No Compromise at the Border.

[Serving Zion]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6c9cec9137fa
Ringo

It looks like you've quoted #94 when you were responding to post #93, and if so, it doesn't appear to support your idea that "Donny said he'd sign" a deal that he later refused to sign and "pout because someone was mean to him".

The article, rather, says "lawmakers are wary of negotiating with any of his aides because they believe only Trump speaks for Trump" and "“In the end, it’s gotta be him,” said Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.), the new No. 2 in Senate Republican leadership who also attended the briefing. “It can’t be the vice president, it can’t be members of his staff.”

 

[Serving Zion]

Human mules are a drop in the bucket. Was your video from Breitbart or some other source like that? Most drugs come in through border crossings and ports of entry in commercial trucking and shipping.

I don't remember where the video was, all I know it was grainy and dark, like a mobile phone video. I seem to think it was a common member of public who made a video compilation for YouTube of a few examples of drug smuggling. One involved big sports bags stuffed, being moved from one car to another, there was someone throwing similar bags into bushes and driving off, another car comes along and retrieves them. That sort of thing.

 

[Ringo84]

It looks like you've quoted #94 when you were responding to post #93, and if so, it doesn't appear to support your idea that "Donny said he'd sign" a deal that he later refused to sign and "pout because someone was mean to him".

The article, rather, says "lawmakers are wary of negotiating with any of his aides because they believe only Trump speaks for Trump" and "“In the end, it’s gotta be him,” said Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.), the new No. 2 in Senate Republican leadership who also attended the briefing. “It can’t be the vice president, it can’t be members of his staff.”

I said that Congress had struck a bipartisan deal, but Donny saw that someone was mean to him on Fox News and decided to fold his arms and pout like a spoiled brat. And that's exactly what happened.

This is definitely not the first time that "President Deals" has reneged on a deal: DACA offers Trump has rejected - CNNPolitics
Ringo

 

[Allandavid]

From what I've seen videos show, that there is an easy route for illegal drugs to enter USA from that direction, that a wall should serve to block, etc.

The vast majority of drugs are smuggled in through legal ports of entry...

 

[Serving Zion]

I said that Congress had struck a bipartisan deal,

You said that "Donny said he'd sign [it]". That is specifically ruled out in the article you gave:

Turning to President Trump, the New York Democrat reminded him that he said this week he wouldn’t accept less than the $5.6 billion in wall funding that was approved by House Republicans late last year — far more than the $2.5 billion Pence was proposing.

“Didn’t you, Mr. President?” Schumer pressed.

The president, with his arms folded, smiled and nodded

Is there any evidence to show that Pres. Trump did agree to sign the deal before saying that he wouldn't? It is putting a lot of pressure on VP Pence.. (I wonder who is in the right over this).

but Donny saw that someone was mean to him on Fox News

I would like to see that too. Are you able to show me the clip, or at least to describe what was said?

Do you think it is right for people on Fox News to be mean to a dignitary?

This is definitely not the first time that "President Deals" has reneged on a deal: DACA offers Trump has rejected - CNNPolitics
Ringo

It does not appear to be a reneg, upon the information you have provided.

 

[wing2000]

From what I've seen videos show, that there is an easy route for illegal drugs to enter USA from that direction, that a wall should serve to block, etc.

I saw it on a video....seriously, we are doomed.

 

[wing2000]

“Who will compromise on the border wall, Trump or Nancy?”

It's not hard. Trump merely needs to choose from several bi-partisan plans that were presented to him over the past two years and give his consent. At one point, he could have had 50 Billion for border security. He passed it up.

Trump doesn't want a deal.

He loves the attention.

 

[actionsub]

We got those states by kicking Mexico/Spain out.

And we got a large chunk of the Midwest when Napoleon said something to the effect of "We're going to take over England...and America's going to pay for it."

 

[Ringo84]

You said that "Donny said he'd sign [it]". That is specifically ruled out in the article you gave:

Is there any evidence to show that Pres. Trump did agree to sign the deal before saying that he wouldn't? It is putting a lot of pressure on VP Pence.. (I wonder who is in the right over this).

I would like to see that too. Are you able to show me the clip, or at least to describe what was said?

Do you think it is right for people on Fox News to be mean to a dignitary?

It does not appear to be a reneg, upon the information you have provided.

It may not appear that way, but it is:

His comments came after an emergency meeting with House Republican leaders, where Trump revealed he would reject a measure passed in the Senate the night before. That measure would fund many government agencies through Feb. 8, but it would not include any new money for Trump’s border wall.

“I’ve made my position very clear. Any measure that funds the government must include border security,” Trump said in an event at the White House. He added, “Walls work, whether we like it or not. They work better than anything.”

Trump’s comments on Thursday completely overturned the plan GOP leaders were patching together earlier in the day. With no other viable options available, they had hoped to pass the short-term spending bill approved by the Senate, averting a government shutdown set to start days before Christmas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.aa00d2e5a476

Trump caused the shutdown because he wanted to throw a tantrum over his wall. Now he's trying not to even take responsibility for the shutdown he caused. Pretty pathetic.
Ringo

 

[Serving Zion]

At one point, he could have had 50 Billion for border security. He passed it up.

Can you please show the proof of that? Thank you.

 

[Serving Zion]

It may not appear that way, but it is:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.aa00d2e5a476

Trump caused the shutdown because he wanted to throw a tantrum over his wall. Now he's trying not to even take responsibility for the shutdown he caused. Pretty pathetic.
Ringo

I don't know, at this point, why we are not agreeing about this.

The definition of "Renege" by thefreedictionary.com, states that it is "To fail to carry out a promise or commitment".
re·nege
(rĭ-nĕg′, -nĭg′)
v. re·neged, re·neg·ing, re·neges
v.intr.
1. To fail to carry out a promise or commitment: reneged on the contract at the last minute.
2. Games To fail to follow suit in cards when able and required by the rules to do so.
v.tr. Archaic
To renounce; disown.
n.
The act of reneging.

So when you say that Pres. Trump has reneged, it first has to include a promise that he would have accepted the deal. So far the evidence suggests that VP Pence negotiated a deal that Pres. Trump did not agree to accept. So that doesn't suit the definition of the word "renege".

I have not seen any evidence that shows Pres. Trump ever intended to accept less than $5.6b.

Now where I think our disagreement has it's root, is that you fundamentally object to Pres. Trump having shut down the government over this issue, and you believe that he has done wrong by declining an opportunity to resume government, so you are demonising him, and part of the process of demonising a person, is to demonstrate their error.

I just say that you seem to have wrongly found this error in him, because to my knowledge (that you have not provided information to contrary), I remember that Pres. Trump clearly told the Democrat House that he was intending to shut down the government if he did not obtain funds for the wall.

Democrat House have chosen to not provide the funds for the wall, and Pres. Trump has held to his commitment.

VP Pence has negotiated to find a deal that is acceptable to Democrat House, but it is not acceptable to President Trump.

There is no visible renege according to those facts. Perhaps you can explain where you think I have not drawn the right conclusion.

 

[Nithavela]

Serving Zion said: ↑
FenderTL5 said: ↑
As I see it the Democrats have already compromised, offering 1.3 billion (I think it was) for border security already. Far short of the 5+B that Trump is asking for but not a goose-egg.
.. so what is the purpose of the Democrats opposing it's fullness then, if they are partially unopposed?

What is your purpose of not donating your heart when you go donate blood?

 

[wing2000]

Can you please show the proof of that? Thank you.

Feb 15, 2018

Washington (CNN)In a stinging defeat after months of negotiations, senators on Thursday failed to advance a bipartisan proposal to resolve the future of millions of young undocumented immigrants, leaving talks seemingly back at square one.

A much-anticipated bipartisan deal that would have paired a pathway to citizenship for nearly 2 million undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children with $25 billion in border security and some other measures failed to get the 60 votes necessary to advance legislation after furious White House opposition.
The vote was 54-45.
A competing White House-backed plan that would have also substantially increased federal deportation powers, heavily cut family-based legal migration and ended the diversity visa also failed, 39-60.

Bipartisan DACA, border security deal fails in Senate - CNNPolitics

 

[FenderTL5]

.. because it appears upon those facts alone, that the Democrats who would like the wall, are now choosing to oppose it only in order to oppose the reputation of Pres. Trump's presidency as having achieved it.

What it shows is that the democrats as a body were willing to compromise, putting 1.3 billion additional funding toward border security, to do what is best for our nation. That included keeping the government functioning.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The wall isnt a bad idea. At least its a step in the direction of answering the illegal immigration problem. At least Trump is trying to do something about it.Whats Nancy doing about this problem? Nothing that i know of.

...it's an overpriced idea that's nothing more than a pandering technique to a certain type of voter, and has become an ego thing for him.

Many of us aren't opposed to increasing border security, in fact, there have been numerous bipartisan bills aimed at doing just that. But it shouldn't be a overblown, waste-of-money, "solution". It should be data-driven

If you had a big home security problem where 70% of intruders were constantly sneaking in through the kitchen window, and only about 10% were sneaking in through a basement window. (the other are just various).

A) $1500 solution by replacing the kitchen window with a more durable one, and adding a security system to notify police so they can come remove/arrest the people when they do. (thus addressing 70% of the problem)

B) $35,000 for a big obnoxious barrier blocking the basement window (Keeping in mind, only 10% of people are breaking in there)...and accompanied by some odd rhetoric that seems to be a nod to some others living in the house who tend to not be fond of "the kind of person" who's associated with coming through the basement window. (only addressing 10% of the problem)


Now, if someone told you "We're going with option B", what would your assessment be there? Would you say "at least it's a step in the right direction?" like you've done above? Or would you recommend to them "Hey, there's this other option that's 7x more effective, and costs far less!"

Obviously, any rational person who's thinking in terms of fiscal conservatism and getting the best value for your dollar is going with Option A.

Makes me wonder, why are so many so ardently behind Option B?
-Is it that they're just unaware of the numbers with regards to who's sneaking across the border vs. Visa Overstays and people coming in by air?
-Or are they well aware of these numbers, and just insist on doing that for the sheer joy of agitating their political enemies?
-Or is it just about anti-Mexican sentiment?

I'd like to think I live in a society where there aren't that many in the 2nd and 3rd categories and it's simply a case where people weren't familiar with stats. But the more I bring up the stats and the more people push back or ignore them...the more I start to wonder.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So what is stopping them this time?

Trump 'touched' it, and he has cooties.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Trump said today at the press briefing that he's willing to consider a year or more shut down. Just sayin' what TRUMP SAID.



The wall is going to be paid for by Mexico. So why do the US tax payers have to give Trump $5 billion? Just curious. I mean, Trump was telling the TRUTH when he promised over and over and over and over and over and over again that Mexico was going to pay for the wall.

If Mexico can't pay for it NOW then let Trump do what we all have to do when we want something we can't get on credit: save up the money.

(That assumes that he's somehow going to be able to get the money from the USMCA agreement which is actually going to individual American businesses and NOT to the US treasury....especially since Trump wants to cut taxes.)

Maybe Trump should have thought this through?

If Mexico is smart they will build the wall, on Mexico's side of the border.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I'm kind of hoping that the Federal workers win in their lawsuit that would stop the government from requiring them to work without pay. Let the airports shut down because TSA isn't working and you'll see a deal made that hour.

Except that they will get backpay, so in that sense they are not working without pay, but if they choose not to work they do not deserve back pay.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

...it's an overpriced idea that's nothing more than a pandering technique to a certain type of voter, and has become an ego thing for him.

Many of us aren't opposed to increasing border security, in fact, there have been numerous bipartisan bills aimed at doing just that. But it shouldn't be a overblown, waste-of-money, "solution". It should be data-driven

If you had a big home security problem where 70% of intruders were constantly sneaking in through the kitchen window, and only about 10% were sneaking in through a basement window. (the other are just various).

A) $1500 solution by replacing the kitchen window with a more durable one, and adding a security system to notify police so they can come remove/arrest the people when they do. (thus addressing 70% of the problem)

B) $35,000 for a big obnoxious barrier blocking the basement window (Keeping in mind, only 10% of people are breaking in there)...and accompanied by some odd rhetoric that seems to be a nod to some others living in the house who tend to not be fond of "the kind of person" who's associated with coming through the basement window. (only addressing 10% of the problem)


Now, if someone told you "We're going with option B", what would your assessment be there? Would you say "at least it's a step in the right direction?" like you've done above? Or would you recommend to them "Hey, there's this other option that's 7x more effective, and costs far less!"

Obviously, any rational person who's thinking in terms of fiscal conservatism and getting the best value for your dollar is going with Option A.

Makes me wonder, why are so many so ardently behind Option B?
-Is it that they're just unaware of the numbers with regards to who's sneaking across the border vs. Visa Overstays and people coming in by air?
-Or are they well aware of these numbers, and just insist on doing that for the sheer joy of agitating their political enemies?
-Or is it just about anti-Mexican sentiment?

I'd like to think I live in a society where there aren't that many in the 2nd and 3rd categories and it's simply a case where people weren't familiar with stats. But the more I bring up the stats and the more people push back or ignore them...the more I start to wonder.

A great big ugly wall sends a better message: Don't even try it!

 

[dogs4thewin]

I really do not want to be out of work for 2 years ....

They will get a heck of a backpay check, ( as long as they actually work.)