled their homelands due to war, genocide, disease and famine for thousands of years, and that instinct isn't going to change suddenly with the creation of a wall.

 

Desperate people with no hope or opportunity to better themselves or support their families will continue trying to get into the United States for as long as the reward outweighs the risk.

 

The journey is too dangerous? Your risk getting raped or killed along the way? Not as bad as staying put and watching your kids starve to death due to the extreme poverty you face with no way out. 

I'm sure those people are out there. As GWB said on South Park, 25% of the country is retarded. But no serious person thinks the wall is a cure-all or that it immediately halts all drug trafficking and illegal immigration.

 

It's a tool to help secure and manage the border so as to reduce those things. The level of effectiveness remains to be seen, but it will certainly assist the border patrol in meaningful ways. Even if it didn't, it's really not a big deal as the relative cost is minimal. it would be the equivalent of the average guy blowing $100. 

 

Who wouldn't blow $100 to keep the peace in their house, even if they thought it was a waste? I blow $100 on useless junk every Valentine's day for that very purpose.

 

I believe the humanitarian argument favors the wall. If we can control the border we can reduce the exploitation & trafficking of children, and regulate legal immigration more effectively.

 

There are better and less arbitrary ways of giving assistance to people in need around the world than leaving a porous border that encourages people to make a dangerous journey for the promise of America.

[Foxx]

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Conversely, if Trump caves, the House Democrats know they can make insane demands and he'll cave again.

 

THAT'S THE ISSUE.  Not a wall.  A power struggle between two equally entrenched and inflexible positions, that doesn't end until one breaks the other - and these are all stupid, stubborn, unimaginative people who don't break easily.  It's why I said earlier that to end this quickly you pretty much have to shoot all parties involved.

promise?

Edited January 10, 2019 by Foxx

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

4 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Agreed.

 

The only resolution here is Trump declaring an emergency and funding the wall on his own.

 

The Dems will not cave. Trump will not cave.

 

This is political stalemate where neither side has any motivation to compromise. 

Relying on Trump to shoot himself in the foot isn't a political strategy that actually works. His base love him, and they will continue vote for him until he gives them a reason not to.

 

Not being Trump won't be a winning campaign in 2020. 

You're absolutely right. That was the thinking that let them go full Hillary in 2016 and 2017

 

I honestly think they run to the left to get *their* base motivated.

 

Is the ACA broken? Universal Healthcare

The economy? Green New Deal

The deficit? The new 70% tax bracket for income over 10 million

 

Trump constantly being...Trump will never sway his base. But if Democrats stoke their own base, and Trump continues to make unforced errors, they get the middle back.