Slashdot Mirror
Government Shutdown: TLS Certificates Not Renewed, Many Websites Are Down (zdnet.com)
More than 80 TLS certificates used by US government websites have expired so far without being renewed, leaving some websites inaccessible to the public. From a report: NASA, the US Department of Justice, and the Court of Appeals are just some of the US government agencies currently impacted, according to Netcraft. The blame falls on the current US federal government shutdown caused by US President Donald Trump's refusal to sign any 2019 government budget bill that doesn't contain funding for a Mexico border wall he promised during his election campaign. This has resulted in hundreds of thousands of government workers being furloughed across all government agencies, including staff handling IT support and cybersecurity. As a result, government websites are dropping like flies, with no one being on hand to renew TLS certificates.
Often it seems that one of Trump's top motivations is to piss on the democrats, without concern for what it does to anyone who is not a hard core supporter of his. If we could get someone on Fox & Friends to say that the most dramatic thing he could do to piss off the democrats at this point would be to resign - leaving Pence in charge - he just might do it. Pence is not a great guy either but he's at least reasonably intelligent and honest enough to not stare into a camera and lie his ass off (yet). Just tell trump about the sweetheart deal Nixon got when he resigned and Trump might go for it. Hell if he goes out willingly he could still get lifetime secret service protection for him and his family for the rest of all their lives, saving him many millions of dollars.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
We need border security for National Security. Obstructionist Democrats can be the one to thank.
This isn't a government shutdown. This is a minority party that gained a slight foothold in one part of the government and immediately used it to shut down the government and is now trying to blame everyone but themselves for the outcome.
The Senate and the President of the United States are ready to reopen the government immediately. It's solely one small part of the government that's refusing to open things. So call it what it is: the Democrat Shutdown.
One appears to be a test domain, one expired before the shutdown and the third does not resolve publicly and the article says the org was not affected by the shutdown.
If they set up Let's Encrypt properly, they can have automatic renewing of their certificates.
Is it that no one is on hand to renew or that people are on hand and choosing not to do their job? That's what some at the TSA are doing. Calling in sick to make matters worse.
http://fortune.com/2019/01/11/...
Also keep in mind that many in the federal bureaucracy were already "resisting" the moment Trump came into office.
Pence is a religious fundamentalist, much more dangerous than Trump, IMO.
Just how old is Nancy Pelosi anyway? 82 or something? When's that last time that privileged white woman 1%er babbled something incoherent? Last night?
And yeah, Pelosi really does babble incoherent crap - it ain't that hard to find if you have the balls to look. But the "non-biased" media actually covers for her.
Kinda like they covered up Hillary!'s alcoholism by saying she "was a great napper".
BIGLY you got the Leader you deserve.
but her emails son! emails!!!
What will I do without browsing those amazing websites? Woe is me. I AM FORTUNE'S FOE!
Seems like this story is BS. Maybe some low level or internal sites are down but i just hit NASA, the Whitehouse, and Justice departments sites and they work just fine. No ssl error or anything.
Also its not just Trump the HOUSE is at least 50% responsible. Lets remember that Pelosi is elected by her district in CA, not by the nation.
When will you start paying attention to reality? Get those "alternative facts" out of your head and start using your damned brain.
There's no reason this isn't automated, run a CRON job every 30 days that refreshes the TLS certs and move on with your day.
If they pay for his wall because he has a tantrum, what's next?
He'll be shutting down the government for every last little thing until he gets his way.
There's no way anybody should give way on this (except The Donald, obviously).
PS: Wasn't Mexico going to pay for this?
No sig today...
No, it's her desire to see him not get a key campaign promise through and see him not get reelected in 2020. That's what this is about. They are willing to ensure than 800k federal employees don't get paid for months because they are that Hell-bent on seeing his chances reduced in 2020. That's it.
The Democrats supported every wasteful thing Bush and Obama put out there. They supported Obama's expansion on Bush's militarism.
The fact is that if Trump wanted $10B to bomb a randomly named country, half the Democrats would give him the money. It's only--only--when that money is put toward something that is a core campaign promise and related to what people want (border security) that they lose their minds and channel Ayn Rand.
Trump talked to Pelosi and said he would open government if she were willing to discuss it after government opened.
no; Pelosi was willing to discuss border security/immigration, not a wall. Trump wants a wall and doesn't care about anything else.This is entirely Trump. Illegals aren't killing people; Fox News excels at finding the exceptions to the rule, how come you aren't all upset about the white american christians killing far more people every day?
> at least reasonably intelligent and honest enough to not stare into a camera and lie his ass off
The first applies to most politicians at that level, the second applies to none of them.
Whatever happened to "elections have consequences"?
Perhaps there is room on both sides to stop acting like children, and learn to work together.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
If they let their certs get this close to expiration, this is due to mismanagement and neglect.
America elected Trump in part to fix immigration. 72% of Americans believe illegal immigration is a problem.
This is not Trump going off the rails. This is him doing exactly what we elected him to do.
The only people upset are globalists who want cheap slave labor and leftists who want cheap votes. If Mexican illegal immigrants voted majority Republican, they'd treat them the same way they treat Cuban refugees (who vote 80% Republican).
You lost. America First. Traitors get the rope.
Trump is a fucking criminal, but Pence is a fundamentalist christian nutjob.
Swapping one for the other in the oval office is bad. Both of them are morally unqualified to lead the US.
Pressure has to be made on the fuckster that's holding up the US Senate. What's that asshole's name ? Mitch, bitch Mc-something.
With a veto proof majority in the House (done deal) and Senate (there are still enough Republicans that haven't abdicated their brains) Trumpster can go cheeseburger himself to death.
Pelosi is willing to discuss ineffective border security. The same "border security" that allows tens of thousands of illegal immigrants to cross the border.
It's not that Democrats hate America, it's that Democrats don't want tax payers to pay for something that the GOP said Mexico would pay for:
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-37241626/donald-trump-mexico-will-pay-for-the-wall
Situation reminds last years of fight between Gorbachev and Yeltsin that led to demise of USSR. Is Trump the new Yeltsin ?
What he says he would or wouldn't sign is 100% irrelevant, because 1) he's a liar so nothing he says is ever relevant and 2) the Senate hasn't voted on the budget yet, so there's no budget for the president to sign.
This problem is caused by senators who are too pussy to pass a bill that the president doesn't like. Think about that. This is the pussiest president we've had since .. Wilson!?!?! And the Republican dominated senate is too pussy to stand up to him. Those senators need to go. Start with voting McConnell out as majority leader.
Why is the border all of a sudden a national security crisis starting conveniently when the House changes over to the opposition party? Trump's too stupid to have colluded with Russia but even he knows there's 25 years minimum of tax fraud if he gets 1/100th the investigations that were launched at the Clintons. That's 25 years of taxes and 25 years in lock up.
and do some phishing
The DOJ certificate is good until March, and the NASA certificate is good until January 2020.
The ZDNet story could have been written so much better, as you might be thinking its the 'main' (public) domain's which have expired Cert's - but they don't.
The "main" Dept of Justice domain (to the general public) is: https://www.justice.gov - and this cert is fine and expires in August.
The DOJ domain with the Cert issue is: https://ows2.usdoj.gov
The main Nasa domain is https://www.nasa.gov - and this cert is fine and expires in January 2020.
The Nasa domain with the Cert issue is: https://rockettest.nasa.gov/
No he is just religious. Something this country was founded on. Dumbass.
Actually, one of the problems is that the president is asking for money for border security, but he's already told everyone he's going to waste it on some porky boondoggle instead of spending it on security. He says he's going to divert border security money to some silly useless garbage.
You're handing money to your wife to buy beer and she says "no beer tonight, we're getting magic beans instead!" No wonder you held onto the $20.
No automatic renewals?
No credit card on file? WTF?
So some GS-12 was manually checking expiration dates and manually renewing every few months?
I would say you've got to be kidding me, but it's almost believable. This being government.
So either government IT is massively incompetent, or they are just playing stupid games - similar to how the football team is always the first thing cut in a school district, never diversity czars.
You mean by doing the sensible thing, eg. Postponing the wall until there's money to pay for it?
(There'll be money, right? Trump's economic policies are working...?)
No sig today...
If your certs are about to expire(30-60 days out) and you are not planning for it, especially when they will be failing around the end of the year with Christmas and new years, that is just an example of you being a poor system administrator.
If they pay for his wall because he has a tantrum, what's next?
Nobody is better at caving in to demands than the democrats. Even some of Trump's base is opposed to maintaining the government shutdown just to fund the border wall. But the Democratic Party over the past 15-20 years has shown itself to be generally quite gutless, even for the two years of that time when they had the White House and both houses of congress. Really their new party slogan should be "snatching failure from the jaws of victory".
He'll be shutting down the government for every last little thing until he gets his way.
If there was a single spine anywhere in the Democratic Party, Trump would lose miserably on this. As no spines are to be found, we will likely see wall funding come signed off on before the end of the month. Then the wall will be a massive debacle (and ultimately an outright failure) and it will be blamed on the democrats for having not stopped Trump's terrible idea.
PS: Wasn't Mexico going to pay for this?
Trump's words don't mean shit.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Quakers though
PS: Wasn't Mexico going to pay for this?
If that was ever funny, it stopped being so long ago.
We want border control. Call Trump whatever you want, be a little comedian if you want, we don't care.
The failure of all the respectabiggles to do anything about border control and excess immigration led directly to Trump. If the respectable politicians won't do anything about it, eventually the public will turn to un-respectable politicians.
The worse Trump is in your eyes, the worse your favored politicians actually are. Because Trump was a better choice than any of them. You damn them more than you do Trump.
If a clown is better than your best, it's not the clown's fault.
PS: Wasn't Mexico going to pay for this?
"I Really Didn't Say Everything I Said" - Yogi Berra^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HDonald Trump
UT is dead.
What do oats have to do with anything?
I only wish it really were.
We are far better off without the oppressing evil hand of Big Government.
Corporatism != Free Market
You have to hand it to Mr Trump: he is making a magnificent job of polishing off the USA in every conceivable way.
And this "government shutdown" is most artistic. It reminds me of the Japanese samurai ceremony of seppuku (ritual suicide) - but without the merciful termination of the kaishaku (coup de grace).
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Clinton, Obama, Schumer and Pelosi all voted for a wall before Trump made actually getting it done a major campaign promise. Millions of people entering illegally, and often getting injured, assaulted, or even killed during the trek, was a "crisis" that needed to be solved, until Trump decided to actually solve it. The funding was "urgently needed", these Democrats said on national TV, until Trump would "get credit" for having done it.
"Illegal Immigration is wrong, plain and simple. Until the American people are convinced we will stop future flows of illegal immigration, we will make no progress." Sen. Chuck Schumer
"We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented and unchecked." - Barak Obama
Less than a year later, Obama and 25 other Senate Democrats voted for the Secure Fence Act, the 2006 legislation that authorized the construction of 700 miles of barriers along the southern border.
"[we must] spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. ... I do think you have to control your borders." - Hillary Clinton
How about the Dems allow the government to do what they themselves have said is "urgently needed" rather than obstructing it because they don't want the orange idiot to get the credit for it?
At least one of the organizations listed in the FA seem to be working fine. I just visited nasa.gov and the site seems functional. (No... I didn't hit all the .gov sites listed looking for broken certs.) Did /. shame them into finding someone to bring the site back?
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
What alternate facts?
I've literally heard recordings of Nancy, Chuck, Hillary and even Barrack himself claiming we needed this from only a few short years ago. What gives? Where they for it before they decided it was a bad idea it or some such nonsense?
I think one side IS inventing facts here, but in this case it's not who you seem to think.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Yes. The economy in the past w years has been fabulous compared to the previous 8 or almost any other time ever. Maybe any other time.
â5 billion is a rounding error for the Federal gvt. If your only argument against building a wall which the entire leadership of the DNC is on record as supporting pre-Trump is finding the money then there is no reason left not to build it.
As Joce got murdered by MS-13 members, all he/she could think was....Well Mexico never paid for this so it is ok.
And yes, we could very easily make Mexico indirectly pay for it by heavily taxing imports/exports. This would have the added benefit of punishing companies that ran to Mexico for cheap labor. But, surprise, Democrats did not want us to do that anyway.
Whatever happened to "elections have consequences"?
Perhaps there is room on both sides to stop acting like children, and learn to work together.
Sorry, the "pen and a phone" only work when Dems win the presidency.
Because reasons. Or something.
America elected Trump
Actually, no. Fewer people voted for Trump than voted for Hillary, period. Even with a seemingly historic election we still had a rather appallingly low voter turnout in 2016 (less than 2/3 of eligible voters), hence more people who could have voted didn't bother voting than turned out to vote for Trump.
in part to fix immigration
As has been shown before, Trump has held almost every position on almost every issue at one time or another. Consistency is not his strength (one can debate what his strength actually is...).
72% of Americans believe illegal immigration is a problem.
Do you have a source for that? I found a study that basically said the opposite of that, where 72% said that illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay if certain conditions are met. That's a long ways from your claim.
globalists who want cheap slave labor
Considering the millions of dollars that Trump has refused to pay to people working for him over the years, it would seem that Trump himself should be in that camp. Or is it not "cheap slave labor" when it is money that is refused to American skilled workers?
leftists who want cheap votes
Going with that conspiracy again? Just because Trump says it is so doesn't make it the case.
If Mexican illegal immigrants voted majority Republican, they'd treat them the same way they treat Cuban refugees (who vote 80% Republican).
Keep peddling that conspiracy if you want...
You lost.
You do know there was an election in November 2018 as well, right?
America First
Tens of thousands of unpaid workers would like to challenge you on what that means.
Traitors get the rope.
Careful what you wish for there. The number of constitutional amendments that Trump has not openly spoken in opposition to grows shorter every month.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The House of Representatives is actually doing its job - representing the people of USA, who do not want a wall - and is passing budget legislation.
It is McConnell in the Senate who is blocking votes on these bills. Were the Senate to pass one of these bills, the President would be forced to veto, and said veto could be overridden by the legislature when the situation became untenable.
It's Mitch who has gummed up the works.
The government only ever attracts bottom of the barrel for all employment types. This includes the three letter agencies as well.
Yes, his economic policy is demonstrably working.
The leftist rag you pretend is a news source doesn't tell you how, but it's difficult to hide wages going up 4%, GDP growth nearing 3%, historic multi-generational low unemployment, 350,000 jobs added to the economy just in December...
The economy is literally twice as good under Trump and the Republicans than it was under Obama, and it's only improving from here, unless Democrats get their way and return to the crippling of America in service of a retarded White Guilt complex.
kinb of like negotiating with terrorists, right?
Considering that these certs expired before the shutdown, it's hard to blame this on the shutdown. When my certs get close to expiring, I can a slew of e-mails prompting me to renew months in advance. If these sites are actually supposed to be up, then the IT staff managing them is worthless, so we shouldn't be paying them anyway.
He's doing his job to fix immigration at all costs.
No you defeat the opposition. You don't hold hands and sing together.
Perhaps there is room on both sides to stop acting like children, and learn to work together.
I don't think so. Every time Donald throws a tantrum, his base poll numbers go up, and congressional Republicans tremble in fear.
Likewise for Democrats. Nancy Pelosi was demonized by people like AOC last fall, yet now that she is standing up to Trump, her popularity with the progressive base has soared.
So far the shutdown has not affected me in the slightest. I wouldn't even know it was happening if I turned off the news.
US government is dead. Netcraft confirms it.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Nobody is better at caving in to demands than the democrats.
Then how is it that Boston and Seattle get boatloads of federal money for downtown highway expansion while midwest cities get zippo? How is your health insurance doing? How about your social security benefits? Thank Democrats for having a spine.
It's been forgotten. When the whole country voted Democrat, he decided that the best consequence of the election was "I should have a temper tantrum."
I'm glad sites are going down now they know who to fire. Who wait's 20 days till their certificate expires to renew it. You're supposed to have an overlap. Example is our current cert is expiring in 2 months. So we get a new one that kicks in 1 month before that.
I'm imagining a number of government workers waiting until 5 minutes to the hour, then the Mission Impossible theme kicks in while they log into their CA website to get a new cert issued, and then replace it on the servers exactly at the stroke of midnight! Exciting!
Except, not really. If they let their cert get that old before replacing it, they really need to rethink their policies. There could be any number of reasons why you might not be able to replace the cert in a timely fashion.
The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants aren't border-hoppers, you stupid fuck. Billions on a wall is flushing even more taxpayer money down the toilet. If you want actual border security, look to visa issuance and enforcement.
"The blame falls on the current US federal government shutdown caused by US President Donald Trump's refusal to sign any 2019 government budget bill that doesn't contain funding for a Mexico border wall he promised during his election campaign."
Is no less accurate as:
The blame falls on the current US federal government shutdown caused by the US Congress' refusal to pass any 2019 government budget bill that doesn't contain funding for a Mexico border wall promised to voters.
When you have two stubborn groups refusing to compromise THEY ARE BOTH RESPONSIBLE for the consequences. Right now we are a global embarrassment mostly because of partisanship at a time when we have an escalating trade war and need unity. You might point a finger at who put us in that position but I'd point out that isn't productive, it doesn't much matter we have to deal with the situation we are in. The money being requested here is a drop in the bucket relative to the budget and international credibility this costs us, the Americans who want this pay more than enough in taxes to be entitled to it, so my 2 cents is do the stupid thing and move on.
And why only shut down the only popular parts of government - the ones that deliver services to the public? The assholes we'd all just as soon be rid of aren't shutdown. But the things that help the people, a teeny part of total bucks, are always first to go, and this isn't only on a national level, even county governments pull this shit. When they want to raise taxes, it's always some crucial service that gets cut - only - paper pushers, lawyers and such are always safe.
Yeah, we need someone moral to stand up from the Democrat's base to set us straight, like a mentally ill schizoid trans person, or a Hollywood pedophile rapist, or a Marxist Communist who slept her way to an Economics degree, or a globalist traitor who would rather have some cheap gardeners than stop child sex traffickers.
I know that this being /. that people like to bash Trump at every opportunity (even when unwarranted), but isn't this problem one of crappy cert management?
Waiting until the very last minute before renewing a cert isn't a Best Practice. It's not like your wasting money by renewing a cert early.
ACHTUNG! Das computermachine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen.
Trump said he was going to operate the government like a business. His supporters probably should have paid more attention to how his business ventures tend to go. This is par for the course.
If Trump promised anything at all in 2016, he clearly promised he'd build a wall. He *does* in fact have a mandate to do this, whether you agree with it or not. And while i know its very very weird for a politician to even try to do the things they said they'd do (I notice Gitmo is still open after 8 years of Obama for example), you can't really claim this as a total surprise. Obviously he (Trump) should of picked this fight in his first two years instead of waiting until he lost the house and surprising everyone, his own party included, with this demand (it is in fact shocking that a president would try to deliver on a campaign promise). And there's certainly a case to be made for not giving in to blackmail, but I think it's pretty unwarranted. If he picked this fight on literally any other issue, at least a portion of his base would turn on him quickly. That's to say he can only get away with it because he was clearly elected on this promise.
And let's be honest here, if we remove the politics and pissing contests, this isn't much money on a national scale. The democrats can claim racism, etc, but they are all on tape in previous years pushing for a wall too. The only real reason the Democrats want to block this is they know this was his one solid promise and his one mandate and they don't want him to be able to run for re-election on "I promised you a wall and I give you a wall".
So this boils down to the 2020 presidential election plain and simple. Trump sees this as "if I dont get this or at least make enough noise trying to get it, I won't get re-elected., and on that point the Democracts agree with him (so they wont give in).
What I think will probably end up happening is Trump will push it far enough to be able to say "I promised a wall, I shutdown the government, I did everything in my power and those swampy dems wouldn't have it....re-elect me and I'll get it this time". Then he'll reluctantly back down with some sort of smaller compromise that probably will involve additional money for border patrol agents or such.
They should pay for the wall and get something back for it. The master negotiator has tied the credibility of the entire republican party to this wall, which means he's not going to just give up. It also means he (and other republicans) are probably willing to give in on other things they otherwise wouldn't. Offer the measly $5 billion and get an increase in minimum wage or something else Trump would never otherwise sign. What he's asking for isn't even nearly what he'll need to actually complete the wall either, so there's plenty of opportunity in the future to bargain for more. This is a huge gift to the democratic agenda.
Or someone who proudly "shouts their abortion" because murdering children in the womb is the most moral, ethical and downright heroic act one can partake in!
I went to nasa.gov and nist.gov and they are both working with valid SSL certs. FAKE NEWS
The failure of all the respectabiggles to do anything about border control
The republicans had two years to put wall spending in the budget in the normal way
The failure of all the respectabiggles to do anything about border control and excess immigration led directly to Trump.
and yet two years later he has done nothing too, maybe you voted for him because his family hates black people
No, something SOME of the colonies were founded on. Almost everything they came here to be able to do is illegal now because they were psychotic religious cults too extreme at a time when Europe burned people at the stake over religion. Not exactly something we want to bring back.
If that was ever funny, it stopped being so long ago.
So, you admit that this is just a joke to Trump. Good to know.
We've funded border security measures for decades, and have funded more in the current budget. Trump just wants a Potemkin wall, and only because Coulter and Limbaugh needled him about it.
If he was actually serious about reducing crossings, he'd be talking about reducing employment demand in addition to other measures. He's not doing that, because he's not serious about doing anything besides appeasing the racists in his base.
I won't bother engaging you in proper debate. The facts are in front of you and you named yourself after a document formatting language. It wasn't even turing complete. I know this is ad holmium but you should do some soul searching and accept you're a moron
800,000+ people didn't get paid. If they all get on average $2500 per month, then that's $2bn "saved" right there.
Just another 2 months of this and all of those furloughed workers will have paid for his wall...
There is no "two sides" to this. This problem falls squarely in the laps of the Republicans.
Trump had an entire year to get this pushed through when the Reps had all three branches of gov't. He didn't.
It only suddenly became a burning priority when the democrats took the house. There is only one side being childish right now, and that's been the case for a while now.
(Yes, the democrats have their issues, but those issues are not what caused this current mess.)
Nobody is better at caving in to demands than the democrats.
Then how is it that Boston and Seattle get boatloads of federal money for downtown highway expansion while midwest cities get zippo?
The Big Dig started in the 90s (with funding from the 80s) and was done over 10 years ago now. How many large projects have the democrats pulled off since then?
How is your health insurance doing?
The democrats wanted single payer. Democratic voters wanted single payer. The GOP wrote the fucking bill based on what the Heritage Foundation wanted, and we ended up with ACA as a direct result of GOP demands. The GOP walked away from the discussions because they didn't want reforms to be signed by a democrat.
How about your social security benefits?
It would be doing fine if the GOP wasn't raiding Social Security every chance they get.
Thank Democrats for having a spine.
If I find one I'll try. I'm not holding my breath, I expect them to cave soon.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Working night shift in St Petersburg must be awful with the sun setting so early.
Only the results of the election matter.
A pro-religion guy who finishes his one liner posts with . Dumbass?
The problem with sending you guys to Slashdot is that nobody smart enough to post here is destitute enough to troll for a few rubles an hour.
Dears peoples, of the USA, I wish you find soon a good solution to your problem. Or a least a good compromise. We saw this story on the TV in France : states workers in the USA that are no longer paid, due to non voting of the state budget. It is very surprising, as we have usually a very good image of the USA as a very well organised state, with very practicals peoples. Good luck !
"He's" shutting down the government?
If the budget originated with Trump and the dems refused to sign because it included wall funding, would you then say Pelosi and Schumer are shutting down the government?
If not, your a partisan hack, only finding fault in the other side.
If so, you're just an idiot, basing your argument solely on who brings the budget to the table first.
If they pay for his wall because he has a tantrum, what's next?
I wouldn't call it a tantrum. If you lived in any of the border States, you would have a better understanding of what level of problem it is.
He'll be shutting down the government for every last little thing until he gets his way.
The Status Quo has gone on too long. There are a lot of changes in the USG that really need to happen and never do because no one has the spine to force it.
Also noteworthy, this is far from the first time the Government has shut down. Personally, I think it should shut down anytime Congress fails to pass the Annual Federal Budget, but that's just me.
There's no way anybody should give way on this (except The Donald, obviously).
The same can be said for most legislation proposed by Team Democrat.
PS: Wasn't Mexico going to pay for this?
Simple fix. Turn the border access points into Tolls per person. You simply pay an entry / exit tax every time you cross it.
Mexican citizens pay a higher toll than American citizens do. Thus, does Mexico pay for said wall.
The breathtaking incompetence of government IT was already known prior to the shutdown.
If anything, the shutdown exposed the shitshow that is government IT - the same groups that were so badly secured that they let foreign nationals get away with the entire OPM security clearance and background investigation databases. And, lest we forget how many high ranking government officials - like another candidate for POTUS in 2016 who shall be nameless - were so incompetent that they used their own private e-mail servers to transmit sensitive and even classified government information.
HINT: There isn't money to pay for 24% of what the Federal Government does. It brings in enough revenue to pay interest on the debt, pensions (Federal and SSI), healthcare, and welfare. No money for anything else - DOEs (both of them), EPA, FBI, OSHA, CBP, DOD, etc.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Trump want to use 0.11% of the government budget to follow up an election promise
Add to that the fact that the democrats under Obama built border barriers in several places, so it's not like they are fundametally opposed to border barriers in and of themselves.
Given the above seems rather obvious that congress is just playing political games on this.
IMHO if congress isn't willing to throw the president a 0.11% of budget bone for his pet project, then the president is quite right in putting his foot down and not giving in.
Say what you will about mister Orange, I do think he has the pigheadedness to stick to his guns on this. If the democrats don't realize that, they are idiots.
Playing a game of reputational chicken with a Macho Narcissist president like Trump is just not a winning proposition.
Trump will just drag this out till things get bad enough that he can legitimately call for a state of emergency, at which point he'll be able to build his wall anyway.
Nobody wants it tot get that far, but if the Democrats don't get their head out of their ass on this, that will be exactly where we end up. The Democrats do not have a winning hand on this.
"If they pay for his wall because he has a tantrum, what's next?"
The slippery slope fallacy? The reason to do it isn't because he is having a tantrum, he is using leverage to win a negotiation, this is the daily bread and butter of politics the only difference is he is doing it publicly where they are normally all smiles publicly and backstabbing and blackmailing behind the scenes. In all probability he is a sociopath like the rest of them and the whole tantrum and obliviousness routine is an effective tactic for getting to act irrationally. Women and the elderly have used the same strategy for centuries. I'd like to hear your protest to that comment but I feel faint with the vapors...I will ignore your rational argument because someone said mouthfeel or I'm just tired and can't do this anymore or I've lost my keys.
Ultimately the reason to do it is because the people who want it paid more than enough taxes to pay for it and he got more than enough votes to do it. It's a lot of money but it is also a drop in the bucket on our national budget.
As for Mexico paying for it, you might not follow it all the way through because you don't want to but blocking the immigrants if successful would do exactly that. Illegal immigrants cost us a boatload of money, leaving them in Mexico means mexico pays that money instead of us. The money that is actually spent to construct the thing is a net zero because it is infrastructure spending and just gets dumped back into the US economy.
No star certs?
When will you start paying attention to reality? Get those "alternative facts" out of your head and start using your damned brain.
Hmm, who was it who said, "I voted, when I was a Senator, to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in."
Got the balls to answer that, you brain-dead dumbfuck?
What you just said:
"No, we aren't in the business of governing anymore."
The election is over. Now it's time to actually govern, which means working together to get the business of the federal government done.
If you don't want to govern, don't run for government office. If you just want to be a political hack, get a fucking AM radio talk show like all the other hacks.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
You'll probably start to know pretty soon as those furloughed workers start not getting paychecks. The economic ripples are going to start.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
If you believe he threw a tantrum, you've been duped, brainwashed, and indoctrinated by the leftist "media".
What year is this?!?
https://certbot.eff.org/
How could Trump lose? The Feds mostly support socialists who would never vote for him anyway. So how could an extended game of budget chicken hurt him -more- than it hurts the socialists?
Eventually the socialist voters will figure out they are hungry because Pelosi and Schumer are holding them hostage over pennies in an effort to bring in more illegals and keep their wages lower.
Amazing, you're an idiot.
America ELECTED Trump. That's a fact. B-b-but he didn't get the popular v - STFU! The election of the President in the US has always been, for 200+ years, by electoral college which Trump won in a large majority even after a massive Democrat campaign to overturn the results by trying to force the electors to not vote for him.
It was also NOT an "appalling low turnout" as it was statistically above the average turnout for all elections and had the largest RAW count of votes EVER.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
But hey, I'm sure the rest of your posts are just as accurate.
Yes, thank you Democrats for the massive pork-laden highway bills to dig unnecessary tunnel projects that are poorly engineered, unbelievably expensive, late, and still over budget; a flawed health insurance overhaul that didn't go nearly far enough and serves to continue fleecing most US citizens for outrageous premiums at the same time as cutting back coverage and disallowing things that actually saved money like over-the-counter medication purchases with HSA funds; and a collapsing social security system that I'll pay into my entire life, and never see a dime from.
Brilliant.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
You're completely missing the context of what those people have said; again, it's conservatives inventing facts. What those people claimed was related to the same issues, but not the same claims for same reason. An example is Obama; he did claim there was a crisis at the border, but it was related to refugees (mostly women/children) trying to cross the border for asylum; he was calling a crisis the fact that many people needed help. He was not calling for a wall, or calling the fact that people who weren't Americans trying to come to America. The crisis Obama is referring to is the fact that people are suffering and need help; the crisis Trump is referring to is the fact people he doesn't like are coming to America. Same word, completely different meanings.
With increasing public debt and destruction of many small businesses due to the tariffs. The illusory "good" economy is just another liberal pump-and-dump. It's not like the bills won't ever have to be paid.
I know why Democrats would have nominated Trump but I still can't figure out why Republicans tolerate him. There's only one explanation that makes any sense:
The liberals and conservatives have switched sides. Republicans are now the liberals, and Democrats are now the conservatives. And the liberals are up to their usual tricks.
You're an irredeemable moron.
Oh, there it is. Can't argue with logic? Call everyone a racist!
The quickness with which you introduce race into arguments that have nothing to do with race makes you immediately lose. Go fuck yourself inside out.
They don't want visa enforcement either. That's why they support sanctuary cities and other ways of preventing existing visa enforcement. They certainly don't want more enforcement or a better system. Get a clue.
"72% of Americans believe illegal immigration is a problem.
Do you have a source for that? I found a study that basically said the opposite of that [people-press.org], where 72% said that illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay if certain conditions are met. That's a long ways from your claim."
Very far in the way, so far one could call it a tangent since you can both think illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay if certain conditions are met (something trump proposed and both the D and R leadership shot down) and think illegal immigration is a problem.
We all know that the wall is highly contested and subject to heated, very politicized debates. This has effectively made it a symbol for the Trump presidency.
This is why Trump desperately wants it, and why the democrats equally desperately do not want it. At this point neither side cares very much about whether it would actually work or not, or whether a deal could be made either way. This is solely about who will score the big win and gain political capital (for like the 2020 elections) and damn what is best for the country.
There is no need to use derogatory terms like tantrum and try to stick it solely on Trump. It accomplishes nothing, convinces nobody, and only shows your partiality. The democrats are just as much to blame as Trump because they could give him his 5 Billion and get something back for it that they really want.
But they don't, they don't even want to discuss a deal where Trump gets his wall. And that has nothing to do with the practicality of the wall and the supposed waste of money. Many billions of Dollars are exchanged each year this way, in which both sides are of the opinion that what they are giving away is really a waste of money, but that it is necessary to get the money for what is really needed.
“We want border control.”
And you seriously think this half-assed wall will provide that? Wow.
Because that's how leverage works. If you cut all the shit that nobody cares about, or everyone except the government employee unions want cut, then you're just doing your job as a fiscally responsible manager of the Citizens' tax dollars. If you want to move the needle, you have to make noise.
Same as it ever was.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
The election of the President in the US has always been, for 200+ years, by electoral college
Which was necessary when calculating the national vote was not a practical thing to do in a short amount of time (days, even). We can tally the national vote in hours or less now. Results don't have to be transported on foot, by horse, or even by rail.
a massive Democrat campaign to overturn the results by trying to force the electors to not vote for him
Nice conspiracy you have, there. Care to provide support for it?
It was also NOT an "appalling low turnout" as it was statistically above the average turnout for all elections and had the largest RAW count of votes EVER.
That represents barely 60% of the population of people who are eligible to vote. Any other democracy would consider that an appalling failure - especially if you include the citizens who are uniquely ineligible in this country who would be able to vote in almost every other democracy.
Our country has the distinction of being one of the only "democracies" where politicians can pick their voters as much as the voters can pick their politicians.
But go ahead and keep slinging silly insults at me and attacking me instead of actually presenting facts. That seems to pass as dialogue for a certain portion of our country now.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Suddenly Democrats are concerned about the tax payer! Oh, that's rich!
Which is exactly what Steve Bannon and Vladimir Putin want to happen.
I don't read newspapers, I don't watch the news, I'm not American, etc. So this is the first time I hear the reason why the USA government shut down. And just as I thought, it's a stupid-ass reason on top of "government shut down" sounding like something a third-world country would do.
And this only reinforces my point of view that Trump is a grown-up spoiled brat that always do whatever the fuck he wants, screw everyone else.
#DeleteFacebook
No, we can't. See: NAFTA.
Those were not about walls along the whole fucking shebang southern border, but rather small portion, and about sensible policies. You know, like the one republican hate more than dems : fining hugely and financially crushing people hiring illegals. But wait, can't do that, most of those are rich folk voting republican AND donating money. Yet this crack down on the people hiring illegals is what WORK.
Perhaps there is room on both sides to stop acting like children, and learn to work together.
Anything's possible. There are real issues regarding border security that could be addressed, as the President mentioned in his speech. The problem is that a wall (especially when combined with the apparent desire to turn away as many immigrants as possible) turns out to be a largely ineffective way of addressing them. It shouldn't be too hard for Trump to get funding for border security and the Democrats to get it directed towards things that will offer a good chance of meaningful improvements to border security. Get a bunch of rational people in the room and that's what you should expect to come out with. Instead, we get this. It's nothing new, our government stopped making policy based on meaningful impact rather than political points long ago. These days, it's all about posturing and manufacturing outrage, and you don't get that by working together to get results.
And they'll be plenty of opportunity to tie up the Great White Wall in court. The property owners, many are libretards, are willing to go to court to prevent the gummint from taking their land. And once some piece of the Great White Wall is built, thus allowing the Evangelicals to show the love of Jesus Christ to those heathen S. Americans, the next administration can take it back down as a stupid idea.
I read an interview with a Mexican awhile back. He didn't mind the wall reasoning that the U.S. would hire him and his buddies to help build it and then hire him and his buddies to tear it down.
If a Great White Emergency actually winds up paying for the Great White Wall, get ready for Governing by National Great White Emergency.
C'mon, his entire twitter feed is a tantrum feed.
Everybody in the House, Senate, and Trump own this.
Trump wants 5 Billion for a wall and pretty much has said. "No Wall, No Deal!". Fine! give it to him. Considering that the govt has spent millions of trival things without question its a drop in the bucket long term and if it's going to be made of steel, The money might actually generate some Democrat friendly union steelworker and manufacturing jobs on it's way to some investor's pockets at least in the short term.
But the Democrats could get something out of it too. They want DACA? throw it in the bill! They want Healthcare and Welfare increases? throw it in the bill! Hell, they could try for a Tax increase so they can hang it over his head in 2020. At least try to make some demands and see if you can get something out of it as well instead of screaming "Trump Temper Tantrum!" and "Where's Mexico's Paycheck?"
24%? That sounds unreasonably low. I suppose you're not counting the federally-controlled military as something that the federal government does?
You're not getting a wall fuckhead. THERE WILL BE NO WALL, no matter what you sausage-fingered fucks want. Build it and I'll be one of the first patriotic Americans digging a whole underneath, just because you are all fuckheads.
So you acknowledge Trump is a racist but you think bringing Trump's obvious racism into an argument is a problem? And instantly devolving to potty mouth language improves your argument how?
There is nothing wrong with going to church on Sundays.
yup.
Congress is supposed to act as a foil against a foolish president.
But they haven't, so they're either incompetent or fools...
Nonsense.
What you term the Popular vote is a media creation, they tally it from the state totals.
Democrats have protested every presidential election they didn't win for decades now.
Could have something to do with the fact that the fence they are asking for is $361 PER INCH (generously, including the 150 miles of fence that is already built) and would only cover 11% of the border? Doesn't sound worth shutting down the government to me.
The Art of the Douche
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Which is the perfect comment because it has nothing to do with anything written in this thread prior to your non-sequitur.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
PS: Wasn't Mexico going to pay for this?
If that was ever funny, it stopped being so long ago.
The only thing that's funny is the revisionist history I've seen people like you engaging in, given that he did say that Mexico would pay for the wall, he did so numerous times, and he even explicitly said that Mexico would pay for it in a "one-time payment". To his credit, he was walking the rhetoric back even before his inauguration, and I think it's a good thing when people (politicians or otherwise) change their minds after realizing that they were wrong, but that doesn't absolve them of responsibility for the things they said. As such, what I'm not okay with is a politician attempting to gaslight an entire nation by lying about what was said when it's inconvenient for him to be held accountable for those words later. There's no denying—at least among honest people—that he made the claim that Mexico would pay for the wall and that they'd do so via a lump payment, rather than the tariffs, taxes, or whatever other reimbursements he's now trying to claim he meant all along.
As an aside, I don't have any "favored politicians". The party I'm registered with stopped representing my interests a long time ago, and none of the others do any better by me.
All signs point to this having been Trump's plan all along. He was literally setting up a TV channel of his own (as nobody actually wanted to put him in front of a camera) when he unexpectedly won and suddenly those plans fizzled out.
Your rationalizations of how the wall could be paid for don't jive with what Trump said. Trump literally has a policy document from the election period that specifically states that Mexico would be writing a check. There is no way to rationalize the payment of the wall because thankfully Trump was VERY specific about that,he literally said Mexico would send the USA a check.
This is totally the fault of the sysadmins who are running the various websites.
"Hey, a shutdown is looming"
Option A: "Whelp, do nothing"
Option B: "check the existing certs to see what needs 3-year renewals over the next few months. renew them a few months early. done"
Option B is the responsible option.
It is difficult to see what is really happening here, or where we will land. Here are some puzzles:
1) If pres thinks wall is so critical to US defense, why does he not negotiate in good faith and offer a deferral of the purchase of 60 F-35's this year to cover the costs of his wall?
2) Why doesn't Mexico offer pres $5.7 billion to buy back California?
3) Could this all be a surreptitious strategy by the far right to reduce the size and extent of government by leaving it closed for an extended period of time, and forcing the people of USA to re-learn how to survive without a nanny-state?
4) Is this all a ploy by pres to pretend to be forced into invoking emergency powers from which to lay the foundations of his dictatorship?
Of course, Hanlon's razor assures me that this whole situation is merely a manifestation of idiocracy, but I am not convinced that the American people will not need to "go to the mats" in resolving this mess.
the federal goverment is a massive tax waste. why do they even need so many web sites? better to save the money and return it to the taxpayers who it was stolened from in first place.
If the wall was so important than you would have thought the Republicans would have taken care of it during the previous 2 years they controlled the entirety of the USgovernment.
Its too late for Trump to cry about woulda coulda shoulda, he had is opportunity to deliver campaign promises and that time has now passed.
It's no wonder the republicans put so much effort into suppressing the popular vote, they can't win it on ideas when the majority of their ideas are harmful to the majority of Americans.
Democrats have protested every presidential election they didn't win for decades now.
For certain definitions of win, sure. It's only happened twice in the past 130 years, and both times it was a republican who couldn't win the majority.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Which was necessary when calculating the national vote was not a practical thing to do in a short amount of time (days, even). We can tally the national vote in hours or less now. Results don't have to be transported on foot, by horse, or even by rail.
The national vote needs to be calculated, then and now, to select the electoral college. You don't need days - the electoral vote is a full month after the presidential election.
Actually Trump is best at caving in to demands. Daddy says go to Military School or newfree ride for you. Cadet Bone Spurs says "yes daddy." You are a douchebag if you can't figure that out. Trump only" stands tall" when he is stupid enough to think he might win ... And there has been no bigger stupid pussy in the history of the US than Trump, who actually *is* so stupid he thinks there might be a wall in his future.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Instructions from a government security training I had to take as a contractor:
"When you see the certificate error, click OK and continue."
They used self-signed keys.
This was a *security training* website.
When playing Uno do you claim that the person who just got rid of their last card actually lost because you have a full house in your remaining cards? Why don't you try win with the rules of the game being played, rather than rules for some other game that you're only following on your own.
It doesn't matter if Hillary ran up the score in California and New York. 50% + 1 vote wins the state and it's delegation (with few exceptions). And the President is elected by those delegations, not you. It's always been that way, so I don't know why you would think that it's all of a sudden different when your chosen tribe managed to lose an election that basically everyone though was un-loseable through amazing arrogance and disconnection with the voting public.
Maybe next time spend less time shmoozing the coastal elite for money and instagram photos, and actually speak to issues that moderates in the middle of the country want solved. Then you don't historically lose "safe" states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania that a Republican hasn't won in three decades. And then, consequently, we wouldn't have a Dorito-tinted proto-facist sitting in the White House.
The "popular vote" isn't anything but an excuse for those who lost the election. It's a safety net for their massive ego, and the sycophants that can't understand that perhaps there are many other people out there that disagree with you. The nation-wide "popular vote" hasn't EVER been considered for the election of a President in the history of the United States Constitution. Stop moving the goalposts and then attempting to validate obstructionism and straight-out denial through the new position of said goalposts. We get it, you're still bitter that your favored tribe didn't win two years ago and you want to make any excuse or equivocation that you can for why. But the fact is, HILLARY LOST ACCORDING TO THE GOD DAMN ELECTION RULES.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
All, you have plenty of warning before certs expire, this has nothing to do with the government partial shutdown. Please keep things in proper perspective.
"..websites are dropping like flies."
lol people are really trying to hype this govt shut down. A cert expiring is not going to take a website down.
Also:
All essential personnel are working..are we seriously to believe that IT staff are not working?? B.S.
It's very oddly coincidental that certs expire in the 2 weeks the govt is "shutdown."
Maybe they saw what a failure the fence was an decided that something different was needed.
The fencing that is there is a success. CBP (Customs and Border Patrol) confirms 90% of their apprehension are in areas that are not covered by fencing as it stands. From their findings following the initial 2006 Secure Fencing Act :
https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/...
For example, Vitiello stated that in 2005 Yuma Sector was âoeinundated with illegal cross-border incursions.â There were 138,549 illegal alien apprehensions, according to a CBP case study.
From 2006â"2007, after adding 29 miles of primary pedestrian wall, 9.1 miles of lighting, 9 miles of all-weather roads, a bridge along the border, and 603 agents, Yuma Sector experienced an 82 percent decrease in illegal entries. In addition, Yuma saw a 95 percent decrease in agent assaults from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2015, the study reports.
The 700 miles built of fencing simply isn't enough. Walls are effective, every country who has implemented a type of border barrier has seen dramatic drops in border crossings. To deny that is to deny reality.
But no, tell us how this is not simply democrats not wanting Trump to get credit for something they themselves have failed to fully implement. They don't want the "Trump Wall", but let's be clear : Democrats are for a wall, because it WORKS. They just want it to be a DEMOCRAT Wall.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Congress can overturn a presidential veto. They don't want to even try because everyone is congress is currently enjoying the shutdown for myriad reasons. Not one of them wants it to end.
Nazi homosexual recruiter RAY MORRIS pushing debunked Nazi propaganda even after corrected, #ROPE
Did it ever occur to you that Comrade Trump might be lying about who he wants to raises taxes upon, to pay for the wall? Think about everything else he has said. He lies routinely. Lying is normal for him. He cheats on his wife and then pays people to not tell her what happened. He obstructs justice to keep cops from finding out the truth about crimes. Dishonesty is what he's all about.
That the campaign promise was just another lie, is the best explanation. He wants to tax the US for it, not Mexico. Everyone needs to forget about his promises. Why would you believe this president? Stop supporting him.
Good god, he even ran as a "conservative" and then gave the US the one of the biggest tax increases in history. Go buy a washing machine and you'll see your taxes have gone up nearly 50%! And then do you know why he raised all our taxes? Not for revenue; he did it because he wants to centrally manage the economy, "pick winners and losers" in sales, instead of leaving things to the free market. (And interfering with immigration is the same thing, but for labor instead of materials.) And he told voters he would be a conservative.
He's a liar. Face up to it. Stop pretending otherwise by bringing up his campaign promises. He's not going to keep any of them.
Democrats might have unrealistic standards for honesty. They need to think about the kind of scum they're dealing with. I think they should, instead of holding Trump to a promise that he never intended to keep, just let it go. Democrats should stop obsessing over the wall, keep it out of the budget (or at least until we have an adult (a law-abiding adult) president who won't criminally mismanage it or use it in yet another money laundering scheme), and their Senate members should just voice support for the House bill that doesn't divert any money away from border security to a wall at all.
And once you realize that many of Trump's statements about international issues just happen to be exactly the same as what Putin says, you will even get some sense of the motive he has for weakening our border by diverting money away from security, to a wall instead. Trump supporters can't explain why Putin would want anything good for us.
So just let go of the wall promise, Democrats. Join the betrayed conservatives in opposing Trump, instead of working with him like the Republicans do.
There's no reason conservatives shouldn't be happy to go along with Dems on this. (Do we have any conservative voters here, to confirm or deny that? Are any conservatives still members of the Republican party, or did you all leave in 2016?)
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
all 3 you mentioned as examples.. nasa, court of appeals, and department of justice. all have been renewed. this is a bogus article.. more fake news!
Elections do have consequences, and the consequence of electing more Democrats to the house than Republicans is that Trump can't just demand what he likes and get it anymore.
The Democrats, and the majority of Americans, don't support the wall. How is it acting like Children for them to refuse to sign something they don't agree with? A parent isn't acting like a child if they refuse to give their toddler more dessert every time they start having a temper tantrum; and depressingly that's a close analogy to the current President and his typical behaviour.
I looked through every comment here and no one writes anything about the sites actually NOT being down. Don't know if hey actually were or if they got someone to fix it.
Slashdot going on the anti-Trump train is just a death of a once great site that actually cared about freedom and censorship with their "your rights online" ... Seem much evidence of that going by the wayside. pretty sad.
But anyway Nasa and DOJ website works. I didn't try the others.
Coz you know. actually goddamn facts matter? like.. or does /. also go with the way of liberals now that facts don't matter?
- Alex
The Republicans controlled the Presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives at the time of the shutdown. It's pretty obvious which party is to blame.
If Trump promised anything at all in 2016, he clearly promised he'd build a wall. He *does* in fact have a mandate to do this, whether you agree with it or not.
Trump failed to gain the popular vote so he, in fact, does not have a mandate for anything in his platform.
Because, to have safety and security, we need more security theatre? You know full and well this isn't what it's about.
If your certs are about to expire(30-60 days out) and you are not planning for it, especially when they will be failing around the end of the year with Christmas and new years, that is just an example of you being a poor system administrator.
I think your expectations for employee patriotism are a bit out of whack.
So a test for you. We have a cert, it will expire Jan 10th every year (2+ year isn't permitted)
Ensure that cert is paid for and renewed, except we won't be paying the bill until Jan 4th.
Are you seriously going to pay for that out of pocket? You are expecting some govt IT person to do that it seems, as you are labeling them a poor system admin for nothing more than not paying for it themselves out of pocket.
If you need something on the 10th but won't give me the money for it until the 4th, fuck it, it just isn't getting bought until the 4th then.
It is the governments fault for not providing the money earlier, not my fault for not paying a bill in your name that you won't pay ahead of time. It certainly isn't my fault we got kicked out of the noc Dec 22nd either.
"...caused by Congress' refusal to pass a 2019 government budget bill containing funding for a Mexico border wall."
fixed it for you.
Don't forget whipping people and putting them in the stocks for celebrating Christmas and hanging people for adultery. There are so many fun practices the early colonials had. I think it would be fair rather than to pick and choose which of religious practices of Europeans and Colonials we want to base our society on we just don't do that at all. How about we go with the spirit of the Christ figures statement when he said "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and give unto the lord that which is the lords." It seems Christ advocated for a separation of church and state. When he turned over the tables in the temple he also advocated for separation of church and commerce. It is odd how many who claim to be his followers center so much of their lives and beliefs around the opposite.
the Senate hasn't voted on the budget yet, so there's no budget for the president to sign.
The president did not sign that one: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/1...
Illegals aren't killing people
Try reading the news once in a while, moron.
Perhaps there is room on both sides to stop acting like children, and learn to work together.
Unfortunately, with the way that smaller groups have come to recognize that they need to attach themselves to one of the two major parties in order to get enough political power to get any of their goals enacted, the parties have changed from solid constituencies with disagreements about peripheral issues to loose coalitions sharing only a few core goals with sometimes widely divergent agendas -- instead of a majority party forging a coalition government with other parties, as we see in countries with multi-party systems, each of the major parties has to thrash out a shakey concensus within their own ranks. And, as a result, "compromise" has become defined as "give us everything we want, and we may let you have some of what you want, as long as none of it is anything anyone on our side objects to", with the party sticking to the hard line for fear of alienating some faction in their party and losing support, while individual members of a party may want to support a measure the other party backs, either for themselves or their constituents, but the pressure to stay with the party position is strong, because they know that if they break with their party, it handicaps their influence with their party.
Democrats care about good border security: technology, more border security guards, some fences in border cities where they make sense not wasting $5,700,000 just on a Wall.
Your vote is fake, stop wasting your time putting up pictures of your breakfast on FB and read a little once in a while about something real. Stop voting, you are playing their game, their way. Once enough people stop voting the lie will get exposed, until you morons learn some truth the lie will go on and on and you will espouse your fake philosophy based on their fake game...why don't you people get it? The GOV thinks "they" are your god. And you are allowing them to continue. I don't blame the thieves in the GOV, I blame you for allowing it to continue, each and every one of you is guilty of participating in a crime against the human population. Believing in a lie does not make you anything but a moron, do some actual digging and find the truth.
"He's" shutting down the government?
If the budget originated with Trump and the dems refused to sign because it included wall funding, would you then say Pelosi and Schumer are shutting down the government?
If not, your a partisan hack, only finding fault in the other side.
If so, you're just an idiot, basing your argument solely on who brings the budget to the table first.
I'd say Mitch McConnell is shutting down the government more than Trump. The Senate unanimously passed a bill not too dissimilar from what the House just passed, but post-turtle McConnell decided that there's no point in voting on it (even though the senate clearly had a veto-busting majority, and the House would be close enough that it'd be interesting to see what happened). But our representation is so broken that we cannot even be bothered to vote on something we previously agreed upon in full.
I'm sorry you're so scared. Don't worry, you're more likely to die from bad lettuce than someone coming over the border. Maybe knowing this will help you relax.
We call ourselves conservatives and libertarians. That we want the free market to be global in scope, is merely an optimization. The globe is not our main concern. I just want to have the most, and low prices are obviously a good thing for that.
If you don't want to perform cheap labor, then don't do it. Take some responsibility for yourself, snowflake, instead of begging Marx to plan every aspect of the economy for you by raising my taxes. You'll find that if you stand up for yourself, it'll actually work. Get some confidence. Seriously, just try it. You don't need mommy government telling you what to buy or not buy.
You're a couple months out of date. We had an election, and elections have consequences. America is pissed, and so we're beating the Russians back. Their 2016 victory is already fading.
That's the spirit! Maybe there's hope for you. Now come over the rest of the way. You've got the words, but will you really stand up to the president when he tells you where to shop?
Can you point to a full clip of that? I'd like to hear what they actually said.
But a big expensive wall does not equate to border control. Trump doesn't care about border control, he just wants his big wall.
How can they possibly be obstructionist? The Democrats ARE offering border security. Instead of border security, it seems Trump would rather have a wall.
The fence was a failure. People simply went around it or went over it. It was also breached 9,287 times in 5 years, resulting in repair costs.
People would climb it, tunnel under it, throw drugs over it... It even started a drug war that resulted in 2000 deaths.
It also had some pretty bad effects on the environment where it was built.
Okay, you say, Trump's wall will be better. Higher, stronger, cover the entire border. Here's a video of a couple of guys climbing the existing very similar existing wall, in broad daylight, with drugs strapped to their backs, using only ropes. Takes them less than a minute.
The problem needs to be tackled at source, not at the border.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The consequence of the last election is there aren't enough votes in the House to get a wall
We can just leave that, it's a bad deal for us.
If your funding is about to expire(30-60 days out) and you are not planning for it, especially when they will be failing around the end of the year with Christmas and new years, that is just an example of you being a poor administration.
\_()_/ : it always worked for us before, I mean, until the last few times.
If a couple of weeks of shutdown causes some certs to not have been applied, it is because the administrators weren't doing their jobs right. I'm sure they will get "adjusted" once they are back in the office.
No, really. Trump sold the âwallâ(TM) on the whole premise that it would be âfreeâ(TM) for the American people, we wouldnâ(TM)t have to pay a dime. Of course, it was really just a means to rile up his racist base, not an honest attempt at immigration control. It still is.
The only sensible reason I could see for a wall would not be to stop immigrants from coming in but to keep all the nutjobs inside and avoid the world from being contaminated by them
All of this is because Trump's ego doesn't let him admit he is anywhere near in the wrong.
https://assets.donaldjtrump.co...
"It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-
10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year
after year."
Trump cannot admit that he cannot get Mexico to pay for it.
Trump cannot admit that in reality, we, Americans, will be paying for it.
Trump literally cannot accept the reality that he himself has created.
If you still support Trump in this matter, you are also the problem.
If you still support Trump in this matter, then you are giving a screaming 3 year old exactly what he wants. What do you think will happen when that 3 year old wants something else?
Which means we should be spending less and taxing more, not spending $5 billion on something that's not even effective at preventing what it's designed to prevent. Considering the majority of illegal immigration is a result of overstayed visas, the majority of the drug traffic happens at legal ports of entry, and the known or suspected terrorists that have attempted to enter the US have been caught at airports, it seems to me the return on investment on building a border wall is nowhere near the $5 billion he's asking for.
This is slashdot, so in programmer terms, this is premature optimization. Sure, there are thousands of people illegally crossing the border, but if you actually run a profiler you'll see that's not the even the hot path, so why are we proposing to spend so much of resources on that instead of elsewhere?
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Sorry, screwed up the video link: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
He got the popular vote in a majority of States.
"Canada shouldn't do what they want because of US popular opinion. "
You sound like a retard.
yes tell me about it i work all night - all night 17 hours - posting comments to upset americans and get no respect. it is terrible job but what can i do? it is a living
No, a wall isn't needed along the whole border. Certain parts? Sure! There are vasts parts of the border that it would be useless because it couldn't be monitored and devastating to communities and the environment.
What's more, a lot of the people coming across the border are seeking asylum and WANT to get caught!
Even worse, the vast majority of immigrants come in through legal ports of entry like airports!
There's no "Crisis" at the border, if there was, a wall wouldn't solve it. It's all just a pet project so Trump can stroke his ego and claim he fulfilled a campaign promise (well except the part that Mexico would pay for it)
This brings up an interesting point.
What is the Democrats position? What is their red line? What are they actually negotiating over? What is the compromise they are willing to make?
We all know where Trump is. Yet, democrats do not have a principled position.
maga
This is getting out of hand.
Elections do have consequences and we are seeing them in action. The problem is that the presidency isn't the only election that happened. In fact, recently we had an election that switched over 40 votes in the house to Democrats. As far as I can tell, it was a strong rebuke to the previous party who controlled all 3 branches. (The Senate was just about impossible to win for the Democrats given the demographics of the seats in play).
The rules in the Senate are there to protect the opinions of the minority party. This has a long tradition - basically to pass a budget and most other things the minority can't be too set against something. The minority in the Senate didn't want a wall, so it never passed. I don't think most Republicans really wanted it either so it wasn't pushed for until the very end of the previous congress.
Trump needs to work with the system that exists, and has existed, for a very long time. He is having a fit and thinking that he should dictate what gets passed. The House and Senate are supposed to be the ones who control the budget. Trump is not letting them (and Mitch is a coward that won't let a vote to avoid making Trump veto or back down).
Yes. The economy in the past w years has been fabulous compared to the previous 8 or almost any other time ever. Maybe any other time.
â5 billion is a rounding error for the Federal gvt. If your only argument against building a wall which the entire leadership of the DNC is on record as supporting pre-Trump is finding the money then there is no reason left not to build it.
It's not $5B, why do people keep perpetuating that myth -- the full wall is projected to cost anywhere from $25B to $75B. And since it's a large public works project, I would expect it to go much higher before it's done. The $5B is just a down payment.
At some point even a paltry $100B stops being a rounding error and becomes "real money"
There will be money to pay for it in a month. The cost of the food stamp program per month costs almost exactly what Trump wants for the wall. When the govt reopens just dont replenish the food stamp cushion and presto, wall money.
They should just bus everyone on the food stamp program down to the mexico border and make them help build the wall if they want their next food stamps.
Pence lies frequently. Recent example was pence trying to explain that Trump didn't lie when Trump claimed all living presidents supported him building the wall. Pence is an idiot who calls his wife mother, is afraid to sit in a room with women and lies flagerently. That lie didn't even pass the laugh test.
Perhaps there is room on both sides to stop acting like children, and learn to work together.
One side is upholding the democratic process preserved by the house and senate, the other side is holding a government to ransom for his pet project like a dictator.
No. Not everything in the world should be compromised on. In fact quite the opposite. Not only should Trump NOT get his way but this stupid issue which allows the government to be shutdown through this legal process should be eliminated like other countries have done for the express purpose of preserving the democratic process.
PS: Wasn't Mexico going to pay for this?
If that was ever funny, it stopped being so long ago.
You didn't answer the question - you know what Trump said about Mexico paying for the wall, but now Trump wants to use disaster funds meant to help Americans to pay for it. So.... how do you know when to pick and choose which of Trumps words to listen to? Does he publish some guidebook of promises he really meant?
The "tolerant" left. Bigger bigots than the Nazi's they claim everybody else is.
This is all govt workers trying to make a statement.
A) what you say is true about the timing of cert expiration. If any certs went expired before Feb then it is definitely poor sysadmin work.
B) there are almost certainly workers still monitoring / repairing these systems. Show me a typical enterprise website/app that can go this long without babysitting and ill give you a million bucks. If no one was watching these systems we wouldn't be getting expired cert errors, rather probably 500 errors.
and yet they are only refusing because Trump is asking. 15 years ago Democrats were asking for 4 times that amount for boarder security.
The house and senate already approved a bill without funding for the wall. TRUMP, and TRUMP ALONE refused to sign it.
Besides, Trump promised us that he wouldn't burden the American taxpayer with the cost of the wall. He clearly said Mexico was going to pay for it. If we allow him to renege on his promise, he won't get reelected (you know, George Bush, "No new taxes" and all?). Everyone will point at him and laugh, saying "Lookit Donnie!! The one-term Trump!!!"
The way I see it, we're just trying to help him out.
The difference between a dictatorship and a democracy is a means and and end. In a democracy the means matter. People debate and vote on issues and consensus is reached. In a dictatorship the ends matter and you only care about doing what you want.
This isn't just Trump, many presidents have done this, though I would dare say Trump has done it for the stupidest reasons solely stroking his own ego.
Not only should no one give into him, but straight after this mess is done this stupid quirk in an otherwise democratic government should be closed to prevent people being held hostage by the president of the so called free world.
> Often it seems that one of Trump's top motivations is to piss on the democrats
It seems it is the other way around. Democrats were pro-wall up until Trump came along.
“We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked..." Barrack Obama, 2005
"I voted, when I was a Senator, to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in..." Hillary Clinton, 2015
I wouldn't go that far. They see this as a deal that was completed and then turned upside down at the last minute for a stupid wall. It's fair for them to just say "no, we already had a deal". Fair as that stance is, I think they should turn it into a new opportunity.
The consequence of the last election is there aren't enough votes in the House to get a wall
There wasn't enough votes in the house to get a wall even with the republican majority before this last election. Very few people want a wall (especially since the type Trump expressed preference for is easily cut through with common home power tools and so is essentially just throwing money away).
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Though Trump often accuses Democrats of supporting "open borders," part of his team's rhetorical gambit during the shutdown battle has been to allude to Democrats' historical support for increased security and physical barriers on the southern border. The argument is that Democrats, once in favor of border barriers, are now only opposing the wall in an attempt to embarrass the president.
"We still don't understand why the Democrats are so wholeheartedly against [the wall]. They voted for it in 2006. Then-Senator Obama voted for it. Senator Schumer voted for it. Senator Clinton voted for it. So we don't understand why Democrats are now playing politics just because Donald Trump is in office," White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said in 2017.
There is no "two sides" to this. This problem falls squarely in the laps of the Republicans.
Trump had an entire year to get this pushed through when the Reps had all three branches of gov't. He didn't.
It only suddenly became a burning priority when the democrats took the house. There is only one side being childish right now, and that's been the case for a while now.
(Yes, the democrats have their issues, but those issues are not what caused this current mess.)
Spending bills still require 60 senators to pass, not 51, so the Republicans could not get it passed by themselves. Trump actually said explicitly the last time they passed a CR with lots of added spending, but none for the wall, that he would never sign a bill like that again.
You could have argued that McConnell could have changed the rules to allow those bills to pass with a simple majority, but if the Senate was flipped, which was not unlikely, the Dems would have used those rules as well.
So the OP is right, the blame lies on both sides. But Trump actually has a better hand. As pointed out, the amount he's asking for really is a tiny fraction of the budget. People's opinion of Trump is not going to change much over this, people that hate him will continue to do so. Pelosi and Schumer, though, are a different story.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
PS: Wasn't Mexico going to pay for this?
If that was ever funny, it stopped being so long ago.
No, it is still hilarious that he thought they would and the Mexican President immediately told him to kiss his ass.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
So, you're acknowledging that trickle-down economics works. Good first step to recovery.
All the nowallers keep saying a wall will not work. True a wall will not stop people overstaying visas, However someone with a visa had to pass a vetting process they were found to not be terrorists, drug dealers or criminals so the risk from them overstaying is minimal. However there are still between 30,000 to 200,000 people successfully entering the US illegally. They are the ones not part of the 300,000 caught by border patrol that make it into our cities and neighborhoods. We know nothing about them or why they came be it for legal or illegal reasons. The flow of illegals as measured by arrest rates has continued to decrease as we have built more and more wall along the border. As we have added to the 600 some miles of completed border wall the arrest rate has dropped in the areas of wall completion and shifted to the sections of border undefined by a wall. This can be tracked by looking at the data accumulated over the terms of the last few presidents. No one ever claimed that the wall will prevent all entry but it will help reduce the number of unknowns entering. Just exactly why are so many people wanting unknowns to come into this country? Are they wanting to abuse them, cheat them, over work them? People who come here legally can ask the government for help people who don't can't and are ripe for abuse. Instead of freeing these people the ones wanting them to be able to come in illegally are wanting souls to control and explote.
Pence has had no problem staring into the camera and lying his ass off. Not sure what youâ(TM)re smoking.
One of the American representatives presiding over a district that would have a long stretch of wall (he's a Republican by the way) - recently gave his opinion that a wall would be useless, and the fence has had minimal success.
What he suggested, that makes a lot more sense, is a "smart wall" basically a series of sensors that can detect all sorts of activity and can allow personnel to go where they are needed, when they are needed. The advantage the fences have is that they sometimes slow people enough that border patrol might be more likely to accidentally stumble upon them.
If instead of building a physical wall, that wouldn't do much, we had a series of monitoring devices (that would work), it would cost many orders of magnitude less, and be way more functional.
A physical wall is little more than a vanity project.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
They see this as a deal that was completed and then turned upside down at the last minute for a stupid wall.
But that isn't what happened. The House in the last Congress gave Trump the 5.7 but it needed 10 democrats in the Senate to avoid this mess. It was a deal that was rejected by Democrats even though they have supported nearly identical policy and are costing the US more than what is being asked by shutting down the government.
Certs are an easy fix when people come back to work. Getting a domain back may be more difficult.
This brings up an interesting point.
What is the Democrats position? What is their red line? What are they actually negotiating over? What is the compromise they are willing to make?
We all know where Trump is. Yet, democrats do not have a principled position.
They've offered 1.5billion to improve fencing along the border- which is actually pretty generous considering almost no one wants the wall.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Unfortunately that wonâ(TM)t help because there are quite a few US airlines that would just fly them out over the top of that wall.
Coincidentally it is being reported that this might also be the way most âoeillegal immigrantsâoe come into the US too (overstaying their visas).
The Democrats, and the majority of Americans, don't support the wall.
What are you talking about? A recent poll showed that 67% of Americans support the wall. A very small minority, around 15%, oppose it. The rest don't care. The Wall is incredibly popular.
behaviour.
Ah, a foreigner, that explains it.
I love that you go from the popular vote meaning absolutely nothing to citing wikipedia to prove that it was the largest turnout ever, ever.
I think you have a bit of orange on the side of your mouth, there.
"He's" shutting down the government?
If the budget originated with Trump and the dems refused to sign because it included wall funding, would you then say Pelosi and Schumer are shutting down the government?
If not, your a partisan hack, only finding fault in the other side.
If so, you're just an idiot, basing your argument solely on who brings the budget to the table first.
He's executive NOT legislative. Technically, he's not supposed to even be meddling with this, that's not how the branches were originally intended (and all recent Presidents do this, not hitting only at Trump here). He's using his veto to prevent the legislative body doing what the legislative branch is there to do. I reiterate, it's not just him, they all do it. It's technically not his job, and wasn't what the position of President was originally intended to do.
I think it's about time we "redefine" the Presidency and reset it back to what it was supposed to be, not the ever more powerful position it has become over the many decades. No one man (or woman) should have so much power in a democracy, whether it's a wacko on the right, or a wacko on the left- or even someone from the middle.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
You Acosta'd your own argument.
"The wall is a failure because people go to where there is no wall!".
Also, the parts that were "busted" are NOT the Steel slats part, they are simple wire fences. CBP's current proposal would change those simple wire fences to the type of fencing you see on McAllen TX, namely, the very thick and solid steel slats. Good luck griding one of those down in a timely fashion.
Okay, you say, Trump's wall will be better.
No, Trump's Wall is exactly what is already installed in many parts of Texas and other bordering states. Large, thick Steel Slats, as that is what CBP's current proposal is. Replace wire fencing with Steel Slats and close the open portions of the current Steel Slat wall.
Because nothing of this has to do with Trump, and it's been a bi-partisan goal that has seen implementation already in many areas. Trump just wants to speed it up and finish it along the length of the border where no natural barrier exists in the course of his presidency. Previous administrations contributed to this barrier already, Democrats voted for it, they just have done it on a slower time table.
This is entirely about not giving Trump credit for a Bi-partisan initiative. That you don't understand and simply quote "democrat talking points post 2016" is not surprising, but it sure is dishonest.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
That deal was rejected because they knew they were going to take the house in January. Of course senate democrats aren't going to sign off on a republican bill when they can write their own tomorrow. So they took the house, *completed* a deal with senate republicans and *now* trump is saying he won't sign anything that doesn't have money for a wall. He should have communicated that to his leadership in the senate like 2 months ago.
I've seen the quotes from Obama and Clinton regarding a wall. Neither of them are in office right now.
Even worse, the vast majority of immigrants come in through legal ports of entry like airports!
And almost every illegal immigrant is one who entered on a visa and remained when it expired.
There's no "Crisis" at the border,
Indeed. Migration from Mexico to the US dropped massively around the 2008 financial crash and has remained at those lower levels. Since then the total number of mexicans in the country has been declining, that is while migration still happens net migration is negative. There really is no crisis other than an imagined one conjured up by a demagogue in order to get elected into power.
He's a stupid, useless cunt who deserves to get ALS or locked-in syndrome. That motherfucker needs to walk into traffic.
Actually, the House did not. They failed to get a majority for Trump s quixotic wall and instead failed to have a vote.
Paul Ryan sent his little rats home.
Which was necessary when calculating the national vote was not a practical thing to do in a short amount of time (days, even). We can tally the national vote in hours or less now. Results don't have to be transported on foot, by horse, or even by rail.
Completely false and stupid. Your civics teacher should be fired. The US was formed not as one big land mass ruled by fiat from Philadelphia. It was a bunch of United States. STATES. And far to large to be managed by a single government. The states elect the president, not the mass population centers on the coast.
a massive Democrat campaign to overturn the results by trying to force the electors to not vote for him
Nice conspiracy you have, there. Care to provide support for it?
Ha! Easy. There were too many results, so you can check out the actual conspiracy yourself.
That represents barely 60% of the population of people who are eligible to vote.
And yet, you were wrong. But, instead of admitting you were wrong, you double-down with "oh, American is terrible.
Any other democracy
The US is not a democracy, it's a republic. See above about your incompetent civics teacher.
But go ahead and keep slinging silly insults at me and attacking me instead of actually presenting facts.
I hope he does, although you like to ignore facts that prove your ignorance, so maybe just more silly insults for such a silly person is more appropriate.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
There's no "Crisis" at the border, if there was, a wall wouldn't solve it. It's all just a pet project so Trump can stroke his ego
CBP is the one asking for a wall. A wall funded by Democrats in 2006, again in 2013 with bi-partisan support. Again supported by Hillary herself in 2015 while campaigning.
A Wall wouldn't solve 100% of the illegal immigration issue, but it does address a part of it. To say otherwise is disingenuous and to say it's Trump's vanity project when it's been in construction for decades is hilariously misinformed on your part.
The data from other countries and from CBP's own studies of walled vs non-walled areas is clear : Crossings dramatically decrease where there are walls.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
America ELECTED Trump.
He won because of a quirk in politics. He won the election but it's a laughable stretch to say "America" elected him. Even the majority of people who voted voted against him. The people who didn't vote (the majority of people eligible) are traditionally left-leaning, so his gap of people who didn't want him is even larger.
He has been the President with the consistently lowest approval ratings. "America" doesn't want him and never did.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
The people patrolling the border say they need more physical barriers.
Democrats have already supported identical and more costly policy. Why is now different?
The argument is that Democrats, once in favor of border barriers, are now only opposing the wall in an attempt to embarrass the president.
If Trump had the slightest sense of humility his earlier embarrassments - indeed his self-inflicted wounds on the world stage - would have likely driven him to resign. There is no point in trying to embarrass him, and no need to make him look like a total idiot on the world stage. The former has no effect and the latter has been done many many times already.
"We still don't understand why the Democrats are so wholeheartedly against [the wall]. They voted for it in 2006. Then-Senator Obama voted for it. Senator Schumer voted for it. Senator Clinton voted for it. So we don't understand why Democrats are now playing politics just because Donald Trump is in office," White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said in 2017.
And Mulvaney's statement was rated half-true at politifact . Notably, the bill he is referring to - which George W Bush signed into law - was called The Secure Fence Act of 2006. It was built, and then Trump himself trashed it by calling it "such a little wall, it was such a nothing wall". So if the administration wants to claim that the democrats are opposed to the wall simply because Trump is pushing it so desperately, they need better evidence than a very different bill that produced something that even Trump himself sees as very different from a wall.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I would not call Pence "reasonably intelligent", and it's absolutely absurd to argue he's honest and not lying his ass off into a camera. Who do you think has been repeatedly called to defend Trump's actions in interviews? Pence. Which supposedly moral and ethical person hitched their wagon to Trump to get into the White House? Pence. Who apparently can't be trusted to be left alone with a woman that's not his wife? Pence. The one thing Trump and Pence clearly have in common is they're able to project enough of an image about themselves to their base to get elected. To that end, I'd say Trump and Pence alike are reasonable intelligent; in any serious matters of governance, they're complete morons.
elections have consequences? like you mean the one that happened two months ago? when the democrats won?
what in sam hill do you mean "Perhaps there is room on both sides to stop acting like children, and learn to work together." maybe you mean that both houses would pass a budget and send it to trump, that he said he would sign? wait, that happened before christmas.
One of the American representatives presiding over a district that would have a long stretch of wall (he's a Republican by the way) - recently gave his opinion that a wall would be useless, and the fence has had minimal success.
CBP, the guys actually doing the Border enforcement, disagree. Sorry if I trust the "boots on the ground" more than I trust a nameless Republican you didn't even bother to name.
Here is Obama's CBP Patrol Chief, Mark Morgan, which was asked to step down by Trump, telling you the Wall is important :
https://www.newsweek.com/obama...
When did Slashdot start being more trusting of the managers instead of the techies doing the actual grunt work ? Because ORANGE MAN BAD ?
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Pence lies frequently. Recent example was pence trying to explain that Trump didn't lie when Trump claimed all living presidents supported him building the wall. Pence is an idiot who calls his wife mother, is afraid to sit in a room with women and lies flagerently. That lie didn't even pass the laugh test.
Pence is caught between a rock and a hard place. It is political suicide to side with Trump and be seen as one of the "crazies" in the party; at the same time, he's not allowed to follow traditional Republican values either because Trump has a stranglehold on the party at the moment.
I imagine Pence would do a lot less lying if he wasn't held hostage by Trump.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I'm not sure where the talking points for came from that a wall would protect the people trying to migrate and seek refuge here but it's just not true. Most migrants are escaping life and death situations already, so the risks of the trek are seen better than the gaursnteed assaults and death they may face.
A wall would only further increase the dangers that migrants face as they would have to travel more dangerous routes. Some of these would be through even more isolated desert regions where the chance of death would increase. Some would look for ways over the construc, further risking injury. Others would be forced to deal with criminal groups that operate tunnels for profit.
In fact the only thing a wall would do is increase border deaths and serve as a more appealing revenue source for criminal organizations. Criminal organizations would now have more customers for their tunnels and others for the holes they make in the wall.
This already happenss but many migrants just seek the help of coyotes to trek through the desert. Despite fox news reporting not all coyotes are linked to criminal organizations. Some are just people that have traveled the desert and are familiar enough that they sell their services. Call them what you want but for them the crossing of an imaginery line is as bad as you speeding on a highway.
And still failed in two years of total control. Now he’s trying to get out of it by throwing a tantrum and blaming dems. Fuck him.
Senate democrats refused to end this before it began then House democrats passed a bill that Trump said he didn't' support and now it's only republicans who are responsible?
Chuck Schumer is in office and has supported it as well as other democrats from those times.
And their objections to the citizenship question on the upcoming census, which, if removed, would mean that there would be no way to tell what proportion of the returns were from non-citizens who are not eligible to vote and should not be counted when apportioning Representatives, with the potential to shift the distribution of Representatives toward states with larger populations of non-citizen legal and illegal residents, as well as altering the distribution of funds in population-based federal programs. Not to mention the ability to tie up any such reallocation or reapportionment in the courts over the issue of whether the government's assessment of how many census returns came from households with members ineligible to be counted for such purposes.
Then let's listen to the people that actually do the border control stuff. How about someone from the Obama administration?
logic much?
The popular vote has nothing to do with who wins the Presidential election as the popular votes are tallied into electors per state and it's the count of the electors that determine the President. Been that way for 200+ years.
The claim for the largest turnout was in response to the assertion that it was an "appalling low turnout" which has nothing to do with the former assertion as they're two distinct things.
I think you have a lot of brown in your brains, there.
Yes because people literally speak literally all the time and if any detail of what they said literally differs from what they literally said you can literally ignore the substance. Illegal immigrants are a massive drain on the US, blocking them means mexico pays the bill for them, that in turn pays for the wall.
Saying the construction payments is what pays for it is like saying a hammer built your house. The construction funds just get dumped back where they came from, into the US economy, this is infrastructure spending. Hell a huge chunk of it comes directly back as taxes without any account for stimulus at all just turning around and taxing the money we paid people out of tax funds.
The FDA has stopped inspecting food. The food you eat. So now, when someone drops food on the floor, or sneezes or drops crap in the machine, instead of wasting a days worth of production to properly clean the machine, because that's what the government inspector would make the factory do, the company is going to go full speed ahead to increase the profit margin.
THAT is going to happen until the shutdown ends. THAT will affect you will a ripple effect until the shutdown ends.
I hope your food is DELICIOUS. Cook it well, cook it thoroughly, and double-check what your kids eat.
Open porous borders, a failed H1B program, and not giving s shit about workers is what caused this.
See: Midterm elections 2018
I've worked for a few companies and I manage their domains and certs and I renew them without being asked and sometimes without pay! Because I care. Im sure there's more to it since its government ran, but paycheck or not, I think something like renewing a cert can still be done. I don't know just a thought. But I understand the ITs point of view if they don't want to because they aren't getting paid.
Senate democrats had no responsibility to sign a bill they were about to just write themselves anyway. If house democrats passed a bill that the senate wouldn't agree to you might have a point, but since the senate agreed it's now being held up by the president. So yes, Trump (republican) could forget about the objectively stupid wall, or the senate (republican) could have forced a resolution much earlier in the process before it got to this point. Are you saying it's democrats that are responsible for not just agreeing to whatever the hell trump wants? They would get nothing in return. That's not how congress works.
Liar. They supported fencing and technology for border security. And the Democrats still do support that. None ever supported a wall.
Semantics and nothing more, childish word play. Wall, fence who cares what you call it, it's a barrier on the border either way, Trump doesn't care, if you want to call it something other than a wall, just cough up the 5.6 billion for a physical barrier on the border and we are good, the government can get restarted and federal workers paid in about an hour. You don't have to call it a wall if that's what's eating you, just call it a border barrier or a solid fence, pick something.
How can you refuse... Oh yea, because you don't want Trump to be able to make the claim he built the wall.... How childish are we getting here?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The People voted for a Democrat controlled House just a few short months ago, and by doing so have said "NO" to the wall. It's well past time for Trump and his minions to move on. The majority do not support the wall and do not support Trump. Facts are annoying sometimes, aren't they...
CBP, the guys actually doing the Border enforcement, disagree.
You link doesn't mention anything about the smart wall- so how can you use that as a way to "disagree"?
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
They all deny ever supporting a wall- and even Pence had to backtrack and say that "they implied it, and that's what Trump was getting at".
That said, it wouldn't surprise me if some Democrats had some stupid ideas- they've had many stupid ideas over the years- that doesn't make building a wall right.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Pence is not a great guy either but he's at least reasonably intelligent and honest enough to not stare into a camera and lie his ass off (yet).
Actually, he does exactly this every time he defends Trump on TV. Pence is no better; he's just there waiting for his #MeToo moment for when he expects to becomes President.
But Trump actually has a better hand.
He had a better hand, right up until he said he would own the shutdown. At that point, he lost his bargaining power. Why? Because where is the incentive now for the Dems to compromise when Trump has already conceded.
Now you are inventing or cherry picking your facts. Obama did make the claim that undocumented border crossers are a danger to this country as well as a danger to themselves. Trump isn't disagreeing with any of that and Obama was right. Illegals represent a danger to themselves and to the people of the USA and a barrier to their entry into the USA needs to be in place or we will be over run. Trump called this barrier a "wall" and he wants to build it.
On the asylum claims, this has got to stop. 99.9% of those claims are bogus and without merit. Why? Because Mexico would offer most of these folks from south of their border asylum in Mexico, removing the reason for continuing to the USA. I'm told our laws clearly deny asylum in that case. But... IF you are on US soil, your case MUST be heard by a court, so the goal is to get into the USA, get caught and THEN make your asylum claim. Because the courts are backed up for months, you either stay in jail until your hearing or, more likely, ICE let's you lose with an order to return for your court date. You tell me what happens...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
"Let's follow the word of the lord until it (the rock and hard place) is too hard"
The shutdown is the only leverage the President has.
wow, you are ignorant, he can veto other bills besides this one
That's not true in the slightest. He has not only democrats fighting him on most things, but REPUBLICANS fighting him on most things. He was not the person they wanted ushered through to the office. I know you love to pretend the democrats are the "adults" but they pioneered the smears and "take my football and go home" practices that unfortunately republicans did not resist using themselves. People like you love to cite crap like the birther movement while forgetting your star girl, Hillary was the one who started it all against Obama.
> The fence was a failure. People simply went around it or went over it
So what you're saying is, they a) go aroundnit, to places where there is no wall, the go around the walled part, right? And b) where there is a shorter fence they can hop over, they do?
So based on your observations, the obvious solutions would be a) make it so you can't go around the wall - don't have huge gaps and b) make it very hard to climb over - at least 8' tall with barbed wire in top.
Thanks for the suggestions!
No it's not. I have it installed on my computer. UT2003 & UT2004.
View the CNN videos of both Clintons and Obama supporting a wall. The Clintons even each say the phrase "We ought to build a wall".
Nah, don't bother. Keep pretending your team is right and the other one is wrong.
But a big expensive wall does not equate to border control. Trump doesn't care about border control, he just wants his big wall.
Indeed, it's a vanity project. He might as well be spending government money to build a statue of himself alongside Lady Liberty.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Love how it's always the president who's "throwing a tantrum" as if Chuck and Nancy weren't acting like toddlers themselves, crossing their arms and saying "NYO."
CBP is the one asking for a wall. A wall funded by Democrats in 2006, again in 2013 with bi-partisan support.
If it was already funded twice, problem solved. No need to fund it again, we already have a wall apparently.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
By that logic it's also entirely reasonable for Trump to continue to veto any bills that don't include a border wall. He promised it on his campaign after all.
I think the real stupidity here is how the government budget isn't just defaulting to what they approved last year. Maybe another few years of shutdown and people will get a clue.
I, for one, am really enjoying how people from NYC and Washington are bordersplaining how it's not supported when people who live there actually like it.
You may have noticed my post, which you replied to, consists mostly of direct quotes from Obama, Clinton, and Chuck Schumer. If you think what was said is stupid, take it up with the people who said those things. I didn't say those things, the Democrat leadership said those things. If you think Obama's comments are dumb, okay - I won't argue with you. If you think Clinton is a dumbass, okay. No argument from me.
You don't even know what I have proposed regarding border security. What you replied to is what Clinton, Schumer, and Obama said about it.
The problem needs to be tackled at source, not at the border.
Oh, so you want us to attack the invading country?
Dang, you Dems are so violent!!
He's saying that people who support the wall are stupid. And he is intolerant of stupid people, thinks they shouldn't multiply.
We look forward to your view, kind sir.
Are you a "wall" supporter, and can you name a good reason to do so?
Whether you are or not, it sounds like you think that stupid people have a right to live out their lives and procreate, is that correct?
Maybe they saw what a failure the fence was an decided that something different was needed.
The fencing that is there is a success. CBP (Customs and Border Patrol) confirms 90% of their apprehension are in areas that are not covered by fencing as it stands. From their findings following the initial 2006 Secure Fencing Act :
https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/...
For example, Vitiello stated that in 2005 Yuma Sector was âoeinundated with illegal cross-border incursions.â There were 138,549 illegal alien apprehensions, according to a CBP case study.
From 2006â"2007, after adding 29 miles of primary pedestrian wall, 9.1 miles of lighting, 9 miles of all-weather roads, a bridge along the border, and 603 agents, Yuma Sector experienced an 82 percent decrease in illegal entries. In addition, Yuma saw a 95 percent decrease in agent assaults from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2015, the study reports.
The 700 miles built of fencing simply isn't enough. Walls are effective, every country who has implemented a type of border barrier has seen dramatic drops in border crossings. To deny that is to deny reality.
But no, tell us how this is not simply democrats not wanting Trump to get credit for something they themselves have failed to fully implement. They don't want the "Trump Wall", but let's be clear : Democrats are for a wall, because it WORKS. They just want it to be a DEMOCRAT Wall.
I heard that 90% and laughed... no shit, if you have a partial barrier, people will go around it, that stat means absolutely nothing by itself. You could plant a wall of cactus and poison oak along half our border and 90% of the people caught crossing would be caught crossing the non-cactused parts.
Im tired of people defending the president by correcting him, I’ll buy that fence/wall/surveillance could all mean the same thing but when the man comes out and says no a physical wall then that is what he means. I know he has recently said he’d be ok with a fence, but it does no good for other people to say he really meant fence while he is saying no he means wall.
Or, when you say border security is about preventing border crossings, I’ll buy that, that your president just said it’s to stop crimes and deaths. I’m sick and tired of his defenders watering down things the president actually SAYS. Repeatedly!
Expanding the existing border barriers should be bog standard normal request for funding from the DHS, and it would probably pass. You pretending that’s what this is doesn’t change reality. This “wall” is being sold as the answer to an “emergency” to prevent crimes and deaths and drugs, and that is BULLSHIT, it’s political, and the dems didn’t make it that way. It’s a lot of god damned money is what it is, and the DHS should keep asking and keep getting it over time, it’s just not a fucking stop what we’re doing and open the wallet to stop the emergency right now, that’s fucking fake.
America isn't a democracy. It is, and always has been, a democratic republic. The electoral college is about more than vote-counting logistics. It's to ensure the interests of the entire country are represented, not just the heavily populated regions.
The Democrats, and the majority of Americans, don't support the wall.
What are you talking about? A recent poll showed that 67% of Americans support the wall. A very small minority, around 15%, oppose it. The rest don't care. The Wall is incredibly popular.
Which poll was that?
Quinnipiac, December 18, 2018: "U.S. Voters Say No Wall And Don't Shut Down Government. ... American voters oppose building a wall on the Mexican border 54 - 43 percent and say 54 - 44 percent the wall is not necessary to improve border security, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today. This is the highest level of support for the wall since the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN- uh-pe-ack) University National Poll first asked the question in November 2016."
"ABC 30 News, St Louis" (undated): "CBS Poll: 51% Of Americans Support Border Wall"
Fortune magazine, December 12, 2018: "69% of Americans Don’t Think Trump's Border Wall Is a Priority, Poll Says. ... More than two-thirds of Americans don’t think the wall should be a priority, according to a new poll by NPR, PBS News Hour and Marist. Only 28% of those polled answered that the border wall should be an immediate priority, while 19% replied it shouldn’t be an immediate priority, and 50% said it shouldn’t be a priority at all."
Huffington Post, January 3, 2019 (politically liberal): "Trump Says Country Wants Border Wall, But That’s Not What Polls Say"
"The Hill", December 28, 2018: "... a new Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released exclusively to The Hill. The survey found that 56 percent of respondents do not support the president’s proposal to construct a wall along the southern border, compared to 44 percent who do."
But Trump actually has a better hand.
He had a better hand, right up until he said he would own the shutdown. At that point, he lost his bargaining power. Why? Because where is the incentive now for the Dems to compromise when Trump has already conceded.
Well that was my point. Both sides are obstinately refusing to compromise at this point, and Trump said he would take the blame even before it happened, so that's irrelevant. Trump's entire budget that was submitted to Congress was completely thrown out, and his only demand for any of it was $5.7 billion for border security, something like 0.1% of the budget. Pelosi and Shumer are arguing that it's too expensive (not persuasive), that walls are immoral (no traction on that), that he said Mexico would pay for it (why does it matter who pays for it if it's immoral?), and pretending it's not strictly a symbolic political stance. Trump's supporters already know it's a political stance, that he needs it or be seen as failing, so that doesn't detract from his argument.
So Trump has the more persuasive argument, and less to lose by not giving in. I'm not saying he's right, only that his argument is more persuasive, and that only Pelosi and Shumer stand to lose support as the shutdown continues.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
> I'm not sure where the talking points for came from that a wall would protect the people trying to migrate and seek refuge here but it's just not true.
Those quotes are from Hillary Clinton, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer - all of the leading Democrats. Obama said the same things, though I didn't quote him.
Perhaps you disagree with the Democrats. That's cool. I often disagree with them too.
Good lord. Is it just me or does this seem like admins not following best practices? Who waits until weeks/days before expiration to renew a cert? Pretty irresponsible, no?
[Citation required]
What's remarkable is how little his ratings move in either direction, regardless of what he says or does
South Americans are overwhelmingly Christian if not Catholic. "Heathen," like much of your post, says more about your sheltered urban view than anything else.
There's no "Crisis" at the border, if there was, a wall wouldn't solve it. It's all just a pet project so Trump can stroke his ego
CBP is the one asking for a wall. A wall funded by Democrats in 2006, again in 2013 with bi-partisan support. Again supported by Hillary herself in 2015 while campaigning.
A Wall wouldn't solve 100% of the illegal immigration issue, but it does address a part of it. To say otherwise is disingenuous and to say it's Trump's vanity project when it's been in construction for decades is hilariously misinformed on your part.
The data from other countries and from CBP's own studies of walled vs non-walled areas is clear : Crossings dramatically decrease where there are walls.
Bullllshit, because CBP is not asking for a Great Wall to be funded right neerroooow. Jesus H Christ, if CBP asked for funding for X new miles of whatever and it was a reasonable number they’d get it. They’re not asking for emergency fence everything give me alll the money right now because emergency, that’s the damned president playing politics. If it was all or nothing stop everything emergency then why the fuck didn’t it happen in 2016 at the very least?
An interesting twist at this point would be Mexico lending Trump $5B......
I reserve the write to mangle english.
Actually, no. Fewer people voted for Trump than voted for Hillary, period.
Which is completely irrelevant. Every US president has been elected under the electoral college system, which dates back to the country's founding.
It was designed to work this way, so that the president would be the president of the united states, not just of the big population centers.
Some of the states would probably have not even joined the union without it.
So yes, America elected Trump. The big population centers wouldn't have, if they were the only ones who decide, but they aren't, by design.
One done by real polling agencies that look for real Americans and don't limit their polls to the first 100 people they find down the street. Not one done by fake news with a blatant anti-Trump agenda.
Maybe they saw what a failure the fence was an decided that something different was needed.
The fencing that is there is a success. CBP (Customs and Border Patrol) confirms 90% of their apprehension are in areas that are not covered by fencing as it stands.
Sorry, but this is such a common statistical error that I feel compelled to point it out. The conclusion might be correct, but it doesn't follow from the evidence. What they know is that 90% of the people caught crossing the border illegally are in areas not covered by fencing. That doesn't say anything about how many people cross the border without being caught.
Again: the conclusion might be correct, and there might be evidence for it, but the 90% number is half a statistic.
Bullshit. The clean CR had already passed. All McConnel has to do is submit the same bill, and override the veto. You don't get to hold the Government hostage for a bill that can be debated and passed seperately.
> Which means we should be spending less and taxing more, not spending $5 billion on something that's not even effective at preventing what it's designed to prevent.
Agreed. Right now spending is not sustainable.
> ... so in programmer's terms this is ...
a memory leak. Sooner or later you are going to have to do a hard reboot.
I tried to do both, but I did them in the wrong order... Someone had to help me to fuck myself and I didn't enjoy that part like I was hoping I would *facepalm*
Some of the Founding Fathers were religious, none were overtly so, and believed pretty profoundly in religious liberty. Of course, there are the likes of Jefferson, whose views on organized religion were hardly complimentary. Benjamin Franklin was a proper Enlightenment Deist who found the notion of a Personal God that went around intervening in worldly affairs ridiculous.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"The blame falls on the current US federal government shutdown ...." And maybe on people who didn't plan ahead and renew their certificates before they expired?
And what is the economic good being done? The new version of NAFTA is little more than a reorganized version of the pre-existing one. The trade war with China really started under Obama, it's just that Trump is by nature more strident. As to those tax cuts, those are debt funded, so the taxpayer will end up paying for those anyways through debt servicing and cuts to other services.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
clinton was for strong borders
obama was for strong borders
almost all Dems in the past were for strong borders
Obama deported a ton of people. No one cared, because they loved Obama.
But Orange man is bad. I know this because the TV man told me.
It's time to compromise. There's no reason that air traffic controllers should miss paychecks because of the wall - they're not connected except for political maneuvering. They should pay government employees first and then keep arguing about the wall until they come to a resolution.
I forgot to say, thanks for "technology, where you actually are usually well informed and come off as intelligent."
I'm sure sure how noticing what Clinton, Obama, Senate Minority leader Schumer, and Speaker of the House Pelosi (basically all of the Democrat leadership) says is "phenomenally stupid", but to each their own. I suppose one should only pay attention to what they say today, and try really, really hard to forget that they all said the exact opposite just a few years ago? That's cool, if you want to do that.
Not only that many part of the Southern border are inaccessible. We have to build at a minimum dirt/gravel roads to those areas and also build towns for construction personnel to live. For jobs like this labor won't be cheap. Many construction companies will have to give out signing bonuses to attract labor and they'll have to be well compensated to keep them middle of nowhere.
Republicans and Trump have to compromise with "the objectively stupid wall" but Democrats don't have to sign on to something they have signed on before?
The "democratic process" involves Presidential assent to laws passed by legislature. Congress can override the veto if it can.
The fact that Congress is not passing spending bill(s) without the President's requested funding indicates that they don't have the votes for the veto override scenario.
Perhaps if certain Senators and Representatives made a minimal attempt to appear concerned about the people they were elected to represent, rather than foreign invaders, then we wouldn't be at this impasse.
Which was necessary when calculating the national vote was not a practical thing to do in a short amount of time (days, even). We can tally the national vote in hours or less now. Results don't have to be transported on foot, by horse, or even by rail.
Bzzt, wrong. The reason was that smaller, agrarian states feared domination by larger states.
Don't take my word for it... here are a couple of sources
https://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/
So far the shutdown has not affected me in the slightest. I wouldn't even know it was happening if I turned off the news.
Same here. I'm a privately employed worker who qualifies for no government assistance so I haven't noticed a thing.
For me the shutdown is just pointing out all of the functions of government that should be done by private companies. TSA employees walking off the job and FDA not performing food inspections? That wouldn't be happening if those organizations were privately held.
As pointed out, the amount he's asking for really is a tiny fraction of the budget
That is completely and utterly irrelevant. A budget bill was written that could have passed both houses of congress. Trump even said he would sign it. Then all of a sudden he decided that he would not sign anything that did not have wall funding in it. He sunk the whole process on his own. It doesn't matter whether he was asking for $5, $5,000, $5M, $5B, or $5T. If there is such great support for the wall he could have asked for the next bill from congress to address it directly so it could have any up or down vote and it could be abundantly clear which way each member of congress voted on it. Instead we have a giant spending bill that has tons of other moving parts, and ultimately obfuscates where people stand on this issue.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Besides, even if it's not perfect, a one-time $5 billion is peanuts compared to the cost of hosting illegal immigrants. Even the liberal politifact says the costs is between $43 to $279 billion per year
Those numbers aren't referring to illegal immigrants, they are referring to ALL immigrants. Illegal immigrants are a small subset of the total and are not eligible for most of the government assistance that is available for legal immigrants.
Enigma
Most saints carried swords and weren't afraid to use them whats your point?
Are you implying that the republicans shouldn't compromise on "the objectively stupid wall" because a few democrats said they liked the idea years ago?
The vast majority of unauthorized immigration is not illegal. It's only a misdemeanor the first time you're caught, and you can get a temporary stay while you apply for residency. Nearly every "illegal" immigrant is involved with drugs, weapons, or is otherwise violent. Almost everyone else is legal, even if they get in trouble.
Bullshit. The clean CR had already passed. All McConnel has to do is submit the same bill, and override the veto. You don't get to hold the Government hostage for a bill that can be debated and passed seperately.
Civics lessons failed for this AC. The CR (which only provided funding until February 8th), was NOT passed. It was never submitted.
Overriding a veto requires 2/3 of BOTH houses (civics isn't taught in school anymore?). McConnell could not make that happen, nor could the Republican whip. You need plenty of Republicans to agree to it, and too many of them won't. Besides, he already tried a compromise by asking for $1.6 billion, and that couldn't get through Democrats either.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Affordable care act was meant to HELP people. Not a fucking monument.
At least he tried to help people until the republicans ripped it all to shit.
How are you going to build the wall on $5 billion? When it's projected to cost 75 billion? I don't get it. The $5 billion is a down payment.
no it's not hard to ignore that, but it's not all Trump. most of those were going in the positive direction under Obama, and in fact have slowed slightly the past 2 years. (expand the graph from past 2 years that fox news hows to the past 10 and look at the data). Data doesn't just exist for the past 2 years. So, claiming Trumps success over Obama's policies, is kinda well.. short sighted. Also, since when is taxing the rich (something that was done up until Reagan, 1980 had a 70% tax bracket... so... that's excessive yes, but compared to the 40% of today, with more loopholes for the rich to dodge paying that).
Look at history, don't just echo Fox news. Also, what leftist rag? do you know what news source I use? of course you don't everything besides brietbart and fox is "Left" I'm not even left, I'm actually conservative, but I hate the bias most news sources have today. Conservative tax views should be looking at the true historical tax rates. the rich used to pay a shit ton more than they do now. instead they get to pocket it, and keep a 154 Billion warchest while paying their employees minimum wage of $7 per hr...
Used to be employers cared about employees. That's not a left/right thing, that's just common human decency.
Those furloughed workers aren't rich. They are everyday people like you and I. Well like me, you aren't normal.
because federal employees are the real job creators, right?
They are acting like adults. Telling a child(trump) NO he can't have all the toys in the crib and has to share.
Okay, you sound like a Leftist, so I'll assume that the reason you believe the "majority of Americans" don't support the wall is because you only see things through politics and elections and "Hillary won the popular vote." Unfortunately for you with your asinine "walls don't work" virtue signaling, Americans who live near the border support the wall because they understand the actual negative impact of lax border security; and, border patrol (*actual* border experts) support the wall.
I, as an independent, support the wall. Why? Because for decades of my life, ever since I can remember, immigration has been a game of political "kick the can." Now, the disingenuous "Orange Man Bad" Democrats-- who previously supported stronger border security, including a "barrier"-- have completely flipped their position. Why? The problems associated with illegal immigration still exist. What has changed? My best guess is "Orange Man Bad."
It is hardly "acting like Children" to expect the elected executive to follow through on a promise he was elected on-- that is, the people wanted "a wall" or "better border security" or however you want to frame it. It is also quite *mature* of our president to follow through with trying to resolve the decades-old problem of illegal immigration despite all of the coordinated political smears he continues to face daily from the propaganda arm of the Democrat party.
And BTW, other than federal workers, nobody *really* cares about the shutdown. It is completely undetectable for average citizens. Do you frequent the websites affected by the shutdown? Other than the anti-Trump hyperbole pushed by the Corporate Media, do you have any genuine circumstantial relationship to the government shutdown?
It would if those businesses stopped paying their workers.
If there is such great support for the wall he could have asked for the next bill from congress to address it directly so it could have any up or down vote and it could be abundantly clear which way each member of congress voted on it.
That already happened. Trump signed the omnibus bill in March after threatening to veto it because of its lack of border-wall funding. At the signing ceremony, the president warned that it would be the last major funding bill without it that he would sign. He didn't like it, and he promised not to sign one like it again. “But I say to Congress: I will never sign another bill like this again. I’m not going to do it again."
So they had all year to work something out, but, like usual, they wanted to just keep kicking the can down the road.
A budget bill was written that could have passed both houses of congress.
Incorrect. There was no budget bill written. The only thing they and was a CR, which is congresscritterspeak for "just keep spending like you have been for another few weeks (February 8th, in this case).
Instead we have a giant spending bill that has tons of other moving parts, and ultimately obfuscates where people stand on this issue.
The compromise that McConnell and Ryan proposed was the CR with a $1.6 billion for border security. Democrats rejected it.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
If you give in to a child they become a spoiled brat. This is why Donald is the way he is. Don't give it to him, and let him own the shut down. See what happens next.
That's how it has always been, and one of the reason I have usually voted against Democrats.
Something has changed, though. The Democrats' mainstream opponent party ran a crook and won, so the Democrats did something very unexpected. Democrats are now suddenly (*) anti-corruption.
And that, finally, is something. It's not as exciting as left-vs-right issues, and it doesn't make me want to necessarily support their other ideas, but thanks to Trump, everyone in America can now see what happens if we all aren't anti-corruption. I expect a bunch of Democrats to be damn nervous about this, since they might end up in legal jeopardy too, but it's going to be even worse for the Republicans. And if you're an American, seeing a bunch of Republicrats get thrown out of government, and maybe even indicted, can only be a good thing.
The Democrats refusing to let the baby have his bottle is a great sign that they really are going to stop pretending criminals have credibility. What's not to like about that? Because Trump is a criminal, when he asks for something stupid, instead of giving it to him there will be a fight. Just keep telling him no until the impeachment or indictments. Don't even listen to him. Don't take anything he says seriously. Just give him orders.
What's not to like about this? It's a platform that anyone, regardless of their politics, could get behind. Just Say No to crooks.
I voted Libertarian for decades, but I always lost (always) and meanwhile the crooks just got stronger. The left never made things leftier, and the right never made things rightier.
Turns out, criminals' alleged political beliefs don't matter, because they're lying. Therefore, corruption transcends politics. Or neutralizes it, depending on how cynical you wanna be.
But now the "left" party is more than left. They have one politically-neutral thing in their platform that the Republicans cannot claim to have. Anti-corrution. Any Republicans reading this knows: for all the things you like about your guy, your guy isn't against corruption. So now I'm going to vote Democrat until the crooks are on the run. After that, then we can get back to real politics, half of which I hope involves bitter defeat for Democrats. For now, though, it's all about law enforcementâ"law enforcement against the law-givers. So I'm switching sides, to the one party of law and order.
[New Mexico names here, sorry if most people don't know them.] If I had voted for Gary Johnson again (when he ran for Senate in my state a couple months ago) I really don't know what he would have done. His campaign messages were wrong, because they were about politics instead of taking out the crooks. But I trust Heinrich to join in on votes against the president, if for no other reason than because the president is in the other party. (But I think Heinrich is more sincere than that.) Democrats as a whole might not really hate crime more than Republicans, but until Trump is gone, I really do think they're going to walk the walk. And I know that Republicans will not. Today's Republicans are as close to anyone I've ever seen, to explicitly endorsing crime and corruption. They do it every time they support Trump on any issue, instead of telling him no.
I've turned into a single issue voter, and the Democrats are the only party running on that issue.
This is now the difference between Democrats and Republicans. And it's more distinctive than I have ever seen in my adult life (I was just a kid during Watergate).
(*) Ok, there were a few who were already embracing anti-corruption, but it was mixed with some actual politics that I happened to not like. I'm going to stop caring about those other things for a while, though.
Whaboutism at its finest.
None of this has to do with Hillary or Obama. Stop trying to derail the topic at hand.
> The vast majority of unauthorized immigration is not illegal. > It's only a misdemeanor the first time you're caught
Are you saying it's not illegal because it's a misdemeanor, or it's not illegal if you don't get caught?
Misdemeanors include crimes such as:
Assault resulting in bodily injury
DUI/DWI (the first time)
Conspiracy
Misdemeanor Domestic Violence
Burglary of a store or other non-residence
Resisting arrest
Obscenity
Perjury
Possession of a controlled substance
Property theft
Harboring a runaway child
Deadly conduct
Making a false report
Unlawful possession of a weapon
Violating a restraining order
You're saying misdemeanors are perfectly legal?
Maybe you haven't quite thought this through all the way?
My news right, your news fake.
Post the video.
This is entirely about not giving Trump credit for a Bi-partisan initiative.
So, the Democrats were never for open borders to let illegal immigrants flood in and invade our country and live off of our welfare?
I don't know much about this issue with all the opinion pieces and everything giving half truths and lies.
Anyway, this whole wall thing is a non-issue for me - considering that I'm struggling with healthcare bills and insurance because the for-profit healthcare system in this country is raking me over the coals. And having to pay my student loans on top of all that.
Border patrol agents who get paid by the government, tell the government, their wall is working.
Yea no slant to that at all. Because that's how they wet their whistle.
The price was like 13 USD per American right?
Our Swedish immigration likely cost more like beyond 1300 per year.
The 5 billion is nothing.
Our public spending is closer to 200 yearly.
I think you meant to thank the republicans.
Use a browser that lets you accept expired, self-signed, or otherwise "bad" certs, at your discretion.
caused by US President Donald Trump's refusal to sign any 2019 government budget bill that doesn't contain funding for a Mexico border wall he promised during his election campaign.
Congress can override his veto. We have checks and balances. Use them. Congress would have to work together and do their job?? THE HORROR!! Instead, a bunch of people didn't get paid today.
Meanwhile almost no one is talking about the much bigger issue - Trump may soon get to appoint a third supreme court justice.
This. They get mad when you call them out on their racism. These people are closeted racist because they have no fucking spines. It's the same person that calls a black person a nigge4 on the internet but won't do it in real life because they are a scared shitless little bitch.
Isn't the payment by tariffs and hence kinda unfair competition increasing production and profits in US a bit and taxing those or so. Though of course higher prices also remove money from spending upon other things. But yeah. Moving economy worth 5 billion so to say.
Bill had to resign the presidency. Or face being impeached. He paid his consequences.
As for Barry, when he stated those things, he was correct, it wasn't until the GOP got a hold of the bill and rewrote the whole thing to benefit the insurance companies that it became a false. So again, he didn't state a lie, he stated the truth at the time. Big difference.
Bill didn't get to finish his term, the same should happen to trump, he isn't fit to be president. He is a child.
Being as they are not principally against the idea there isn't much of a good reason to reject it that they have said. Trump being stubborn on a promise is a better reason to not compromise than Never Trump policy.
So, you are telling me, the person who will benefit the most from building a border wall, wants a border wall?
Well no fucking shit sherlock. This project will put millions, shit billions, into this guys direction. It will make his job much more important to boot. That's why he wants a wall.
This shit is all see thru, and if you can't see the play here, you are fucking blind.
It would be like slave supporting anti slavery legislation. Same shit.
It's even worse than how you described it. They just used their hands and feet, no ropes. 15 seconds from standing on the ground to going over the top. With huge "backpacks" (more like blocks) on their backs. Good grief. 77 billion dollars to slow people down for 15 seconds.
No, trump stated that Mexico would pay for the wall with a one time payment...several times.
You fail. You don't know how to solve the problem so you are looking at it from a caveman perspective. Me build big wall, me keep out bad guys. Me safe.
It doesn't work that way.
"Crossings dramatically decrease where there are walls"
Lololllol
Yea that's because they fly in, dig under the wall, climb over it. Just because we can't see them doesn't mean they aren't crossing.
Trump and Hillary were playing the same game. You don't get to complain about the rules after the fact. Going for raw popular vote DOES NOT WIN YOU THE PRESIDENCY. It doesn't, so you don't try to get that. You go after electoral votes and focus on the areas that are marginal for you that will maximize those votes. This often has the effect of lowering your popular vote, but again, pop vote does not matter.
Hillary spent a lot of time in her safe zones and little time elsewhere. She was running the victory lap months before the election. That's... not the right thing to do. Trump hit his potential swing states hard, and it paid off. The DNC threw the election through overconfidence, failure to market effectively, and the promotion of a terribly unpopular candidate over actually popular candidates who might have really won (Sanders).
The democratic party needs to get their heads out of their asses. Unfortunately I don't see that happening, so we're probably in for another 4 of Trump come 2020. I'm not happy about it, but this is what happens when everyone is looking out for their own #1 instead of rallying behind a unified strategic vision. It points to the massive fracturing the country has been experiencing over the last several decades. I fear we won't correct until a truly massive disaster falls upon us, and I believe Trump might actually get us there. A burning of the forest to let the new wood grow. We have only ourselves to blame for letting it get this bad.
Republicans didn't support the wall either. Why do you think Trump waited until Democrats had control of the House to push hard on this? With a Republican majority house and senate it would have just been an embarrassment to him. With a Democrat house, he can use it to score a few points with his base, but I'm not sure his judgement on when to call it quits is going to help him in the long run, as the tougher things get for government employees, the more support he's going to lose.
Would you be supportive of immigration controls that are effective, such as random ID checks and fines for employers of illegal immigrants?
Papers, please.
Because his team right, your team wrong.
Also, why don't you trust the boots on the ground and their leader? They wouldn't lie to receive funding. They wouldn't fudge numbers to make their job look important. No way. They want a wall because it's a good idea, not because it will throw billions of dollars their way, no way sir.
The guy you replied to has lost all the arguments in this thread. Has been debunked plenty of times. He's just trying to make you guys see things the way he sees them, thru a narrow passage.
Trickle down assumes the largess of one rich wanker is a perfect replacement for the daily spending of thousands of normal folks, and covers its ears and sings loudly whenever anyone points out how much rich people money goes into arcane financial instruments that don't even pretend to trickle down.
It's not necessarily just Never Trump policy. There's no real evidence that it will do any good and only a few democrats have been recorded saying it was a good idea. Chuck Schumer is not the democratic party.
Aside from that, even if the democrats could get on board with a wall, right now when the government is shut down is not the time to negotiate it. Trump picked this moment (to the surprise of McConnell even) because he thought it would give him leverage and the democrats are understandably disgusted by this tactic.
You aren't proving any points.
The wall is a bad idea. No matter who fucking says it. I don't care that Hillary said she wants a wall, or that Obama wants a wall, or even fucking Pelosi. I don't care. We don't need a fucking wall.
So once again, stop trying to muddy the water to pretend the wall is a good thing. I don't care if Jesus H Christ came to earth and said build a wall. I would still think it's a bad idea.
Keep trotting out them strawmans tho. You are getting real good at that.
Also, let me ask you this, did Hillary, Obama, OR ANY FUCKING person other than trump say that they would get Mexico to pay for it? They didn't? Yea that's probably because they are decent human beings.
Trump isn't going anywhere until January 21st. At that point, he's served more than half of his term, and Pence could run for re-election twice.
January 21st and later? Who knows what he'd do.
Trump wants the deal.
Can't have it both ways asshole.
It is never Trump policy. It was more than just Schumer.
Picking this moment highlights the democratic platform being "I stand for everything he doesn't stand for.". It highlights the childish position the democrats have taken since Trumps election.
Over the lifetime of the wall, which is probably 20 years or more, that's 0.0008% to 0.005%.
The massive hole in your analysis is the claim that the wall would be effective. It wouldn't.
That ebil, terrsit-infested caravan Trump was talking about before the election? They're asylum seekers, and went straight to a legal port of entry. (Btw, federal law and treaty obligations require we let them into the US while investigating their claims.)
Which means a wall would be completely ineffective at stopping them. And stopping drugs (they're smuggled in through ports, airports and ports of entry). And stopping damn near everything else Trump claims it would stop.
Your cost also does not include the eminent domain seizure of a few million acres of land. Nor does it include the cost of ceding that land to Mexico, 'cause the Rio Grande floods and you can't build a wall right next to it.
So, with an ROI of at best almost zero, why do it?
If they signed onto it, where's the fucking wall? When did they start building?
Saying "we probably need some type of wall" is different than "I'm going to shut down the government until I get my 5
Billion down payment on my pet project"
You can't even compare the
Two.
This.
Republicans keep saying well democrats wanted a wall in 2006. So fucking what, it was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now.
Another republican talking point is that the people who patrol the borders think the walls a good idea. You know, "boots on the ground". What they don't realize is, of course they think the walls a good idea, it's going to push billions of dollars their way.
Spending bills still require 60 senators to pass, not 51, so the Republicans could not get it passed by themselves.
No, the Republicans did not try to get it passed by themselves.
The Democrats offered to vote for Trump's entire wall ($27b) in return for citizenship for the DACA kids. Republicans didn't even put that to a vote.
You could have argued that McConnell could have changed the rules to allow those bills to pass with a simple majority
Or, since it's a spending bill, McConnell could have left the rules alone and passed it via reconciliation.
So the OP is right, the blame lies on both sides.
Only if you pretend time started about 3 months ago.
But Trump actually has a better hand. As pointed out, the amount he's asking for really is a tiny fraction of the budget. People's opinion of Trump is not going to change much over this, people that hate him will continue to do so. Pelosi and Schumer, though, are a different story.
Polling doesn't bear out your prediction. Trump is getting the blame for the shutdown, people are responding that it's stupid to keep the shutdown going over the wall, and we're just starting to get to the point where it hurts the economy.
The President's funding request included $1.6B in Border Security which both houses of the Congress voted for and approved after the President agreed that he'd sign the budget deal.
THEN, Coulter and Limbaugh called him out on not pushing for the wall. And even worse compared him to Obama. At that point, POTUS lost his collective shit and threw this temper tantrum.
He got what he asked for and then decided he wanted more.
So it went from Mexico will pay for it one time payment. Then it switched to, Mexico will pay for it thru tariffs and other trade agreements we have. Anddddd now it's, Mexico will pay for it because it will save us a bunch of money from illegal aliens.
Do you even hear yourself? Each time you get proven wrong and what you want doesn't happen, you double down on stupid, and double back and switch the tone.
We know your tricks,
They aren't working. You won't get a wall. Fuck off and man up.
Am I the only person that finds it oddly predictable that, in response to a story about TLS, almost every single comment is a biased (one way or the other) comment about "the Wall" or the Donald or the Problem with America Today.
Cert expiration is a problem mostly because certificates cannot be renewed. They must be replaced, and as close to expiration as possible. If only there were a way to push the expiration out.. maybe by having a replacement cert, or a see-next-instance logic.
This way, certs could be renewed before they expire, just as Domain names are. And yes, I understand the technical limitations making this a necessary evil today. But it is a problem for government users now, and is a problem in many other like cases. For instance, when a cert expires over a weekend. Who hasn't got the call at 5 am when this happened?
As for the wall... I'll comment when its relevent.
Admit it, he fucking lied to you.
And did they get it? It was a stupid idea then and a stupid idea now. Where's the wall at? If the dems wanted it and it was paid for why didn't we build it? What happen?
Also show me a citation. Because I keep hearing "Obama wanted a wall,
Oh yea so did Hillary" but I never see any citations. Are you just parroting what trump says? Me thinks so.
Lol. So you didn't debunk anything he said while he took the time to debunk EVERYTHING you said. I think I believe the person with the orange name over you who couldn't even take the time to refute his points.
, they can't win it on ideas when the majority of their ideas are harmful to the majority of Americans
, they can't win it on ideas when the majority of their ideas are harmful to the majority of Americans
This 100000x times
This.
While Clinton was impeached, he was not convicted and finished his term in office, despite the Republicans' best efforts. You are thinking of Republican Richard Nixon, who resigned ahead of impeachment for his involvement in a burglary digging dirt on the Dems.
Of course, that was still the end of Bill Clinton, since he was constitutionally term limited, and his VP Gore and wife Hillary both failed presidential bids in no small part because of the taint of his association.
-As it happens, Lewinsky was the big story as I came of age to pay attention to politics. Even then, my attitude was that Bill was an asshole, but the R's were overplaying their hand. And that was before I had any idea what Gingrich and Hastert were up to!
Trump's hand is weak. Democrats continuously are passing bills to open the government. Mitch is the one who isn't letting them even come to a vote. Blame lies at his feet. He's terrified to even let it be voted on, forcing Republicans to actively keep government closed. Know how else we know Trump's hand is weak? He's scrambling to pay the SNAP benefits. He's trying to make sure government works just a little longer. If it were going well, he wouldn't be doing this.
Two times in 130 years has the electoral college picked the president. Both times republicans. So both times the republicans couldn't win the popular vote but had the presidency handed to them because of the electoral college.
But keep repeating the lie that the electoral college actually does something useful. You only like it because your side won.
"I am proud to shut down the government for border security ... I will be the one to shut [the government] down. I'm not going to blame you for it ... I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down." - Donald Trump, December 11th
"We shouldn't shut down the government over a dispute." - Chuck Schumer in reply on December 11th.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/11/trump-border-wall-congress-budget-1055433
There's also video, in case it's hard for you to read.
This is ALL on Donald Trump and the Republicans. The Democrats have, and continue to work towards a resolution to open the government in a reasonable and bipartisan way.
No, the electoral college has elected two presidents in 130 years. Both republicans.
They don't have a say in every election.
Just two of them.
Show me some sources please. Because every time I see this you guys never post a source.
Also saying we need better border security != building a worthless wall.
Nice try tho. Come back when you have citations where they said those exact things. And it's not taken out of context.
So you're saying the science is settled because there's a consensus amongst the experts?
I don't understand. He didn't promise that the USA would pay a wall. He promised that Mexico will pay the wall. If he makes the US tax payers pay it, he will effectively break his promise, so why bother to make this show? I think it would have been better to just stay low about this subject.
Are you off your rocker? I'm nearly as opposed to Trump as I am to Hillary.
2) the Senate hasn't voted on the budget yet, so there's no budget for the president to sign.
The Senate voted on a bill for the FY2019 budget before Christmas. It passed 93-6. No wall funding, and Trump said he'd sign it.
Then Trump started his tantrum, so Paul Ryan refused to put the bill up for a vote in the House (Senate had amended the House bill).
Certificate renewals cost money. These parts of the government are shutdown because they are not allowed to spend any money.
Your inability to understand this may be an example of the poor civics education we receive in this country.
Are you seriously going to pay for that out of pocket?
Actually, it would be against federal law for someone to pay for that out of pocket.
It's always a game of Calvinball whenever they don't get their way.
Ergo, there should be some well-deserved firings for insubordination and misfeasance.
The blame falls on the current US federal government shutdown caused by US President Donald Trump's refusal to sign any 2019 government budget bill that doesn't contain funding for a Mexico border wall
Why not:
The blame falls on the current US federal government shutdown caused by the refusal of the Democratic majority in the House to include funding for a Mexico border wall
Bias much?
I thought that the senate already changed the rule to simple majority to get their favorite justice appointed?
The only reason anyone, including Trump, might think we need a wall is because for over 40 years we have had uncontrolled illegal immigration. Instead of paying for a wall, all we need is for Congress to reduce the incentive to come by bypassing the legal route. Just pass a law stating that anyone who comes without going through the legal process will be deported and we fine the country of origin an amount equal to the cost.
Unfortunately, Chuck and Nancy both want illegal immigration. I don't know why.
Hillary lost, GET OVER IT
This is a waste of money and always has been. The saddest thing is all these people will get paid for doing nothing. They might not be getting paid a pay check right now ... however they are also not working either. Once we these two idiot parties agree with one another, and work for the constitutes, then everyone get back pay for doing nothing! Now who are the idiots?
What a great country we live in!
I see no evidence of force being used on the electors or a massive conspiracy.
Sorry, but reality shows it was a tepid effort at persuasion.
Trump was a registered Democrat when he announced he was running for President
How is this informative? The Senate passed a bill to fund the government by a voice vote (i.e. so obvious it would pass that they didn't have to record votes, way over 60).
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-approves-stopgap-spending-bill-to-avoid-shutdown-sends-to-house
Then in January, the House passed essentially the same bill.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/03/us/politics/new-congress.html
So most likely they have sufficient votes to override a veto.
Little lambs eat ivy.
Interesting idea.
Though I don't understand why you think Trump is dishonest. He told Congresscritters ahead of time to either pass funding for the wall or he'd refuse to sign. They choose to ignore his warning. If anything, he's being too truthful.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
"He'll be shutting down the government for every last little thing until he gets his way."
Good. He should. And it will force either a constitutional crisis or Congress will just capitulate.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Not in the last 90 years as near as I can tell.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Good fences make good neighbors. But of course, you think that good neighbors are stupid, and need to be killed, making you a bad neighbor. No wonder you don't like walls.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I've literally heard recordings of Nancy, Chuck, Hillary and even Barrack himself claiming we needed this from only a few short years ago. What gives?
What gives is a wall only makes sense on part of our Southern border. Geography, geology and land ownership mean the other parts would be better covered by sensors, cameras, roads for CBP vehicles, funding for helicopters, and so on. There's already walls on the border where they make sense.
There's things like a very large river running along the border. You can't build a wall in the middle of it. At least if you want the wall to last. The river also floods regularly so you can't build the wall right next to the river, unless you want to rebuild that wall all the time. So now you have to build the wall a ways away from the river. We'd kinda like to not seize millions of acres from Americans and effectively give them to Mexico.
That ebil caravan full of brown people? They're seeking asylum. They go directly to ports of entry and present themselves....and they did just that. US law and treaty obligations require we let them into the US while we investigate their claims....and the vast majority of the time their claims hold up to that investigation. It turns out people don't just abandon everything and walk 2000 miles on a lark. But since they're coming to ports-of-entry, a wall doesn't do shit.
Drugs? Those are being smuggled through ports of entry, tunnels, boats and aircraft according to the DEA and CBP. Again, a wall doesn't do shit.
Terrorists? CBP says those arrive via airports or our Northern border. So again, a wall doesn't do shit.
Y'all used to think the government spending money on things that don't do shit was a bad thing.
Better yet, I would be for corporate execution- all assets of the business seized and all trademarks and branding listed as public domain, for illegal hiring.
I bet the auction of the assets would pay for the wall.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I wonder if we used the current holes in the wall to smuggle nukes to sell to the drug cartels if Mexico would build the wall.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
One side is upholding the democratic process preserved by the house and senate, the other side is holding a government to ransom for his pet project like a dictator.
The Constitution requires that either a majority of both houses and the president agree or a supermajority of both houses agree in order for the bill to pass. That is the process in the US and that is what is being followed. The president is fully within his or her rights to refuse to sign anything he or she disagrees with. That is the power granted by the Constitution. So this argument about things being outside the democratic process or holding the government hostage ring hollow.
Thanks for proving, once again that I'm right. If it were just a popular vote then the electoral college COULD NOT CHOOSE A DIFFERENT PRESIDENT. Which was why there was, indeed, a massive push by the Democrats and some Republicans to get the electors to vote somebody else into office in 2016.
They're called faithless electors... google it.
And you still have no concept as to why the electoral college exists because of all that brown in your brains. You're not smart, you're an idiot. (Or were you even aware that all states have different laws as to what constitutes a valid voter and a valid election process? No? Didn't get that from Jimmy Kimmel's daily talking points? Naahh, of course you didn't. That's ALSO why we have the electoral college - because a few states could change their laws to swing popularity counts and take the federal government through a simple majority.)
And no, numbnuts, I support and honor the outcome EVERY TIME because I believe and support the constitution of the United States of America because the people always vote stupidly every election - regardless of which side you're on.
Would you be supportive of immigration controls that are effective, such as random ID checks and fines for employers of illegal immigrants?
I'm very much in favor of cripplingly high fines for employers of illegal immigrants. The way I see it, they are the cause of the biggest problems with said illegal immigration. If employers are hiring illegals instead of Americans, they're doing so because they can hire them for less than minimum wage while not paying for required benefits and employment taxes. This creates a second-class citizen situation: yes, we get cheaper products, but we do so because we're supporting a type of slave labor where illegal immigrants are forced to earn significantly below the cost of living for their region, which is why you see them having to group up several families in a one-family house. They don't complain about any abuse or safety violations at their work place because they fear deportation is found out.
Random ID checks, not so much. It's unconstitutional to perform a warrant-less search, and this is what it amounts to. If you have cause to perform a check on someone's resident / citizenship status, then you perform it, such as when hiring a new employee.
That said, I'm not a Democrat. So gauging my opinion on the above isn't a representative sample of that if it's what you're looking for.
Besides, even if it's not perfect, a one-time $5 billion is peanuts compared to the cost of hosting illegal immigrants. Even the liberal politifact says the costs is between $43 to $279 billion per year [politifact.com]. Over the lifetime of the wall, which is probably 20 years or more, that's 0.0008% to 0.005%. So the wall only has to be 0.005% effective to save us money, which it certainly will be. Heck, even Trump's rhetoric about building the wall is more than 0.005% effective.
The $5 billion isn't for a complete border wall. It's what he's asking to build a section of it right now. The estimates are at $25 billion. And it's not a sunk cost. It's not like you build the wall then don't do anything for 20 years. You have maintenance, you have patrolling. Smugglers build tunnels to get past existing patrols. People vandalize existing barriers to get through right now.
Most importantly, even if you're right, and it would save us money, as I've stated, it's not the hot path for illegal immigration. If you apply those funds elsewhere, you can save more money. Trump talked about the cost of drug trafficking, but the majority of that cost would go away for free if we ended the drug war and just legalized all drugs. That would do away with enforcement costs, leaving only the societal costs. Taxation of those sales can be used to offset those societal costs.
Basically, it's not just a question of whether there are positive gains from investing the money on a border wall. Even if we have the money, there's an opportunity cost to not investing it someplace else with a higher return on investment. You'd think a businessman like Trump would understand that concept.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Pence is, judging by his deeds, neither a Christian nor a leader. The VP can't be fired by the President. Once elected Pence should have been condemning every misdeed of the President's administration. The personal failings can be ignored for Christian charity or whatever, but the willfully destructive official acts and temper tantrums are unforgivable.
Pence, Christian in words, if not inconvenient, and not in deed. Gives off a closet case vibe for some other shit too, which is probably the real reason he doesn't call out Trump.
Only champaign liberals don't see the benefit in people having a job, because you never knew what it's like to worry about where dinner is coming from.
I don't blame you. I just want you to shut the fuck up.
The Dem house passed a Repub Bill to reopen government, that the Senate had previously approved 96-2 or something similar.
Mitch McConnel refused to bring it to a (veto proof) vote because Trump bluffed he wouldn't sign it.
Trump is a bad actor, but Mitch is the one actually enabling him.
I'm told our laws clearly deny asylum in that case.
You are either talking out of your ass or you were lied to. There is no such law.
You tell me what happens...
What happens is 90%+ of the people return for their court date. You know, because that's literally what they came here to do.
You believe too much of the BS that Fox spews. Go find real actual facts and you'll see that your justification for your views evaporates. That's why people around the world think Republicans are racist. They hold views that depend entirely on trivially falsifiable "facts" and don't alter their views when confronted with reality. They resort to whataboutism, or spew out-of-context quotes. But they won't take the time to examine why, if all the reasons they held on to were bogus, they are unwilling to change their conclusions.
captcha: despots
Nope. That would require a functional strong central government. And thanks to the massive piles of cash we send to the drug cartels, Mexico doesn't have that.
Had a mandate (if it's possible for the winner of such a close election to really ever have any mandates at all), until two months ago when America told him to get lost. One of the consequences of elections is that extremely unpopular rulers can lose whatever mandates they may have had.
Yeah, the left will try the usual "it's not much" argument, and conservatives will say the usual "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money!"
That or something even earlier. You gotta remember the president is in fairly serious legal jeopardy and nobody knows how long he's going to be around. The number of people willing to do him special favors is just going to keep falling. It's not like anyone can "trade" with him and realistically expect he'll be able to pay anything back. He's pretty much cash-only at this point.
far more saints just got killed by swords than ever wielded them
would those jobs even exist if they were privately held? Are those actions profit generators?
"B-b-but Obama inherited the George Bush economy! It's not his fault!"
"B-b-but Trump had nothing to do with it! It was post-Obama's legacy!"
, you sniveled.
No, this nation was not founded on religion you fucking moron. It was founded on FREEDOM of religion, meaning the right not believe in your fucking superstitious bullshit. It was also founded ON KEEPING YOUR FUCKING SUPERSTITIOUS BULLSHIT OUT OF OUR GOVERNMENT. So take your crucifix or other religious shit and shove them up your ass
It's like bringing up Hitler in every conversation about veganism.
It doesn't mean that you won an argument against it. It just means that you didn't have one to begin with.
Asymmetrical warfare.
My trolling took 30 seconds. His rebuttal took probably an hour.
America is so pissed that they added two Republicans to the senate, and half the number of House members changed than the swing under Obama... You fucking imbecile.
Amen, bro!
We can have a bunch of trained Saudi nationals on every US flight.
Democrats going nuts at the suggestion of pulling out of one of our illegal foreign invasions & occupations is certainly testament to this notion
If they pay for his wall because he has a tantrum, what's next?
He'll be shutting down the government for every last little thing until he gets his way.
There's plenty of precedent for saying no to him. The US government has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists who have hostages and are making ransom demands. Why? Because it will encourage others to do the same. Trump is holding US government workers hostage. Of course capitulating to him would encourage him to do the same thing again, not to mention setting a future precedent for other presidents with unpopular ideas.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Perhaps there is room on both sides to stop acting like children, and learn to work together.
Right. Like funding the government while the debate about the wall continues. That would be the adult thing to do.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Yes, they are. There is no private market without a government that you can buy justice from.
So... Canada is a bad neighbor? Most of the EU must be horrible neighbors; especially since they literally brought down walls.
Put up a wall, you make illegals already here go underground rather than leave. You will have more illegals because they will see that it is harder to leave and come back.
The Wall is a stupid idea for all the things it is intended to do.
Besides, even if it's not perfect, a one-time $5 billion is peanuts compared to the cost of hosting illegal immigrants.
You believe that the total cost of the wall will be a 1-time $5 billion payment? Are you on drugs? It's going to cost dozens of billions of dollars to do all of the environmental studies, seizure of the private land (95% of border land in Texas is privately owned), planning, designing, building, and maintaining. And that maintenance is ongoing, your estimated lifetime of 20 years is not a cost-free period. The wall will be eroded, blown up, undermined, whatever, for as long as it's there. $5 billion sounds close to the yearly maintenance, so please don't act like we're talking about a 1-time $5 billion payment for a 20-year investment.
I'd love to give you more details or a better maintenance estimate, but the wall has not even been designed by engineers yet. He's had some contractors talk about it, though. But that's why I included planning and designing in the list of things that need to be done - because they have not been done. We have no idea what the cost is going to be. As far as we know, it's going to take $5 billion just to design the entire thing across the entire terrain. It's a long way, and the terrain changes all over the place.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
The neutral wording of this article is as much dropping into the cess poll as the rest of Slashdot has been lately. The house, not the president, passes budgets. And, fyi. the amount is less then the net income of all house members, some of whom are worth over 100 million
So you think we should cut basic healthcare for millions first before tackling all the other wastage of funds? Like oil, corn, and military spending. Yes, profits over life!!!!
Get rid of your firewalls. they're immoral.
I would totally be in support of a sane visa process.
It absolutely matters. Like you said, we're in this mess and so we gotta deal with it. Dealing with it shouldn't involve getting the person who broke the goddamned thing in the first place, the responsibility to fix it. He had his chance. He fucked it up. You are advocating that we give the window makers the cash to fix the windows they broke, and they've still got rocks in thier hands. FUCK THAT.
Spending bills still require 60 senators to pass, not 51, so the Republicans could not get it passed by themselves.
They sure as hell could if they came up with a decent plan. There's no reason we need to have government that only does the bare minimum, only the bare minimum number of votes it needs because everyone else hates it. Come up with a plan that will get some Democrats on board and they'll have no problem. But they can't, or haven't, come up with a plan like that.
Trump actually said explicitly the last time they passed a CR with lots of added spending, but none for the wall, that he would never sign a bill like that again.
Then once again we have a front-row seat to the wisdom of the Constitutional framers and their need for checks and balances. It's a very good thing that the president, or Congress, can't just do whatever they want. There's a really good reason why that's the case. He needs to work with the other branches of government or go back to private sector.
You could have argued that McConnell could have changed the rules to allow those bills to pass with a simple majority, but if the Senate was flipped, which was not unlikely, the Dems would have used those rules as well.
Right, and like we saw with Obama's SC nominee, McConnell only changes the rules as long as they suit him, and then he'll try to make it so that no one else can do that. This might be why he is the most unpopular Senator among his own constituents. Why they keep electing him, though, is beyond explanation.
As pointed out, the amount he's asking for really is a tiny fraction of the budget.
It's a matter of principle. It's not the amount he's asking for at this point, it's the way he's asking for it. Or, more specifically, demanding it, without offering any concessions anywhere else. He's holding hostages and demanding ransom. It doesn't matter if he's holding a royal flush, he's being a child about it. No one wants to play with him.
Pelosi and Schumer, though, are a different story.
It's their job to pass a budget, so if they're passing budgets then they're doing their jobs. Sorry if the budget doesn't fund the president's pet project and he's willing to shut the country down over it, but if they're passing a budget they're doing their jobs.
This poll showing that Americans thought Trump should compromise 57 percent to 36 percent was before the shutdown - do you really think the public is going to blame anyone but Trump? He keeps saying, over and over, that he will not compromise. The public wanted him to compromise before the shutdown. Now that it's the longest shutdown in US history, you're trying to suggest that his support is somehow growing? Do you have any source for that? Because I'm seeing recent polls which say things like less than 40% of Americans even want a wall, so what exactly are you seeing which suggests that a standoff over a project that the majority does not want, which is being pushed by a president whose job the majority does not approve of, is going to end up hurting his opponents?
Face it, he's only making a big deal over the wall because he finally got people to stop talking about Mueller. Don't worry though, that hammer is still going to drop.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Shit analogy. Everyone in that raid died because of Leroy. Your last sentence was what you think should have been done, but IN REALITY it didn't fucking happen. They wiped. HARD. Dumbass tanks are the number one bitch in WoW. You know that. No one takes more shit for sucking hard than a tank. Shit tanks are shit tanks. Sir Orange-A-Lot is a shit tank. He can't even taunt properly and taunts at the dumbest times. He never picks up the adds, instead insisting that it's someone else's job. Has no idea where the fuck he is going in the dungeon. He won't listen to the damned healer. He's a damned traitor like Garrosh. How many more WoW analogies do you need?
We want border control.
Right, increased border security is favored by something like 70% of Americans. It should really be a non-issue. But for some reason he's laser-focused on only a wall, which is only supported by 40%. Not sure why he can't come up with a decent idea favored by the majority and easily passed, but I suspect it's because his buddies on Fox keep telling him what they think he should do, and he obeys.
Anyway, don't let any of this theater fool you. Trump doesn't give two fucks about a border wall. What he cares about is that people aren't talking about Mueller any more. For now, anyway.
Remember a few weeks ago when he really dialed up the rhetoric about the wall? What was going on then. I seem to remember his lawyer had just been sentenced and he was sad that people didn't like his pick for acting AG. I don't give him a lot of credit with being overly clever, but if you think he gives a shit about the wall more than he does about him and his family staying out of jail, you're wrong. He'll let everyone scramble over the wall while he's busy working on the AG.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
How about the Dems allow the government to do what they themselves have said is "urgently needed" rather than obstructing it because they don't want the orange idiot to get the credit for it?
Yeah, it's weird that now that someone is holding the government hostage, no one wants to work with him. That's really weird.
I mean, border security is obviously important, more than 70% of the public wants better security (even though only 40% want a wall), but yeah, wow it's really strange that now that we have a president who refuses to cooperate and is willing to hold the government and its workers hostage to get lawmakers to do what he wants (something the founding fathers would have been totally OK with), no one wants to work with him. That's so weird. Really insightful of you to point that out.
Don't forget what's important though: he got everyone to stop talking about Mueller. If you think he has any other goal, you're fooling yourself. He doesn't give a shit about security or a wall. The only security he cares about is keeping himself out of jail, so let's all keep arguing about a wall while he rubs the AG's back.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Trump just wants to speed it up and finish it along the length of the border where no natural barrier exists in the course of his presidency.
No, he doesn't. He wants people to argue about the wall and he wants the news covering the shutdown because if they're doing that then they're not covering the AG and Robert Mueller.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
No one nut bags or not are making the journey to cross the border South for any reason excsptnto get away with murder...it'd take a hell of a psychedelic cause to motivate one to do that trek otherwisw. That being said we've already been shown walls work to keep people out by jim acosta, all praise the Democrats lawlessness!
Democrats were in favor of a wall - Accepted
Democrats built a partial wall - Accepted
Republicans are in favor of a wall - Accepted
Democrats are NOW opposed to a wall - Accepted
Democrats are doing it just to be assholes - "You can't prove why we're being assholes, just that we are assholes... so take that"
That is quite the argument.
"I imagine Pence would do a lot less lying if he wasn't held hostage by Trump."
So Pence is a ball-less tool ?
Although, that insults actual tools, that are both useful and necessary, Pence is neither.
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
The most secure those sites have ever been.
And no money for certs... godaddy has really cheap plans, rets!
$18.5 billion in Medicaid for illegal immigrants. That's just healthcare - and it's nearly 4X this ask for the wall. ILLEGAL immigrants, not legal.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Stormy, is this you?
Funny, all the Border patrol agents say a wall would help. Politifact confirms that walls work, and they're hardly a pro-Trump site. Walls can work when combined with everything else; not using a wall with everything else makes it harder to control illegal immigration. The border patrol agents want it, Politifact confirms they can work - but some lawyers in DC want to play politics and claim they know better...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The whole point of Let's Encrypt. It authenticates via several methods that the holder of the certificate also controls the domain. It is better that what other certifiers do.
You do not need any certificate to just encrypt.
The big issue is that any professionally managed websites should be renewing there certificates a good 90 days before expiry to ensure it stays live if issues arise. So a site going down after just 20 days of inattention shows incompetence.
I am surprised that on Slash Dot people are so consumed with Anti-Trump feelings that they did not see that straight away.
Trump's election promise does not depend on US funding. If the US funds it, it will be a different thing, not his campaign promise.
Not this tripe again. Allowing direct popular election of the president was never in the cards. The original plan called for Congress to elect the president. It was modified to allow the state legislatures to select electors, allocated equal to their Congressional representation. There is not even a requirement that states allow people to vote on the president at all, and it was not until 1880 that all states moved to a popular presidential vote system.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Alexander Hamilton: "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations"
James Madison: "The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted"
How about some specific links to these websites that have expired certificates. Just visited NASA website seems fine.
Admit it, you love lying to yourself and blaming other people for your failures, while being all about "personal responsibility".
You bring up an interesting point.
On the other hand, to reverse a popular phrase in logic, ante hoc, ergo ne propter hoc.
The Democrat leadership turned 180 on border security *before* Trump was elected. Shortly after he made a major campaign promise of finishing the barrier that Obama had bragged "is now basically complete" under Obama's watch, the same Democrats who voted for it starting voicing opposition to it - months BEFORE the election.
That which comes last cannot cause something that comes before. Therefore Trump's conduct of his presidency, silly as it may be, could not cause Democrat politicians to do a 180 in 2016. Simply not possible.
It's logically pissut that their politically motivated reversal in 2016 could affect how Trump interacts with them in 2019.
Of course this doesn't excuse the un-presidential behavior, it is however quite clear that Trump in 2019 didn't cause Pelosi in 2015 and 2016.
I propose we, as Americans, sacrificially murder all the left handed American soldiers to appease muslim terrorists and hope it ends all religious conflict. It is like 10% of 1% of Americans. That is a similar percentage of 0.1%.
Do you want to meet me in the middle, just kill half of them?
Or is meeting in the middle a bad idea?
Please point out where, exactly, you quantitatively and qualitatively agree or disagree a d why the dame arguments do not apply to the wall.
Republicans are for small government and free markets right? All the people who want a wall can go fund the kickstarter for it. No need to raise taxes and make the government do it.
Why are they giving any benefits at all to illegal immigrants? I'm all for constitutional rights apply to everyone, but these benefits are in law not in constitution... Would make sense to just stop the "bleeding" of money. Also states like California that don't allow landlords to check if an applicant is legal are part of the problem. It's like the govt doesn't even want to know -- we SHOULD be using any civil means to identify and either deport the illegals or naturalize them and start collecting taxes.
Stop pretending Trump is like Hitler. Hitler was a poor man who served his country in the military, not a coward who got a four hundred million dollar inheritance from his tax cheating father.
It's what the sysadmins were doing instead of proactively renewing certificates when they heard there might be a shutdown.
Smart enough to post here ?? Thatâ(TM)s a very low bar. Slashdot is infested with morons and worse, web developers.
No but it took less than 100 years to pivot towards âoeOne nation under Godâ.
Americans are stupidly religious. L
would those jobs even exist if they were privately held? Are those actions profit generators?
Prior to 9/11, airport security was run by private businesses.
After the TSA took over, the cost doubled, and delays tripled, Penetration testing showed no improvement.
AmiMoJo is SO TRIGGERED right now you guys...
One hundred times, this.
The government has been closed for 20 days. No competent admin waits until the last day the previous certificate is valid to renew and deploy the replacement.
I don’t want to hate on govt employees here, but it seems like they have really dropped the ball.
$18.5 billion in Medicaid for illegal immigrants. That's just healthcare - and it's nearly 4X this ask for the wall. ILLEGAL immigrants, not legal.
Medicaid is not what the figure you quoted represents. I read the Forbes article from which your source drew its data and the majority of the cited costs are not Medicaid. You're misrepresenting the data. The article includes all kinds of indirect costs like forgone tax revenue and tax advantaged bond financing from non-profit hospitals, tax breaks for insurance provided as employee benefits or unpaid emergency room visits causing higher costs for all patients. It even includes $1.5 billion in charity care voluntarily given by physicians as a "cost". It doesn't show any evidence that illegal immigrants are using that healthcare, it just takes the total costs from a number of areas then assumes illegals use the same amount as legal residents and ascribes that cost to them. Even the author recognizes the shakiness of his figures:
Whatever the case, your assertion of "18.5 billion in Medicaid" is wrong and not even supported by your own source.
Enigma
Trump NEVER said "Mexico will pay for the wall with a one-off payment".
In fact, in an interview with Hannity back during the 2016 campaign at one of his rallys, Trump explicitly explained that one way or another Mexico would pay for the wall by some combination of tariffs, trade deal renegotiations, limits on remittances or some other actions which would feed more than $25 billion into the economy and that obviously the up-front construction costs would have to go through the federal government.
All those Democrats running with the talking point that Trump needs no government money to do a government construction because he said Mexico would pay for it are either being ignorant or dishonest - Trump did in fact publicly explain all this while running for president. If somebody does not know that then he or she is a moron who chose not to pay attention.
The message above was brought to you by the Committee to Reelect Donald Trump in 2020.
Remember voters - Democrats are deranged, mean-spirited wingnuts whose idea of political debate is hurling childish insults. Compared to Democrats President Trump is grown up, kind hearted, and a serious intellectual.
Vote TRUMP in 2020 - for common decency!
Obama already built 80% of the wall. President Trump just wants to finish it.
Nonsense. They'll just dig a hole under the wall to leave and come back.
Your mom loved it when I fucked her mouth
Corporate Progressive Nazis sure do enjoy fantasizing about a judicial coup against a popular, populist President.
ROTFL, you REALLY think thats how it works? You think there is an FDA goon standing watching food every moment from the field to your table?
Gee, I wonder why people havnt started dropping like flies just yet..
Oh, thats right, because thats not even close to how it works, is it.
Moron.
Premature optimization?
Are you saying that the president is doing something that is the root of all evil?
Mind. Blown.
Whey, ima web developer
The wall is like my locked front door. It keeps people out who don't have a right to be in my home but think they do, so they would try to sneak in when I am not looking. Canadians don't behave that way.
Funny, all the Border patrol agents say a wall would help..
All of them? Amazing to think there's not even a single one that doesn't think the wall might be a little bit ineffective. Maybe one whose family business sells ladders?
Kys faggot
There's nothing wrong with socialism and the apoplectic reactions to saying "socialism is a good idea" are just some of the reasons that American politics makes no kind of sense whatsoever.
It's pretty much the definition of sainthood: people who have proven that being Christian is more important to them than anything else, even being alive.
Ironic how you call my numbers bad, when you don't have any better ones.
Maintenance of a wall in the desert is basically nothing. There's no corrosion to speak of. Maybe you're thinking of people to man the wall. Yes, that costs money, but it's a cost we already pay for, through the existing border patrols. A wall is not going to make that more expensive, if anything, it'll let even fewer people patrol a much longer stretch of it.
I thought the country was founded on secular grounds? Or don't you consider the founding fathers as founders?
And iOS users...
Trump is the only one to blame. Period.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Well, shutting down the government should have consequences. If you proactively mitigate those consequences, so that a government shutdown has fewer negative consequences than it should have, you're making it less taboo to go through with such a stupid thing. You know what you could do instead of making government shutdowns possible? You could by default follow the previous year's budget until the president stops vetoing the new budget.
Not their problem. They don't get any salary as long as the government is shut down, right? So why should they make it easier for the government to function in their absence?
I agree with you that a wall is not the ideal choice, but it's the only one that has any political backing. Employers do need those workers, but nobody's looking at revamping the temporary work visa program.
Another way is to simply deny all government-funded services to illegal immigrants. But that's also a political non-starter. Once they've crossed the border, a lot of sympathetic people demand that they be given the same treatment as Americans, including the right to work, subsidized health care and free education.
As for legalizing hard drugs, that won't happen because the costs are simply too high. Many of those drugs will quickly ruin a person and the costs of rehab are in the thousands if not tens of thousands. To tax it sufficiently to pay for treatment would add several hundred dollars to each dose. Not many people can afford that and they'll turn to illegal sources again.
As Joce got murdered by MS-13 members, all he/she could think was....Well Mexico never paid for this so it is ok.
And yes, we could very easily make Mexico indirectly pay for it by heavily taxing imports/exports. This would have the added benefit of punishing companies that ran to Mexico for cheap labor. But, surprise, Democrats did not want us to do that anyway.
Trump made some very specific statements about who would pay for the wall.
No sig today...
If Trump promised anything at all in 2016, he clearly promised he'd build a wall.
He was also very clear about who was going to pay for it.
(and it wasn't the American taxpayer)
No sig today...
And liberal fucktards.
Hey if they wonâ(TM)t fund a wall I suggest Trump up the ante. Build a minefield. Itâ(TM)s be a hell of a lot cheaper. Granted weâ(TM)d be blowing up cattle on the Texas border but as long as it stops this relentless invasion that resembles Mongol hordes raiding China I say go for it. And hey, beef!
one flaw in your plan (for him).. the secret service doesn't provide protection details in prison.
If you can't get 60 senators to pass your bill then you need to get a better bill - not force people to vote for shit they don't want to vote for.
By every metric the economy did better under Obama than Trump.
Whatever happened to "elections have consequences"?
Exactly, this is what happens when Democrats take the house.
I remember when Democrat's wanted border security, now that Trump wants it all of a sudden its taboo to want it.
I think one side IS inventing facts here, but in this case it's not who you seem to think.
More like its not who he is willing to admit.
"His name was James Damore."
Trump is the one who walked out the most recent meeting with the Democrats. The Democrats are willing to talk. In fact many Republicans in congress are also willing to talk. It's only the president who won't negotiate.
Democrats know the wall is going to work. Otherwise they'd let trump build it and roast him when it failed.
"Orange man bad!" is all they have left to run on.
Though I don't understand why you think Trump is dishonest.
Aside from the fact that pretty much every important "fact" of his existence is a lie ...
He told Congresscritters ahead of time to either pass funding for the wall or he'd refuse to sign.
Except that before he opted to shut down the government he had said that they could put the border wall funding in a separate bill and that he would sign this budget to keep the government open while they prepare a bill for the border wall. I know he does flop around a lot (as mentally ill people sometimes do) but this is not what he promised just a month or two ago.
If anything, he's being too truthful.
I know he doesn't like to use words the way that intelligent people use them, but this is a blatant attack on the idea of "truthful" here. He is such a pathological liar that he makes career politicians look honest.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Democrats were in favor of a wall - Accepted
Wrong. The democrats voted in favor of a fence. Trump himself does not consider that to be a wall, he has attacked it repeatedly as being not a wall. It was also part of a bill that had other measures for border security.
Democrats built a partial wall - Accepted
Wrong. A fence was built. It was explicitly called a fence and it continues to be a fence. Very different from a wall, even Trump acknowledges that fact.
Republicans are in favor of a wall - Accepted
Congrats, you found a fact. Was that intentional or just a happy accident?
Democrats are NOW opposed to a wall - Accepted
They never previously voted in support of a wall. Furthermore the secure fence act was over 10 years ago, and there has been significant turnover in elected democrats since then - which makes it at best dubious to claim that they are the "democrats" who opposed or supported something before.
Democrats are doing it just to be assholes - "You can't prove why we're being assholes, just that we are assholes... so take that"
Obviously, clearly, not a fact. You are entitled to your own opinions - and clearly you won't be bothered with supporting them with facts or even small shreds of reality if such things impede their creation - but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Well, it looks like the swamp water just got a whole lot deeper and a whole lot muddier. This is what happens when you elect a wealthy person with Anti-social Personality Disorder with Narcissism. The blame solely falls on Donald Trump and his egoism. All he has to do is simply admit failure and move on but he instead intends to play with the livelihood of 800,000 government employees that depend on their paychecks. And with the security certificates not being renewed, Trump is playing with the security of US Government computer systems. This is not a good thing at all!
As pointed out, again, they're called ropes. In the middle of a desert, a couple minute climb over a wall with ropes is not going to be some massive barrier to crossing. As for Democrats voting for and now against walls, perhaps because they realize they've proven to be pretty ineffective? The thought was in populated areas it'd take a while to climb so people would notice and law enforcement could arrive. The reality is, though, it's so quick to climb and law enforcement coverage might not be good enough so people can slip through. I mean how the fuck else could people grind through a wall; that's neither quiet nor quick.
What would really need to be done is removing all border towns/cities*, putting a substantial no-mans-land (say 0.5-1 mile) between the border and any settlement, and hiring a substantial number of people to guard the border. Yes, you could throw in fencing/a wall too, but that's just a drop in the bucket if you want any substantial change to occur. The other part is, of course, as stated above to punish employers which hire illegal immigrants would go a long way to remove the motivation of a lot of people to even come here. There's not enough "aid" given indirectly through legal citizen children born of illegals nor enough wealth or income flowing in to support illegals for people to view the US as a place to live under such a system.
* This would be substantially expensive not only to buy up the land but the cost of rebuild the infrastructure (either there or elsewhere) to support them.
I'm very much in favor of cripplingly high fines for employers of illegal immigrants. The way I see it, they are the cause of the biggest problems with said illegal immigration. If employers are hiring illegals instead of Americans, they're doing so because they can hire them for less than minimum wage while not paying for required benefits and employment taxes.
That may be the case in some places, but not all. I'm in the upper-midwest, farm country. The rural towns around here are dying. Fast. There's plenty of farmland, but there isn't a labor force to sustain the farms.
For the locals, "home" is a shitty little town in the middle of nowhere, with no way to ever pay for more than a run-down old house or a double-wide trailer. There's no real advancement, no way to strike it rich. So there's no reason to be invested in working and living there, other than because it's been home to the family for a few generations. There's a lot of migration out of the rural towns, and they are dying.
This has driven up the going rate for farm labor, which is now pushing $12/hr, sometimes going as high as $15/hr. The demand for labor and decent pay has brought in an influx of Mexican workers, and definitely not all of it them are legal. However, with this mix of legal and illegal, it seems the pay is largely the same across the board. Why? If you are absolutely desperate for workers, the last thing you want to do is piss them off, because they don't live here, and will happily drive 50 miles down the road to work for someone who's not a racist asshole. After all, they already have traveled a thousand plus miles for work.
But what's really, really surprised me is the attitude of the farmers hiring these Mexicans. A couple were interviewed in the papers in the last year or two and both said that they'd rather hire Mexicans than the locals. Why? Because they're hard working, they stay out of trouble, and they don't leave for greener pastures as soon as they see a potentially better option. If you treat them right, they settle down and get shit done. Why? They're sending most of their money back to their family, which is using it to build a better life. When they have their dream home, the kids are well educated, they've got some new cars, and a nice nest egg tucked away, they're planning to go back and live the good life. And the harder they work now, the faster they get there.
Immigration, legal and illegal, is benefiting both our countries in this regard. It's keeping these farms alive, that's making more money for the local area, the state, and potentially the US if any of those agriculture products get exported, and it's improving the lives of the families back home in Mexico. Yes, we'd rather have americans doing these jobs, but when they're not, even for what's regionally OK pay, what's the alternative? Active farms make money, fallow lands don't. And no other industry is going to replace tens of thousands of acres of farmland out in the middle of nowhere with minimal infrastructure around for miles.
Sure, you can take the free market approach of "if they're not profitable, let them die", but that's the same as saying, "I hate Mexicans so much I want to see both our countries poorer." We'd all like to see a functional immigration system, but I don't see that happening in the near future. If we go nuclear on illegal immigration, we're shooting ourselves in the foot. We'd like to think we're not, but that's just wishful thinking. What's more likely than a political solution is that automation will steadily reduce these jobs, until they're more trouble to find than they're worth.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Couple of things:
Seattle's tunnel is still on-going, and we're still building high-speed, 100 MPH rail between Modesto and Bakersfield in CA (for $100 billion).
Not a single Republican voted for the ACA. It was lock, stock, and barrel exactly what the Democrats wanted - they didn't need ANY Republican support or votes at all. Zero. If there's something in there that strikes you as "Republican" it's because Barack, Nancy, and Chuck wanted it.
Social Security was set up to fail, by not pegging retirement age to average life expectancy. It is a structural fail from the start.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
It will certainly help. Why do you think a wall will not help in border control? Does a locked front door help protect what is inside your home?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
are you SERIOUS? you are comparing the arab/israeli conflict to the mexico/america red-state race-hatred?
come on, now. don't sit there and tell me you see no difference between the 2 situations.
for those tuning in late, there is *actual war-like conflict* going on between the arab states and israel. the arabs have said, many many times, they want to see israel entirely eliminated. exterminated. wiped out. their god says that they either convert or deserve to die.
who, here, thinks that the mexico/america relationship shares *ANY* characteristics of the arab/israeli situation?
boggles the mind that anyone would even think to compare the two.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
The federal employees have known when sites were going to expire for several years. They could have renewed a month before shutdown and this wouldn't have happened.
and his only demand for any of it was $5.7 billion for border security
That's a lie.
That money was solely requested to fund his stupid fucking wall, which is not in any way related to border security. You're trying to reframe this to seem like the democrats are against border security, when they're not.
They're against us paying for an ineffective wall that Trump said over 200 times that Mexico would pay for.
You are trying to defend someone punishing the country because he's not getting something that he said someone else would give him. Do you not understand how utterly batshit insane that is?
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
The fence works, where it exists. Why do you close and lock your doors when you leave your home?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
We have now entered the age of fck Republicans. Fck Republicans. And Fck Republicans.
When one side of the political spectrum (Republicans) begins openly ignoring the constitution (preventing a sitting President from appointing Supreme Court justices) and it's leadership is filled with racist white supremacists (Bannon, Steve Miller), then it's time to just fck the other side.
Republicans threw away the rules, and now it's time to just fck them.
Hahahahhaa u think people here are 'smart's. Funny.
Not a single Republican voted for the ACA
And not because it didn't have what they demanded. They voted against it because they didn't want a Democratic president to sign his name to the bill that finally attempted to reform a badly broken health care system.
It was lock, stock, and barrel exactly what the Democrats wanted
No, it was not. Numerous candidates - including Presidential candidate Barack Obama - asked for a single payer option. It was dropped entirely because GOP congressmen stated they would support reform that dropped single payer. The mandate came directly from what was written by The Heritage Foundation and was supported by numerous GOP representatives right up until they realized it had a chance of going to a vote.
If there's something in there that strikes you as "Republican" it's because Barack, Nancy, and Chuck wanted it.
Read what the Heritage Foundation asked for. Compare it to what was in the ACA. Then read all the "Obamacare replacement" proposals that the GOP has attempted to push through, and compare them to the ACA as well. The only reason the GOP had to oppose the ACA was the fact that it was going to be signed by a Democrat. If any republican president since 1900 had been in office that day - including Trump - they would have happily signed it into law and we would know it by their name. Hell this was more profit-centric and market-based than anything that Reagan and his administration ever would have dreamed of proposing.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Maybe they should have their heads stomped in if not shot and killed
Are you saying it's democrats that are responsible for not just agreeing to whatever the hell trump wants? They would get nothing in return. That's not how congress works.
Yet that's how the Republican party thinks.
It started with Newt Gingrich, but really exploded under Obama, where they entrenched themselves as the anti-democrat resistance party. The Tea Party has really helped fuel this too.
"That's now how congress works." is exactly why we've got something like a 16% approval rating for congress as a whole right now. Because that's not working, and congress is not working.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
No, it's a masterful manipulation of the conversation. In the day and age of soundbite communication and journalism, giving a quick, trollish soundbite tweet gets the media/society to focus where he wants for a few days. And then he goes and gets things done - like rolling back thousands of regulations, seating hundreds of judges, and massively changing the tax landscape.
Since society and the media put so much focus on Twitter and posts, use them to distract from what you want. Brilliant.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Just a tip: President Trump won about 56% of the vote; the only vote that matters is the Electoral college. The "popular vote" is neither popular nor a vote. There is only ONE vote for the President, and President Trump cleaned up convincingly.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
He is wrong. It's more, about 80%. At least that's the latest numbers I can find.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The Democrats position is that the President shouldn't be able to throw temper tantrums and shut down the government. The President should work within the rules to get his funding priorities set.
But no, Trump is a senile imbecilic racist dip shit who acts like a Dictator. And the Republican party is sham organization with no morals or integrity, filled with cowards who openly piss on the Constitution.
From CNN December 22nd, 2018
https://www.cnn.com/politics/l...
"Any bill to re-open the government will need 60 votes to pass the Senate because of procedural rules, meaning Republicans will need some Democratic votes."
Democrats own this shut down. Republicans do not have the votes on their own to get a bill passed.
Work Safe Porn
One side is upholding the democratic process preserved by the house and senate, the other side is holding a government to ransom for his pet project like a dictator.
Bingo.
Also, something that's been getting lost in the debate is that Mexico was supposed to pay for the wall, right? Trump has managed to shift the goalpost so far that it's now out in the parking lot.
In an April 2016 memo, Trump’s campaign outlined the steps he could take to get Mexico to pay for the wall.
"It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year," the memo said.
So yeah, I don't want to hear another word about U.S. taxpayers paying for his wall. Make Mexico pay for it, like he promised.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Why should any U.S. taxpayer give up a nickel when Trump promised OVER AND OVER AND OVER that Mexico was going to pay for the wall?
Seriously, why won't Trump supporters hold him to that promise? Are they so blindly supportive that he can break any promise, ruin any deal and still have his 32% goober-base cheer him on?
Democrats have already supported identical and more costly policy. Why is now different?
It's different this time because Mexico was supposed to pay for it.
It was Trump's signature campaign promise, remember?
And don't give me that bullshit about how "we'll make it back in trade" or some other excuse. We won't; that's not how it works and we both know it.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
That said, it wouldn't surprise me if some Democrats had some stupid ideas- they've had many stupid ideas over the years- that doesn't make building a wall right.
Exactly.
Just because a few people from the Democratic side once liked the idea doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Besides, Mexico was supposed to pay for the wall, so Trump can go talk to them if he wants billions of dollars for his symbolic penis.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
"Elections have Consequences" - you do know all of Congress was elected as well? Not just the president.
The reason to do it isn't because he is having a tantrum, he is using leverage to win a negotiation
That's NOT a reason to declare a National Emergency. "I want this, you won't give it to me, so I'll declare a National Emergency!"
Fine. Then the next Democratic president can just start declaring National Emergencies to get whatever he or she wants. That'll be fine with you, right?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Seriously, those furloughed are mostly make-work jobs to keep employment numbers up. The average USG bureaucrat could wink out of existence and no one would really care, except *I presume* their families. It would reduce the number of retirement announcements in uncompressed graphics sent through the email systems, clogging up things so that you can't get actual messages with value, so you'd have a productivity boost right there. Then all the EEO and SHARP messages with designated full time employees to administer these nigh-pointless (since they do nothing to combat their purported purpose) programs, and the online training that eats up several weeks of productive time over a year where if you had half a brain you could skip to the last page, alter a url, and boom you pass with 30 seconds expended instead of 8 hours. Of course. very few do this because it's make-work. Doing a pointless training with no incremental value all day is why they show up promptly at 0700. Literally the only redeeming value of most government employees is that they know how to show up on time. It's also incidentally the only way to get fired that is remotely related to performance.
Having worked for the government for 20 years now, I think I can speak with authority on this. About 10% of the workforce makes everything else happen. It's a little less lopsided with contractors, but not that much.
Seriously, the American public is getting maximal value out of its government while it is shut down.
The press loves to conflate the two groups of immigrants all the time. Might as well conflate them as well when it works against the pro-illegal immigrant crowd.
Which is a sad statement on the intelligence of the American electorate.
The orange buffoon is the worst President in living memory and quite possibly the worst of all time. Anyone who expected otherwise is gullible, stupid, or both.
Religious Fundamentalist, you mean we believe the Holy Bible is written by God & is taken as written to be a guide for all of our lives?
OK, I do believe that, and want Pence, a man of God as our leader, not Satan's people that rule with greed, corruption, perversion (73 sexes) & work to destroy our constitutional republic.
Liberal Tears Everywhere!
but somebody pulled a switcheroo on us so they wouldn't have to pay their taxes.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
And polling obviously works well, right? Hillary won and Brexit didn't happen, right?
with the money we'd save by giving everybody healthcare
If we're going to pay that debt down we need to start being more efficient in how we spend money. Our healthcare system is the Whole Foods of medicine: overpriced crap sold to folks who aren't paying attention.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You're assuming the other side (the GOP) is working in good faith. They're not. Their goal isn't to govern or help America. Their goal is to serve their donors, who are in turn the real ruling class of America.
You can't compromise with someone when you don't acknowledge their actual goals. Otherwise they just run rings around you during negotiations.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
this is a cold hearted calculation meant to make the Democrats look bad and likely to succeed because the GOP controls the media. The Dems have been complaining about this for years
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
none of them mean much. This is a political tactic to make the Dems look bad, see here.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
he had the House and Senate for 2 years and did nothing on the wall. It's pretty obvious this is just a political stunt to make the Dems look bad and to keep them from working on meaningful legislation in the house (like Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, etc).
The sick part is the GOP is ready to wreck the entire US economy (and make no mistake, if this goes on we'll have a depression on our hands, folks don't realize how much the government does) to score some political victories and maybe keep Single Payer healthcare & infrastructure spending from happening.
Eventually it'll hurt their base enough for them to notice, but I'm not convinced they won't just blame the Democrats.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You're forgetting that Trump's hysterical screaming about the border was a major campaign theme, and continued from the 2012 GOP platform and even further back to the 1990s.
Especially blaming Democrats. Remember, Trump literally forgot Obama deported millions and admitted his mistake.
Loops. No wonder people won't cooperate with his demands.
The "democratic process" involves Presidential assent to laws passed by legislature. Congress can override the veto if it can.
That isn't the problem here. The problem here is the President not signing laws having the power to completely shutdown a government due to a completely irrelevant issue.
The answer is not to remove the presidential veto, the answer is to pass laws that prevent bills of appropriation having anything at all to do with anything other than keeping the existing government departments running. Many other countries have this in their legal process precisely because the idea of a democratic leader holding a government to ransom for any reason is batshit stupid.
And the end of a year is probably the best time. It puts the efforts to renew them right after your end of year tech freezes tend to life but before new development happens. It also puts the costs involved on next year's budget and gets them out of the way for the year.
And renewing certs is routine maintenance. I had my oil changed today because it was due today. Should have have gotten it changed 2 months sooner to avoid waiting until the last minute?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That isn't the problem. The problem is this batshit stupid idea that a bill of appropriation should have anything at all to do with any topic other than to finance the government. Many other countries have systems in place to prevent government shutdowns for precisely this stupid reason. Children throwing temper tantrums (on both sides) should never lead to functioning government departments going without pay. Children with power should never be in a position to be able to hold these departments to ransom.
These problems can be fixed without changing any part of the process you just described.
So this argument about things being outside the democratic process or holding the government hostage ring hollow.
Just because there is a process in the USA doesn't mean this stupidity isn't outside the democratic process. Quite the opposite. Democracy is not whatever the USA says it is, and the process in the USA has some significant refinement to go in order to be truly democratic. No perfect democracy would allow financial hostages to be taken due to the belief of one person.
The Census is required to count all persons, not just citizens.
"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of person in each State, excluding Indians not taxed"
Sorry, but we follow the Constitution as written.
so why would the sys admins expect there to be one?
I suppose you could argue they shouldn't trust the President to be stable enough to keep his word, but then shouldn't we be talking about the 25th amendment right about now?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Not all walls are created equal. Israel and other countries have been extremely successful in preventing terrorists from crossing their border using a mix of wall, fence and sensors and trust-you-me the people they are up against are a lot more sophisticated than Mexican drug smugglers.
So yeah, this particular security wall sucked but there are plenty of ways it could be corrected. Israel went from losing thousands of civilians per year to suicide bombings to zero in less than 2 years after they built their security barrier. The numbers speak for themselves. At the end of the day, a security barrier doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to reduce the trickle of people from thousands to tens a year and I would consider that a success.
Ur mom likes my ATM finish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkgXPtDR-xQ
Then what is the point of being not an illegal immigrant?
My grand parents on both sides had to gain citizenship and i benefit from it now. Why should someone who did not try get the equal benefit?
(for reference im considering immigrating to usa myself, legally and with documents)
The Electoral College was set up as a buffer between the regular voter and political office. The Founders were afraid The People would elect some clueless idiot (hah) as President. So rather than give The People direct power to choose the President, they added an in-between group of Electors - politically savvy people who presumably would be more knowledgeable about the qualifications of office, and thus be able to select a more competent person in lieu of a poor choice by The People.
Ironically, it's the more populous states which are responsible for the current "winner take all" situation in the Electoral college. The original assumption was each state would be divided into a number of districts of equal population, and each district would choose its own elector. Pennsylvania and Maryland (the #2 and #6 most populated states of the 13 at the time) began the winner-takes-all system in their state as an attempt to gain more influence in Presidential elections. That forced the other states to follow suit to maintain equal influence.
Numerically, a winner-takes-all system of a state-wide vote actually favors more populous states. A winner-takes-all system in a less-populated state works pretty closely to the original district idea (a winner only gets 3 electoral votes). In a state with a larger population, a winner-takes-all vote results in a huge bounty of electoral votes (whoever wins California currently gets 55 electoral votes). So it has the effect of giving a more populated state more influence in the Presidential elections, since it becomes much more important for candidates to campaign in the more populated states.
What's changed is the demographics of the country has shifted over time, from the majority of people living in rural areas to the majority living in urban areas. And voters in urban areas are skewed substantially towards the left compared to the average for the country. This has the effect of lessening the benefit of winner-takes-all in urban states, since its biggest advantage comes from the a candidate just barely winning a state (a candidate who wins a state 51% to 49% gains a net bounty of an additional 49% of electors). The more your state's vote deviates from 50%, the less power it has in the Electoral College (if a candidate wins a state by 65%, s/he only gets a net bounty of an additional 35% electors). And the demographics of urban voters makes this scenario much more likely in states with heavy urban populations than in more competitive rural states.
So the more populous states have been hoisted by their own petard. Their shenanigans to leverage the Electoral College to their advantage hundreds of years ago have now become their undoing, and is giving disproportionate power to the less-populated rural states.
Anyhow it's a moot point. The majority of popular votes in the 2016 election were cast for conservative candidates. 50.06% for conservative candidates vs 49.38% for liberal candidates (the remainder of votes were for "other" candidates). So if you take the "elections would be fairer if they reflected how the population voted" philosophy to the extreme in the 2016 election, then Trump was the correct winner. Awarding it to Clinton just because she got the biggest plurality would be less than fair because it discards the votes of people who didn't vote for Clinton or Trump. (IMHO, the plurali
Federally legalize marijuana, with a wall tax added to it.
He did NOT throw a tantrum. He threw a phone book. He did not even bring a tantrum to the meeting.
The gibson has been hacked and its anything but righteous, man
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
do you really think the public is going to blame anyone but Trump? He keeps saying, over and over, that he will not compromise.
His plan is to take the blame (he has already said that multiple times), and then be perceived as winning. I'm not a political expert, but if he gets the wall, it will probably work.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Also, something that's been getting lost in the debate is that Mexico was supposed to pay for the wall, right?
Dems should be pounding on this point much, much harder than they are now.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Step 1: Trump should let all Mexicans who want to work in US to enter and make sure they get jobs (preferably well payed jobs - see step 2). Step 2: He then taxes their income and uses the money to build the wall. Step 3: Success! He has a wall and Mexico payed for it! Four more years!
Here's a video of a couple of guys climbing the existing very similar existing wall, in broad daylight, with drugs strapped to their backs, using only ropes. Takes them less than a minute.
Where's the video?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
At least weâ(TM)re protected from the aliens with space force.
Seems to me that even a small sum like $1B should be a good start to implement a network of smart camera drones. I must be overlooking something, but it seems a much better option than a giant wall. Also, seems like a great technology in general to have at your disposal. The ability to setup a virtual surveilance wall at a moments notice.
And people of low moral fiber and stunted intelligence who use the phrase "liberal fucktards" at least once per week.
Dumb
I was going to write that Fox News would never try to get Trump nor Pence to resign because that would mean President Pelosi, but if that happens it would actually get them incredible ratings.
and his only demand for any of it was $5.7 billion for border security
That's a lie.
It's factually accurate.
That money was solely requested to fund his stupid fucking wall,
Yes, a wall, barrier, whatever. He's actually preferring the steel slat fencing at this point. Congress could actually specify that as part of the funding. And, yes, a barrier is indeed part of border security, a part that the Border Patrol folks say is needed.
which is not in any way related to border security.
I don't see any way to you can justify saying that. It's part of securing a border in every country throughout all of history.
You're trying to reframe this to seem like the democrats are against border security, when they're not.
Well they certainly make that claim. But they are not proposing anything other than some vague hand-waving about "technology." There's no explanation of that, or any proposals of what they would be willing to fund for "technology," or anything. In fact, many Democrats have expressed support for more open borders, abolishing ICE (no immigration enforcement at all), etc.
They're against us paying for an ineffective wall that Trump said over 200 times that Mexico would pay for.
They're against Trump, period. That's all it's about, really, because they've supported greater funding for actual physical barriers in the past. This is just not a persuasive argument. If it's ineffective or "immoral" as some have claimed, what difference does it make who pays for it?
You are trying to defend someone punishing the country because he's not getting something that he said someone else would give him. Do you not understand how utterly batshit insane that is?
I'm not defending anyone, or taking sides either way. All I'm saying is that Trump and the Republicans have the more persuasive argument. I would prefer some negotiation about doing something more comprehensive, to include border security, but also DACA, other folks here, enforcing labor laws against employers breaking it, and other issues. That debate could have happened this year, as Trump was clear he was not going to sign another Omnibus or CR back in March. But nothing at all happened.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
There's money for it now. Just take 10% of what we just agreed to pay Israel so they can maintain their "security"...it's all about priorities. Clearly Congresss cares most about Israel than they do their own constituents. I guess I'm old fashioned in that I don't align with the idea that Congress really serves Israel's interests before our own.
70,000 people from opiates last year. Who knows the economic fallout of that but I'd wager to see the 5bil will get paid for right quick when we don't have to deal with death + junkies all over the middle of the country.
We have a cert at my employer that expires on Christmas day. Every two years our websites go down for a day or two until the guy who is in charge of it gets back in.
When you have a culture of "that's not my problem" to such an extent, it's pretty normal for things like this to happen.
Not it wasn't, dumbass. That said I would welcome someone with a brain to take over.
What I've been searching for and failing to find is any consideration of whether these expired domains might be subject to re-registration in the form of hijacking. Obviously Putin wouldn't do it in his own name, but he has plenty of cut-outs and sock puppets to work with. (Perhaps some of the same folks who help conceal his vast personal wealth.)
The other thing I'm looking for is any consideration of what happens if a REAL national emergency comes along. America actually has some serious enemies, NOT to be confused with some desperate asylum seekers, and such REAL enemies have a golden opportunity now that #PresidentTweety has broken the government.
Time for a little poem:
Trumpty Dumpty sat on his wall.
Trumpty Dumpty had a great fall.
And this little Donnie went wee, wee, wee all the way home to Queens.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
It's not $5B, why do people keep perpetuating that myth -- the full wall is projected to cost anywhere from $25B to $75B. And since it's a large public works project, I would expect it to go much higher before it's done. The $5B is just a down payment.
Exactly. Only a few weeks ago he was asking for $25B. Having run the numbers myself $70B is far more realistic figure. But that's just the initial build cost, it completely ignores the cost of maintaining the wall over its lifetime, patrolling its entire length, searching for tunnels, and repairing vandalism. All of which has to be done on the existing sections. That could cost additional billions every year.
And it does almost nothing to tackle illegal immigration. Most enter the country legally on a visa through official crossing points and remain when the visa expires. Also migration dropped significantly after the 2008 financial crash, net migration is not significant (in many years has actually been negative).
If governments spend less than they receive, the "real" economy is reduced as money is taken out of circulation. But a government can run a stable deficit, so long as their total debt only grows at the same rate as the real economy.
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
Actually, I think that's pretty doubtful. Government shutdowns are always risky for popularity of the person in charge when one happens. Fact is, there are probably roughly as many Republicans as Democrats not getting paid for work they're doing as govt. contractors or employees whenever things shut down. When the money starts running out, a lot of people aren't so happy to keep supporting whatever agenda is keeping them from getting paid -- even if it was initially their stance.
I'm not a Trump supporter (voted for Gary Johnson, actually). But one thing I have to give the man some credit for is that he's been pretty consistent about focusing on the same issues he campaigned on before his election. I don't think he could have made it much more clear that one of his big issues was getting a border wall built between the USA and Mexico? So unlike many Presidents, he's actually sticking true to his word on it. I think everyone with a clue knew, all along, that "making Mexico pay for it" was just over-the-top (typical Trump) bragging. If we really make Mexico fund it, it'll have to be in some indirect/creative way, such as grabbing a big percentage of every wire transfer an immigrant does in America that has a destination in Mexico. And I doubt THAT would be enforceable or go over well?
Realistically, I think the border wall is probably a waste of money. BUT, like most things? The truth is probably in the middle, between what the supporters claim it will accomplish, and how terrible the detractors claim it will be. Even if the wall really does zilch to prevent illegal border crossings -- it does have the side effect of creating a lot of jobs for engineers, construction people, and suppliers of materials needed to build it. (A lot of Democrats thought such big public works projects were AMAZING when FDR did them....)
This is really the problem. I think Steve Bannon is a despicable human being, but he's not stupid. He was exactly right when he stated that to change politics you have to change culture, and him and his ilk like Rupert Murdoch have been changing culture slowly over the last few decades by ensuring a constant stream of negativity about immigrants, and not just in the US, but across the West in general.
The UK is learning the hard way about the importance of migrants in the exact way you state now, Brexit caused largely by negativity towards immigrants focussed on the 1 in 10,000 rapist migrants, rather than the 10 in 10,000 doctor migrants saving people's lives. As such they have succesfully started changing politics, many nations across the West are now making the mistakes the West made last century that led to World War II precisely because culture has been changed to praise the ideals that led to Nazi Germany, and to shun the ideals of liberalism and freedom that won not just World War II but the following decades of the Cold War into the 90s as well.
Migrants don't take jobs, on the contrary they create social mobility for native residents, in almost all Western countries migrants are net contributors to society meaning they create school places, they contribute to the road network, to policing, to fire services, and so on because that's what being a net contributor means. As in your exact example, they do the jobs no one else wants to do so that the kids of native residents can aspire for something better than working on Daddy's farm all their life if that's not what they want to do without creating a shortage of labour to provide all important food to society.
Brexit hasn't even happened this year, and already many crops went unpicked, left to rot, because the vile racism and xenophobia at the root of Brexit has scared people off. So great, we've given the xenophobes, the racists what they wanted, we've reduced migration, and what's the outcome? We no longer have the staff to do key jobs and so we have problems such as the fact the NHS now has severe staff shortages it can't now resolve without significant additional cost to the tax payer to make people fill the jobs by paying them much much more to accept the hatred towards them as the cost of higher salaries due to the fact there just aren't enough native Brits willing to do the job.
Migration is what allowed the West to grow and become the top dog; it's no coincidence that the West is incredibly multi-cultural, incredibly wealthy, and incredibly successful. Those things didn't occur separately and in isolation, America was built off the backs of Europeans, Asians, and Africans.
"There's no denyingâ"at least among honest peopleâ"that he made the claim that Mexico would pay for the wall and that they'd do so via a lump payment, rather than the tariffs, taxes, or whatever other reimbursements he's now trying to claim he meant all along."
It's also important to point out that all these extra methods of how Mexico would indirectly pay for the wall, or the wall would "pay for itself" are outright lies that have been pointed out to him multiple times.
As for one two examples:
1. Tariffs paying for the wall: Tariffs are not money paid for by foreign entities to the US government. It is paid by American businesses and individuals on things they import in the form of a tax. In the cases of businesses importing the goods, they ALWAYS pass the cost of that tax directly on to american customers. IE: AMERICANS are paying the tariffs and thus the wall.
2. The new trade deal with mexico paying for it: All the savings gained by the trade deal, like with nafta that it mirrors, are kept by american businesses or individuals. It isn't money given to the US government so no money is being raised for the wall unless Trump explicitly taxes those savings off the companies at which point, once again, the AMERICANS are paying for the wall, not mexico, and not the wall itself.
These basic truths in trade that Trump is getting wrong every time he opens his pie hole should be very worrying to anyone since Trade is suppose to be the one thing Trump is good at, but he doesn't appear to understand how it really works. (And if he really does know how it works, it means he's deliberately lying.)
I'm not defending anyone, or taking sides either way. All I'm saying is that Trump and the Republicans have the more persuasive argument.
Given that pretty much 100% of your statements are inaccurate, you're either a) totally defending Trump or b) too ignorant to making a comment about the argument at hand. Try reading all the other comments here, go look up some facts to see if those are true or not, and educate yourself.
Or just keep defending Trump and admit that. There really isn't a middle ground.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
See, now that's something a lot of people could accept. That's the sort of thinking we need in congress. Get your ass in there!
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
He had 2017 and 2018 to get the wall through the Congress elected in '16. He did not do that. In '18 there was another election, and as a consequence of that he has to get his program through a Democratic House. He could probably do that if he was willing to deficit-fund the wall, and come to some sort of comprehensive immigration deal.
That's the consequence of losing the House in November of 2018. He either has to adopt an immigration policy that's on the leftish side of moderate, he can burn up his beautiful wall plans, or he can go batshit. He has chosen batshit.
You don't reward batshit.
and nothing about creimer, who bragged about having a stable government job.
cost would go away for free if we ended the drug war and just legalized all drugs
Legalization is bad. You want decriminalization of use. The cost of neither however is "free". You need medical and rehabilitation programs. Unless you give 0 fucks about your damaged fellow human beings. But may be you are right. Let em rot in the streets for free to make sure little Timmy sees drugs are bad m'kay?
If your certs are about to expire(30-60 days out) and you are not planning for it, especially when they will be failing around the end of the year with Christmas and new years, that is just an example of you being a poor system administrator.
To be fair, that means doing the work you have scheduled for today and the work scheduled for 29 days from now. If you can do that, it means you aren't at your breaking point already and a 4% reduction in workforce is needed to "protect the taxpayer". OR are you suggesting they don't do the work scheduled for today in case four weeks later they are laid off?
It isn't a government vs corporate thing either. All adults have had awful bosses who are mismanaging their staff and priorities. I've had bosses that declined a CAPEX charge that had a ROI in under six months on rental equipment. Even refuse to provide authorization for OT that would allow a net decrease in contractor costs. The OT is needed to get the must do today work done AND allow the automation needed to avoid the same merry go round the next month. Not approved. So the stuff is done manually by contractors paid by the hour.
Sure, they could choose to automate it themselves and sit around, but that would be fraud and saves US money, not them.
I mean seriously, if I offer to sell you my old beater car for $1000, but you decide to keep renting it at $500 a week plus expenses... Thanks for the extra cash.
because, you idiot, if they cave on this issue their base won't come out in 2020 and trump will use the same tactics again and again for the next 2 (or 6) years.
they don't have to cave because they don't want to. they are a co-equal branch of government.
Trump won about 56% of the vote;
I'm really, really, curious to know where you got that number from. 56% of what vote? He won more than 56% of the electoral college but a lot less than 56% of the votes cast and far far less than 56% of the eligible voting public.
There is only ONE vote for the President,
Yes, and it is neither a reflection of the will of the people nor a good reflection of how a democracy should work. He was able to take advantage of both to win the office as a result.
Trump cleaned up convincingly
Only when you view the electoral college results. By any metric that would be used in a modern democracy he lost.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
It was one of those why I bitched about HTTPS Only ... and seemed to be the only person who complained about it:
https://github.com/GSA/https/i... ... but I'm actually surprised that these websites are up at all. In 2013, we were told to take down all servers that weren't necessary for the protection of government property or human life, because we wouldn't be able to monitor them if someone were to hack them. I had a couple that were serving space weather data, and had to deal with being 'essential on-call' or whatever that horrible designation was.
I'm glad I don't have to deal with crap like this any more ... unfortunately, the group that I get paid through now gets most of their money through NSF, so I can work on my grant, but won't be able to get my invoices paid after mid-February.
Oh ... and the certs in question use the Department of Commerce CA, but most browsers (all except MSIE?) don't trust them.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
isn't much more than minimum wage was in 1978. And I'm using government stats on inflation though which in my experience under report inflation for workers (e.g. the consumer price index has a nasty habit of swapping in and out items that aren't really equivalents to make the numbers look better), so the picture's probably less rosy.
What I'm saying is that those farm owners are in the throws of a massive labor shortage but still can't keep workers. What's supposed to happen is pay is supposed to go up until they have workers. There's plenty of folks who'd work a farm for enough money to have a decent life. $12 bucks in 2018 ain't that. $15's a start, but I'm guessing that's few, far between.
Doesn't help that farming is often seasonal work. If I make $15/hr for even 60/week but only get to work 6 months out of the year that's not gonna fly. You can't build a stable life around that.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
it talks more about Tijuana becoming a viable city than about the fence keeping immigrants from crossing. More than anything that's what kept the illegals out: they had jobs in Tijuana as industry grew there.
Also, is it just me or is Politico getting really hacky, even by Politico standards. I mean, they've always been the propaganda arm of the Clinton wing of the Democratic party. But lately they've gotten unpleasantly click-baity...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I'd be interested in a citation for:
GOP Senators have gone so far as to introduce a bill do wall funding plus DACA, but the Democratic leadership currently refuses to even discuss a compromise like that, even after Trump's national address specifically suggesting both sides compromise to make a deal.
For a last time around example as well,
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
and that's what this is. It's got nothing to do with Trump getting reelected. If the Dems bend on this they might as well just change parties because they'll be voting 100% GOP party platform from then on. That's what this is about.
At some point you have to draw a line in the sand if you're going to stand for anything. America does not negotiate with Terrorists, and hopefully in 2020 we'll stop voting for them.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
they'd never get replaced. Every org I've ever worked for would just kick that can down the road.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It must be tough reading the minds of all those GOP folks all the time to determine that what they really think is the exact opposite of what they all said before, at the time and afterwards.
And no, not even the Heritage Foundation supported the contents of the ACA. 20 years before, one person at the Heritage foundation agreed with (didn't invent) an insurance requirement being necessary for a similar plan Clinton was proposing. That and a bunch of Democratic politician and media lies later is the entire basis of the myth you're citing. Certainly the ACA doesn't contain anything like a "GOP plan".
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Pence is not a great guy either but he's at least reasonably intelligent and honest enough to not stare into a camera and lie his ass off (yet).
He's a good liar. You should watch the interview he did when he first became VP, and still wasn't sure what his opinions should be. He had to squirm a bit more.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Yeah, we're either going to import the labor here, or the work is going over there. Not really a way around that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Congress has delegated way too much to the executive branch over time.
For example, the 1921 Budget and Accounting Act requires the President to submit a proposed annual budget for the federal government to Congress.
Still, while the Constitution requires appropriations to originate in the House, it also requires a vote by the Senate and a signature or veto (and then 2/3 override) from the President before actually becoming law. So they're supposed to be involved in the process as well, otherwise those extra steps would be meaningless.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
job security
Exactly. If Congress can get a bipartisan 2/3 to agree on something, then they can just ignore the President. If not, then I guess whatever is being proposed isn't universally supported enough to get passed.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Don't forget what's important though: he got everyone to stop talking about Mueller.
I'm not sure if that's the motivation. It seems plausible, but Trump himself mentioned Mueller today Also, I'm not sure too many people were talking about Mueller particularly more before, but that's harder to get good data about.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Of course this doesn't excuse the un-presidential behavior, it is however quite clear that Trump in 2019 didn't cause Pelosi in 2015 and 2016.
Do yoyu have evidence of this (specifically Pelosi)? I've looked but can't find anything.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
A lot of sites are registered with Let's Encrypt, which only has a 90 day renewal period. It's kind of annoying. I'm not contradicting your point, just adding some background.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Because the overall popular vote doesn't matter, people don't base their vote on it and they don't campaign as if it matters.
A significant percentage of people either don't bother to vote in States like CA where they know it won't matter, or vote for a third party candidate in states where they know it won't matter as a form of protest. Those votes would change if the overall popular vote mattered.
The total votes actually case for Trump/Hillary pledged electors in the 2016 election do not reflect what the vote totals would be for a national popular vote decided election. You're trying to take votes case for one thing and magically make them mean something totally different. Sorry, but they don't mean what you'd like to pretend them to.
In the only votes in 2016 actually cast for President, Trump won a big majority, 304 to 227, or 56.5% of the vote compared to Hillary Clinton's 42.3%. 7 votes were case for others in the election.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Various colonies were founded on religion, but this nation certainly wasn't.
I've literally heard recordings of Nancy, Chuck, Hillary and even Barrack himself claiming we needed this from only a few short years ago
Do you have a link to the Pelosi one? I couldn't find it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I agree you should replace the Cert but you need to declare what your cert is and do it in a sensible open mannor otherwise people might pin your cert and freak out...
the Solution to this is to use DNSSEC and DANE to declare your cert and provider you even declare a rollover rules...
the USA gov have been pushing DNSSEC they just need to get the DANE declared since they no longer have a Gov mandated TLS cert provider
john
He won 56% of the only vote that matters: the Electoral College. You should read the Constitution, it tells you how a President is elected, and it is NOT by popular vote. Only one vote matters: the Electoral College.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
It talks about both - it cuts down on illegal immigration, AND it makes Mexico better. Why do you hate Brown People and want to leave them at the mercies of coyotes and drug runners?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
What misdeeds are those?
Not a single GOP vote. Rammed through without GOP support. It was a 100% Democrat bill. You want to rationalize and revise - but the facts are they got exactly what they wanted, because they did not need - nor did they receive - any GOP support. The Democrats made it, they own it 100%.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
All told, Americans cross-subsidize health care for unauthorized immigrants to the tune of $18.5 billion a year
That's from the Forbes article. Now, Forbes states that "only" $11.2 Billion is direct Federal payment; Watchdog.org points out that the balance was from States, who mingled that spending in with legal spending and accounted for the balance that Forbes reported. A total of $18.5 billion. But hey, if you want to say it was only $11.2 billion - that is $11.2 billion in Federal spending on illegal immigrants. And is actually against the law.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You're asking if I have evidence that Trump's actions in 2019 didn't cause Pelosi's actions in 2015?
I'm pretty sure you're smarter than that, so I must be misunderstanding your question.
If you want to disregard the will of the people, you are free to do so. However the simple fact is that more people voted for Clinton than Trump. I am not contesting the fact that the electoral college did not reflect on that, I am merely stating the simple fact that more individual voters voted for Clinton than Trump.
...
It is interesting how we went over 100 years without a discrepancy between the total vote count and the result of the electoral college, and now we've seen it twice in the past five presidential elections. Both of those times we ended up with republicans who were nowhere near as intelligent or qualified as they believed themselves to be, and both those times we ended up with republicans who enthusiastically crapped all over the people who did not vote for them. Some "uniters", there
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
It appears you hit reply without reading the comment you were replying to
So I have provided a link back to it so you can easily try reading it. I highly encourage you to do so. Feel free to ask questions afterwards.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Nah, that Pelosi favored the wall in 2015. Quote is good, video is better.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It must be tough reading the minds of all those GOP folks all the time to determine that what they really think is the exact opposite of what they all said before, at the time and afterwards.
Feel free to turn down the hyperbole if you'd like to have a discussion here.
No mind reading is required, when we can look at what has been written by the Heritage Foundation and what has been written in various "ACA Replacement" bills that have been proposed by elected members of the GOP.
No democrat ever campaigned on writing a mandate into health care reform. Many democrats campaigned on making a single payer option a part of it, but the GOP members were very loud and clear about their opposition to anything resembling single payer. The Heritage Foundation showed they wanted a mandate, and many GOP members supported them. The mandate was written in to give the GOP something that it wanted out of the bill; if the GOP doesn't want the mandate then why haven't they dropped it from any of the proposed replacements they have suggested (and no, simply striking the bill down completely does not count as replacing it if nothing is offered in replacement)?
And if you look at any replacement plan that was proposed by an elected official, you will find they are well over 90% identical to the ACA. They might drop some of the least profitable parts (such as coverage for pre-existing conditions) but they retain the vast majority of the bill.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Trump should not cave into Chuck&Nancy who demand that they get all the funding they want for their pals in the government employees' unions, but he gets nothing for the primary thing he was elected to do..... because if he gives in on this then there's no end to the demands they'll make in the future? Since Chuch&Nancy disagree with him, they're TERRORISTS right????
See how that "Terrorism" thing works in a purely domestic political argument? (hint: it does NOT work, because political negotiations are NOT f***ing terrorism)
By YOUR stupid theory, nobody would ever negotiate any compromise with anybody over anything and we'd all be reduce to solving all political disagreements with gunfire.
All of his political opponents would be in jail and NBC and MSNBC would have been shutdown.
You TrumpDerangementSyndrome sufferers really need some meds.
You don't need Trump to sign the spending bill to end the government shutdown. They have this thing called a presidential veto proof super majority, where if enough (congress/senate) people vote for it the president can't stop the law going through.
If you LET illegals pay taxes there is no burden on the state (taxpayers).
That may be the case in some places, but not all...This has driven up the going rate for farm labor, which is now pushing $12/hr, sometimes going as high as $15/hr. The demand for labor and decent pay has brought in an influx of Mexican workers, and definitely not all of it them are legal.
When the demand for labor is outpacing the supply of labor, that's a good argument for increasing the number of visas we grant. I still think we have the same problem with hiring illegal immigrants. Even if they're earning the same hourly rate as legal workers, these employers will still prefer them for the lack of payroll taxes and other employment costs. The employees are still not paying into social security and have incentives to avoid reporting workplace abuse for fear of deportation.
But you're right in that I didn't touch upon the case where illegal immigrant labor is *not* competing against full benefit job position because the demand for it as high. Congress should certainly consider whether our current immigration limits might be too low and whether we need to raise them.
Why? Because they're hard working, they stay out of trouble, and they don't leave for greener pastures as soon as they see a potentially better option.
You don't see this is a problem? Have you asked yourself why someone wouldn't leave for a better opportunity when one presents itself (statistically speaking, that is. Of course individuals may be satisfied with what they have and lack ambition, but when you talk about an entire group of people as having that trait, you should look closer). Once you answer that question, you might ask yourself what those employers mean by hard working.
When I was an undergraduate at university, there was a group of graduate students under a South American professor known to work nights weekends, and basically not having a life outside of school. It was later found out he had a penchant for hiring people on student visas, and threaten them with revoking that visa if they didn't work hard enough. Could he do that? Of course not. They didn't know that. For the longest time no one reported him, because hey feared repercussions. They couldn't easily change advisors, like a US or permanent resident could. And their apparently hard-working nature wasn't a case of better work ethic than Americans, as it was a case of them thinking they didn't have the same labor protection as Americans.
Immigration, legal and illegal, is benefiting both our countries in this regard
I welcome hard working immigrants with open arms, and I see the benefits of even illegal immigration to our society just as you do. I agree with everything you've said. My problem is that I also see the danger of looking the other way to reap those benefits by allowing a labor black market. But sure, if we think we need to increase current immigration limits, let's do it.
Sure, you can take the free market approach of "if they're not profitable, let them die", but that's the same as saying, "I hate Mexicans so much I want to see both our countries poorer."
Well, I think if a business is not profitable because there's no market for it, it should die (or really, we should direct a pivot into a different field: I don't want the people owning those business to go bankrupt and for people to lose jobs, I want the market to shift into something different that works, and we can structure a system to help them do that). If a business is not profitable because the supply of labor is too low and current government regulations are keeping us from importing labor, that's a problem with the current regulations. We can fix that cheaply and easily.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
I had to wake up two hours early today, so I'm headed to bed rather than spending much time on this, but here's the first hit on Google. Pelosi in 2013 voted for the following bill:
"Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary [of Homeland Security] shall establish .â.â. the 'Southern Border Fencing Strategy' to identify where 700 miles of fencing (including double-layer fencing) .â.â. should be deployed along the Southern border. ... .â.â. [the Secretary submits] a written certification that .â.â. there is in place along the Southern Border no fewer than 700 miles of pedestrian fencing."
The Secretary may not adjust the status of aliens who have been granted registered provisional immigrant status until 6 months after
Pelosi stated at the time "every piece of this legislation has had bipartisan support".
Here's video of her saying that:
https://thehill.com/homenews/h...
That's just the first link that came up in my quick Google search. I'm sure there's much "juicier" quotes, but I'm headed to bed. Have a great night.
They can fight this once (now) and prove to Trump that government shutdowns don't work, or fight this every single time Trump wants something and throws a temper tantrum.
We're just coming to the point where the Republican Base loses their food stamps. Socialism looks a lot better when you can't feed your kids.
Listing Right Wing politicians who support your viewpoint doesn't prove your point. Judging by voting records, Clinton, Obama, Schumer and Pelosi are all Republicans (in everything but name).
Ps here is Obama's border chief talking for about four minutes about the change in rhetoric from the Democrat leadership. He points out that in 2014 the Democrat leadership was calling it a border crisis and saying we needed a wall. As you know, years later they did a 180.
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with either position. What I personally think wouldn't fit on a bumper sticker, or in a tweet. I do think it's worthwhile to know their positions.
https://insider.foxnews.com/20...
Sorry about medium - it just so happens that Obama's border chief made those comments on that particular channel. We can just listen to him and ignore Cavuto.
Ignoring the rest of this discussion, I just want to correct the assertion that the electoral college system is due to past difficulties tallying the results. It is not, it's a byproduct of the different states choosing to join the US. Many of those states may have opted not to join if they weren't given a fair and reasonable allocation to make an electoral impact.
The system recognises the historical standing of the states and should continue to honour that. It should not merely be necessary to convince a large mass of people in a few small areas to vote for you - the system is working as intended.
The democrats put forward a candidate that didn't have widespread respect in these many areas, and the party should have put forward a different candidate. Instead of just thinking about what's best for them in their little part of the world, voters should select for candidates that can garner widespread support across the nation.
How about telling the Navy to cancel a new ship? A single Ford class ship is $12 Billion (plus $2 Billion in repairs), more than enough for the first installment on the ($70 billion) wall.
Illegals pay (some) taxes but can't collect (most) benefits. They do jobs that would otherwise get offshored to Mexico or China. I don't see the drain. The evidence suggests illegals are a net benefit to America.
Maybe they just wanted to leave a visible impact of the shutdown, perhaps see other people hurt by it, while they're forced to suffering through this unpaid leave at no fault of their own, and for which they're powerless to stop.
I don't blame them for deliberately ensuring this would happen. I'm sure this is just the first of many such things that will break systems throughout the government.
Trump just wants to speed it up and finish it along the length of the border where no natural barrier exists in the course of his presidency. Previous administrations contributed to this barrier already, Democrats voted for it, they just have done it on a slower time table.
This is entirely about not giving Trump credit for a Bi-partisan initiative. That you don't understand and simply quote "democrat talking points post 2016" is not surprising, but it sure is dishonest.
If Trump really wanted to actually do anything, why in the world didn't he when R's controlled everything?
And I keep thinking of the easy problems to solve. Legalize drugs, and you kill the Cartels, generate tax revenue, everyone is happy. Every state or country that does it turns out fine and saves tons of money.
premature optimization? Do have enough paper towels to soak all that stuff up?
I included a link to the Heritage foundation refuting your statements. In contrast, all you've provided is your own bare assertions.
Dr. Rand Paul (elected official), has proposed a specific alternative bill or two (which won the support of Trump and most GOP members of Congress) which was not "over 90% identical to the ACA". Just the provision of using State-level block grants alone instead of Federal mandates removed the vast majority of the rules, regulations and restrictions within the ACA, not to mention the rest of the replacement. In the meantime, after McCain's betrayal, they've done what they can via the portions determined by executive order, which alone make up more than 10% of the ACA's original effect under Obama.
Once you're ready to start citing some facts (how about a link to the Heritage Foundation "plan" you say the ACA was based on?), then maybe come back.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
"Insufficient balance"
Really? You might want to scroll down to #4 and see what the border agents really thought before Trumpist revisionist history kicked in.
Broken link - Slashdot on mobile doesn't give a preview, a shame Slashdot is a lowbrow clickbait factory without anyone competent running it. Anyway, link here which was recently updated to delete the offending "The NBPC disagrees with wasting taxpayer money on building fences and walls along the border" (it does say that if policies aren't changed to combat illegal immigration properly, then wall and fences are needed)
Of course capitulating to him would encourage him to do the same thing again, not to mention setting a future precedent for other presidents with unpopular ideas.
This is the point. It's nothing to do with Democrats vs. Republicans, it's about setting precedents.
Of course Trump will use this as an excuse to divide the nation even more. That's his only real talent.
"You didn't get paid last month? Blame the Democrats!"
No sig today...
Read the Declaration of Independence and find out where our rights come from. It certainly was founded on religious beliefs.
Amazing. Almost nothing you said there was true.
America elected Trump
Actually, no. Fewer people voted for Trump than voted for Hillary, period. Even with a seemingly historic election we still had a rather appallingly low voter turnout in 2016 (less than 2/3 of eligible voters), hence more people who could have voted didn't bother voting than turned out to vote for Trump.
The number of votes may be accurate, but it's not relevant. Just like the football team that carries the ball the most yards does not win the game, Team Trump scored the most points. Arguing about which side played the game better is fine, but does not change who won. As Barack Obama said, "Elections have consequences." Perhaps next time Hillary needs to study the game better and campaign in areas where the voters are, instead of calling them a "basket of deplorables."
NVM, I was going to respond but TDS is a thing and sound like you need to see a therapist.
You don't get it - the "will of the people" doesn't matter for the Presidential election! That's the way the system was set up! It's the will of the regions that matter. Thus the reason there are two Senators per State, independent of population. Serious - drop the "will of the people" and "popular vote" thing because it's irrelevant. It's like talking about which team racked up more yards, when in the end all that matters is the score. Seriously, do you not respect the system? Will you not accept the results of the election?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You miss the point - again. It was a 100% Democrat bill. The GOP was ignored and excluded, even to the point of locking them out of conferences. The ACA had zero GOP content - because that was what the Democrats wanted. IF something was in there, it was solely at the whim of the Democrats, because they had a supermajority in the Senate and a majority in the House, and the Presidency.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
We should shut down the government over a minuscule amount of money (compared to federal budget) that democrats have supported because he said a stupid lie?
We should shut down the government over a minuscule amount of money (compared to federal budget) that democrats have supported because he said a stupid lie?
He had two full years with a Republican controlled congress to get the money- why didn't he get it then? The Democrats offer him 25 billion and he refused to accept it, so yeah, that ship has sailed.
Now he wants to bamboozle fucktard sycophants like you into giving him the money. Feel free to donate all you want.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Obama already started building a border wall (the project is still ongoing due to the eminent domain issues). The problem is that Trump didn't like Obama's wall (which is more like a fence), so he had to have his own. Trump's wall would made of reinforced concrete, 50 feet tall, 2000 miles long, paid for by Mexico in a one-time payment, and so on.
Of course whenever somebody calls him on how ridiculous it is, he starts talking about how The Wall is just a rhetorical device, and really it would be steel slats or something, and it would only cover the parts of the border that really need it. But at that point it's just a fence like Obama had.
The Wall concept is so malleable and amorphous that you can't really discuss it because every time you try to pin down what it really is, it changes.
So how about you define precisely what the wall is, then I can tell you how pointless it is because people will defeat it with tools, explosives, tunnels, drones, ropes, ladders, and so on? At that point you'll tell me that it also requires more border agents, sensor technology, and whatever. Then I'll tell you that if we just spent all the money we'd save by not building the wall on that other stuff you just mentioned, our borders would be far more secure. And then you know I'm right so your only defense will be to claim that I'm against The Wall, which means I must be Open Borders, and therefore don't want our country to be secure.
dom
When you say "popular" president, who are you referring to? The current president has an approval rating of 37% and disapproval of 57%.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Ironic how you call my numbers bad, when you don't have any better ones.
There ARE no better ones, because the wall has not been designed. The environment impact studies have not been done. Landowners have not been talked to about their property, other than vague statements that they might lose their land which have caused several to retain attorneys. We're at a very, very early stage in the process. We have no idea what the final cost is going to be but it's fair to say that a government building project covering thousands of miles - which still needs to be designed - and is going to force a lot of people to move, is not going to cap out at $5 billion. And there's nothing ironic about that.
This doesn't sound like a serious project, we're talking about funding the entire thing when it hasn't even been designed. This is a distraction. The NY Times finally started talking about Mueller again on Friday, but until that story broke this had replaced the coverage of Mueller. That's the purpose of the wall - to separate the American public from things that Trump doesn't want people talking about. Before he started rage-tweeting about the wall, what were we talking about? His lawyer being sentenced, the jail time and plea bargains other people were making, the new acting AG, etc.
Maintenance of a wall in the desert is basically nothing. There's no corrosion to speak of.
I live in the desert, how do you know maintenance will be nothing? It hasn't been designed yet.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
The NY Times broke a story on Friday about how the FBI opened a counter-intelligence investigation with Trump as the subject in May 2017, so now focus is returning to where it should be. If you look back at when Trump started rage-tweeting about the wall, the news was saturated with stories about Cohen being sentenced and his role, other plea bargains, the new acting AG, etc. All accounts at that time had Trump "furious" over news coverage. I think he manufactured this outrage campaign over the wall and the shutdown to change the focus, which he did, but I think that's starting to crumble and we're back to stories that matter for the country.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Canada has been a rotten neighbor ever since it became the goto country for fugitives to hide out in.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
So we should sell the nukes to the cartels to get the money back to build the wall?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Getting his funding in a separate bill achieves exactly what he wants, so why not? All they'd need to do is put the funding in a separate bill first.
That's still being truthful. I think you no longer understand the difference between a truth and a lie.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
A tantrum?
I don't think a faggot such as yourself is in a position to talk about tantrums.
The libtards havent stopped crying since their bitch lost. They even burn cites down they are in such a rage.
The democratic agenda is "Orange man bad". They have run on nothing else for 2 years now.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Seriously suck the beaner cock harder maybe the illegals will give you a reach around after they make you take it up the ass.
Don't forget whipping people and putting them in the stocks for celebrating Christmas and hanging people for adultery. There are so many fun practices the early colonials had. I think it would be fair rather than to pick and choose which of religious practices of Europeans and Colonials we want to base our society on we just don't do that at all. How about we go with the spirit of the Christ figures statement when he said "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and give unto the lord that which is the lords." It seems Christ advocated for a separation of church and state. When he turned over the tables in the temple he also advocated for separation of church and commerce. It is odd how many who claim to be his followers center so much of their lives and beliefs around the opposite.
History makes a lot more sense if the English packed the Mayflower full of all the interfering fucking paedophiles that they wanted to get rid of. Of course they would have wrapped themselves up in religious conservatism, they still do it now.
Getting his funding in a separate bill achieves exactly what he wants, so why not? All they'd need to do is put the funding in a separate bill first.
Except he has very plainly indicated that he will not sign the current bill unless it has the border wall money in it. Even if they promised it for a latter bill he would under his current threats and promises not sign the current budgetary proposal. Congress could potentially scrap or table the current budget and write up a new bill that is the border wall (and nothing but the border wall) but then he'd be going against what he has been saying for the past 4 weeks.
That's still being truthful.
For the reasons state above, it would not be.
I think you no longer understand the difference between a truth and a lie.
I understand just fine that the vast majority of what comes out of Trump's mouth and Trump's organizations is a lie.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Will you not accept the results of the election?
Why are you jumping to that conclusion? I never once said I don't accept the results. I will say that I think the electoral college is obsolete and should go away for future elections, however there is no choice but to accept the results of the 2016 election. It is interesting though how only one party prefers the system that subverts the way our nation actually votes.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
So you still haven't read my comment, then. Why are you hitting reply? The individual mandate was never something that any democrat ever expressed interest in including in reform. It came from the GOP and the Heritage Foundation; it was included because republicans said they could get behind a bill if it had that and it had no single payer option. Both of those requirements from the GOP were met and then they turned against it.
You can continue to attempt revisionist history if you want, but these are the simple facts. Why would the democrats have poisoned their own bill and provided something that was so much less than what they had campaigned to do?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
>why didn't he do it then?
I could give a couple guesses but it doesn't really matter because it would have needed the support of democrats to pass during that 2 years just like now.
>offered 25 billion
With other conditions that are not being discussed now so is irrelevant.
> that ship has sailed
Then we keep the government shutdown.
>bamboozle fucktard sychopants like you
I am still uncertain why the Democrats are shutting down the government and what principle they are upholding. All I can gather from them and you is that "fuck trump and fuck anyone that remotely defends him." Democrats are acting like children and you are acting like a deranged child.
>feel free to donate
Funny, there was a crowdsource to fund the wall. It got a lot of money in a very short order of time but short of the 1 billion goal. Yet, you and the democrats are willing to shutdown everything from an unprincipled position for a small amount of money because.... Orange man bad.
Funny, all the Border patrol agents say a wall would help.
No, Trump says all the Border patrol agents say that. But Trump has a very tenuous relationship with reality.
What CBP agents actually want depends on where they are stationed. Because each part of the border has its own problems. Some want more helicopters. Some need a road along the border. Almost all want more sensors and cameras.
And absolutely none want a massive concrete wall. Because that would mean they could not see through it to prepare for border crossings.
ot using a wall with everything else makes it harder to control illegal immigration
"Illegal Immigration" has not been this low since the 1970s. Without a wall. It's almost like someone is shoveling bullshit at you to get you scared so you vote for them.
Hillary won and Brexit didn't happen, right?
Both were within the margin of error. And I assume you know what a "margin of error" is...at least better than all the pundits who preemptively declared those victories.
I'd be interested in a citation for:
https://www.theatlantic.com/po...
The analysis in the article is shit, but the offer it covers was made.
GOP Senators have gone so far as to introduce a bill do wall funding plus DACA [thehill.com], but the Democratic leadership currently refuses to even discuss a compromise like that
Elections have consequences. Even the elections Republicans lose.
Since the 2018 election happened, deals that were on the table in 2017 are no longer on the table. That's why people who are actually good at negotiation take such deals before events overtake them.
Graham was referring to a White House offer last January
That offer was not made by Trump, and immediately condemned by Trump. Turns out the Trump White House is a tad inconsistent.
On the contrary; he's not even concerned about his his most loyal base is affected. Nearly all the local government workers I know affected by the shutdown are employees of the local government. They had no idea that fed subsidies went to states (especially my ultra red state, which would starve to death without those federal tax revenues), and then state grants went to local jurisdictions. There is a lot of confusion among those people, who simultaneously believe that they both don't deserve a paycheck and that food aid (which they have been on for decades) should be cut next. If they want to commit economic suicide, I think that is their right, but their children don't deserve to die with them.
One guarantee: children of Trump supporters today are going to be the hardcore socialists of tomorrow.
People keep perpetuating the myth because it's easier to swallow than the reality. $5B is essentially securing enough resources to get started on the wall. There are many Trump supporters that fully believe they've already started on it, when they're not even past the eminent domain land seizures yet. Most conservative estimates of the full price of the wall are around $250B after all is said and done, and it cannot be completed during Trump's presidency (assuming two terms), and likely not within his projected lifetime.
Solution for the non-mathematically challenged: Cut the military budget low enough to fund other services the people have demanded the government do. Bonus: We'll still have the most well funded military in the world, while still being able to afford single payer healthcare, a solvent SS, and a continuous budget surplus!
False. Much of Trump's base is already feeling the pain of the shutdown. They may not understand much of what's going on, but they notice when they don't get a paycheck and the food stamps they rely on to feed their families are next on the chopping block. Not all of them have financially solvent progressive family members to lean on either.
Again, a right winger who posted links that directly refute their stated claims. I would say this never gets tiring because it's so funny, but it seems more and more people are immune to facts. The real problem is that right wingers post links that directly and unequivocally refute their point, while pretending it proves it.
Except it is. Obama threatened to shut down the govt no fewer than 3 times (one of which actually took place) to get "whatever the hell" he wanted.
The first time was in 2011 when he pretty much wouldn't reduce spending: https://abcnews.go.com/Politic...
The second time was in 2013 on ACA: https://www.politifact.com/fac...
The third time was in 2015 on spending again: http://www.freedomworks.org/co...
So it is how Congress works, in these days of no-compromise.
As I said in another thread, Obama literally issued the same threat 3 distinct times (2011, 2013, 2015) when he wasn't getting what he wanted, one of which actually resulted in a shutdown. I don't see the difference, other than the fact you likely believe the wall isn't something worthy of drawing a line in the sand over (vs what Obama was fighting for): https://slashdot.org/comments....
I think Democrats have just come to the realization that any govt shutdown will always do more political harm to Republicans, so they refuse to compromise at all as a result.
The first time was in 2011
He wasn't waiting for the republicans to give in on something. He didn't want to sign a short-term measure because he wanted to pressure congress to come up with an actual spending bill instead of a long series of temporary ones that take the pressure off. It's called leadership.
The second time was in 2013 on ACA
This was over the republicans wanting to delay/defund obamacare (again). They tried to do this about a thousand times in various ways. Of course obama wasn't going to sign that.
The third time was in 2015 on spending again
Let's quote some less biased sources. This impasse was over the more conservative wing trying to defund planned parenthood.
Obama never refused to sign a spending bill because he wanted some wild pet project.
You do realize the difference between "wanting some wild pet project" and "funding government" is literally a matter of perspective and nothing more? To the conservatives, maybe ACA is the "wild pet project" and the wall is border security money that is being blocked? In the end, it's literally nothing more than a difference of opinion on where and how to spend money. The only variant here is that in 2011, Republicans wanted spending cuts to offset all the spending done in 2009-2010 that ran up the deficit, and Obama was insisting on unlimited debt ceiling hikes and more tax hikes instead so that he could continue to spend more. So you could effectively say he already got his pet projects when he controlled all 3 branches of govt. Then, he held the govt hostage in 2011 until the Republicans agreed to pay for it. "Compromise" and "reasonableness" is perspective only -- for instance, Obamacare will cost the taxpayers 1.34 trillion over the next decade per the CBO. Trump is asking for 5 billion, once, for a wall. Yet you seem to find it perfectly reasonable that Obama would hold the govt hostage to resist and all changes in ACA whereas Trump is not reasonable to defend his own campaign promise for far less cost to the people. And I might add the country was basically 50-50 on whether or not to include ACA mods in the 2011 budget (so it's not like Obama had overwhelming public support on his side either): http://www.people-press.org/20...
You do realize the difference between "wanting some wild pet project" and "funding government" is literally a matter of perspective and nothing more? To the conservatives, maybe ACA is the "wild pet project" and the wall is border security money that is being blocked? In the end, it's literally nothing more than a difference of opinion on where and how to spend money.
It's not just a difference of opinion, it's an objective difference in strategy. One undermines the traditional process and one doesn't. The ACA was a law passed by congress and signed by the president. Trump is shutting down the government to get something new as opposed to keep what was existing. That's really the crux of it. If he wants the wall he should get it passed in congress as part of a border security bill (the ACA was its own bill entirely). Republicans had control of the house, senate, and president just like democrats when they passed the ACA. Are you saying every law should be up for debate and re-passed every year when the funding is due? If you thought congress couldn't get anything done now...
The only variant here is that in 2011, Republicans wanted spending cuts to offset all the spending done in 2009-2010 that ran up the deficit, and Obama was insisting on unlimited debt ceiling hikes and more tax hikes instead so that he could continue to spend more. So you could effectively say he already got his pet projects when he controlled all 3 branches of govt. Then, he held the govt hostage in 2011 until the Republicans agreed to pay for it.
I'll assume you meant 2013 since in 2011 they just wanted short term spending bills. In 2013 they wanted to repeal the ACA entirely on principle. The CBO at the time was predicting deficit reductions from the ACA. Regardless, republicans never actually care about the deficit unless it happens to help their current argument. See the recent tax breaks and military spending increases.
"Compromise" and "reasonableness" is perspective only -- for instance, Obamacare will cost the taxpayers 1.34 trillion over the next decade per the CBO.
Source? I think you're off by a trillion or so.
Trump is asking for 5 billion, once, for a wall. Yet you seem to find it perfectly reasonable that Obama would hold the govt hostage to resist and all changes in ACA whereas Trump is not reasonable to defend his own campaign promise for far less cost to the people.
You can't compare obama defending the ACA to trump asking for a wall. It's objectively unreasonable to expect obama to just let the law die after such a hard win. Trump only won an election. Getting what you want is actually harder than that.
According to that article, as well as others, Schumer did offer to authorize the funding, but to only appropriate 1.6B (if you believe the White House budget director on the record about the meeting), in which case we'd still be in this exact same place where they are gridlocked over appropriations for a wall.
Does make one wonder why Schumer is so opposed to a wall now, if he was apparently fine with it before.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Schumer did offer to authorize the funding, but to only appropriate 1.6B [...] n which case we'd still be in this exact same place where they are gridlocked over appropriations for a wall.
That's a detail of how funding a large project such as this would work. You can't build it in a year, so you appropriate it over several years. If you'd like another example, take a gander at the F-35's funding.
Does make one wonder why Schumer is so opposed to a wall now, if he was apparently fine with it before.
Already covered that. Elections have consequences. Even the ones Republicans lose.
The Democrats are in a much stronger position in 2019 than they were in 2017. Especially since all appropriations bills must originate in the House. So things they don't like but had to offer in a 2017 negotiation no longer have to be offered.
With Trump's favorability dropping over the shutdown and Pelosi's climbing, there is even less incentive for the Democrats to fold.
IOW, the Republicans and Trump invented a fake crisis, want billions to "fix" it, and aren't currently in the political position to actually get those billions, and their "YOU GOTTA DO WHAT I SAY!!" strategy isn't working with the electorate. There's a few ways Trump could save face here, but there's no reason for the Democrats to save Trump's image and even less reason for the Republicans in Congress to save Trump's image.
Why do you feel this is "different"? To me, "grandfathered" policies should be treated no different than newly proposed ones. For instance, hypothetically what if the Republicans grabbed ahold of all 3 branches of govt and passes some new trillion dollar a year boondoggle defense program that drove up the deficit. Voters rebel and vote Blue Dog democrats into office who are concerned about spending. Are you saying that if the Republicans refused to budge an inch on reducing any spending in that massive program, Democrats would be in the wrong not to threaten a shutdown over it? I mean the Dems pretty much threatened a shutdown over the Bush tax cuts (with insistence on not cutting the highest marginal tax rate, which increased from 35% to 39.6%). Those tax cuts were "existing policy." I just don't see the difference.
I believe every law should be fair game every change of government at minimum. Otherwise, what's to stop someone from doing exactly what Obama did with ACA by just passing whatever he wants with zero support from the minority party? What are opposition politicians supposed to do then? Just accept it for eternity?
No, I meant 2011. I even remember the back and forth debates over how much taxes should be hiked vs how much spending cuts should be present (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt-ceiling_crisis_of_2011#proposed_resolutions). The gist of it is that Obama flat out refused to pass a budget that didn't include new revenue, insisting that the deficit must be tackled be a "balanced" approach. This was at least mildly insulting to Republicans after just watching the Democrats skyrocket federal outlays 700 billion between 2009 and 2011 (primarily via TARP and the stimulus program...and that's ignoring ACA, most of which didn't have significant spending measures kick in until nearly 5 years later, by design). Obama also refused to accept a short-term deal. Though in that instance, it was holding a US debt default hostage, rather than a govt shutdown. Same basic premise though: the two sides couldn't come to a compromise agreement and Obama dug his heels in on those two key issues (the Republicans caved on the other hand, since their original sticking point was "all spending cuts with no new revenue").
Is Time acceptable? http://time.com/money/4271224/... You're making the same mistake everyone does by conflating cost/spending with budget deficit. ACA will add little to the deficit due to the fact it lumped in a ton of taxes and revenue increases into the bill to offset the spending. However, it will cost 1+ trillion over the next decade. Just because someone passes a law that lumps in revenue increases to offset the spending of said law does not make it "free" to taxpayers. Just because payroll taxes cover Social Security for instance doesn't mean we're not spending/losing that money from our paychecks. Similarly with ACA, we're still spending a shit ton of money every year. We just don't see it in the annual federal budget numbers. The wall on the other hand is a fixed cost, and a low one at that.
With other conditions that are not being discussed now so is irrelevant.
> that ship has sailed
Then we keep the government shutdown.
>bamboozle fucktard sychopants like you
I am still uncertain why the Democrats are shutting down the government
LOL, first you say "we" keep the government shutdown, then you pivot and blame it on the Democrats. Cute, but face it- Trump owns this shutdown all the way- he even said so in the Oval Office. So yeah, it's his (and apparently yours, too).
Orange man bad.
I agree, thank you for confirming it.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
It takes two to make a fight. Both are to blame for a car crash if they play a game of chicken even if one pushes the gas first.
I don't understand why the democrats are fighting so hard over something so small.
To me, "grandfathered" policies should be treated no different than newly proposed ones.
What? I'm starting to suspect you're just trolling now. These "grandfathered" policies are otherwise known as "laws". You did take civics class in high school right?
For instance, hypothetically what if the Republicans grabbed ahold of all 3 branches of govt and passes some new trillion dollar a year boondoggle defense program that drove up the deficit.
That's not hypothetical. It happens every time they control 3 branches of government.
Voters rebel and vote Blue Dog democrats into office who are concerned about spending. Are you saying that if the Republicans refused to budge an inch on reducing any spending in that massive program, Democrats would be in the wrong not to threaten a shutdown over it?
Democrats would be in the wrong to shut down the government over that. It's why they didn't when it literally happened.
I mean the Dems pretty much threatened a shutdown over the Bush tax cuts (with insistence on not cutting the highest marginal tax rate, which increased from 35% to 39.6%). Those tax cuts were "existing policy." I just don't see the difference.
I assume by "pretty much threaten" you mean they didn't actually do anything, but if they did shut down the government after the Bush tax cuts were already law then yes I'd agree they were wrong.
I believe every law should be fair game every change of government at minimum.
That answers my first question.
Otherwise, what's to stop someone from doing exactly what Obama did with ACA by just passing whatever he wants with zero support from the minority party?
Voters. Voters decide who's majority or minority.
What are opposition politicians supposed to do then? Just accept it for eternity?
If they're out of power for eternity then yes, but ideally they would wait and pass a new law that repeals the old one when they get power again.
You're making the same mistake everyone does by conflating cost/spending with budget deficit. ACA will add little to the deficit due to the fact it lumped in a ton of taxes and revenue increases into the bill to offset the spending. However, it will cost 1+ trillion over the next decade. Just because someone passes a law that lumps in revenue increases to offset the spending of said law does not make it "free" to taxpayers. Just because payroll taxes cover Social Security for instance doesn't mean we're not spending/losing that money from our paychecks.
I see your point here. I think I'm just conditioned to hearing conservatives blame the national debt on democrats. As much as conservatives scream about tax and spend democrats at least they do the taxing as well as the spending. The republicans are fine with running up the deficit. That's kind of off topic though.
The wall on the other hand is a fixed cost, and a low one at that.
Not going to argue with that. My original post pointed out that democrats should trade the wall for other "fixed but low cost" programs.
Obama's win was more a mandate against the former administration moreso than for his own. A large chunk of voters were voting against the former republican neocons who also added to the deficit rather than for Obama's policies. The assumption of a "mandate" in support of his policies was misplaced. Both ACA (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/26/newt-gingrich/obamacare-has-never-been-favored-majority-american/) and single payer (https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/may/14/ralph-nader/70-years-most-americans-have-supported-single-paye/) did not have broad support from Americans. But Obama forced through the unpopular bill anyway because he wanted the political
The job recovery began long before Trump was even a serious contender for the Republican nomination.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It takes two to make a fight.
You've never been married, have you?
I don't understand why the democrats are fighting so hard over something so small.
And I don't understand why the president is such a narcissistic moron who lies with every breath.
Famous Trump Quotes:
"I know more than all the generals." WRONG.
"Healthcare is so easy to fix." WRONG.
"I know more than the greatest CPA." WRONG.
“No one respects women more than me.” OH PLEASE
“No one reads the Bible more than me.” WRONG’
“Nobody knows politicians better than me.”
“I have studied the Iran deal in great detail, greater by far than anyone else.” WRONG
"If she wasn't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her." EWWWWWW."
“Mexico will pay for the wall, believe me.” WRONG.
"I will release my taxes after the election.” WRONG.
"We had the largest inauguration crowd in history." WRONG.
“Everyone will have better healthcare at fraction of the cost.” WRONG.
“Global warming is a hoax invented by the Chinese.” WRONG.
“I am the least racist person you’ve ever met.” WRONG.
“I can be more presidential than anybody.” LOL NO.
"The tax cuts will affect me and the wealthy tremendously.” WRONG.
"If I would have been there I would have run inside the school and stop the shooter.” WRONG.
“And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.” EWWWWWW.
“I always wanted to get the Purple Heart. This was much easier.” DRAFT DODGER SAYS WHAT?
“There’s nobody that’s done so much for equality as I have.” WRONG.
“Nobody has been tougher on Russia than I have.” WRONG.
“Nobody loves the Bible more than I do.” WRONG.
“With the exception of the late, great Abraham Lincoln, I can be more presidential than any president that’s ever held this office.” WRONG.
March 2018 “Trade wars are good, and easy to win.”
April 2018: “We’ve already lost the trade war.”
“I have a very good brain and I've said a lot of things." OH FFS
“Nobody does self-deprecating humor better than I do.” WHAT? WRONG WRONG
"I know tech better than anyone" NO YOU DON'T
"I know more about drones than anybody." NOPE.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
You've never been married, have you?
When your wife starts in on you, do you escalate, hold firm, and make her more angry by stubborn opposition? That doesn't sound like a good idea for anyone married. I think your example highlights my point. Even if your spouse starts the fight (starts the game of chicken), sometimes its better to bite the tongue and move along (not accelerating toward a car crash). Then there isn't a big fight that blows out of proportion and then complaints from 10 years ago are brought up, your sleeping on the couch, angry unable to sleep and exhausted for work the next day (the car crash) wondering how a few dirty dishes caused all this. It takes two to fight.
I don't understand why the president is such a narcissistic moron who lies with every breath
That's his personality and has always been that way? That isn't hard to explain especially if you look at him before he entered politics. Not sure what isn't to understand.
When your wife starts in on you, do you escalate, hold firm, and make her more angry by stubborn opposition? That doesn't sound like a good idea for anyone married
Why not? It worked for Trump. Make her angry enough, he divorces her, look for a younger model!
The guy has had like what, four marriages? He knows about this more than most of us!
Maybe that's Trump's long term plan. Trump actually doesn't care about the wall (or the government, or country and its people). What he really wants is to get rid of the older politicians he doesn't like, to replace with younger ones who are much more obedient to him.
When your wife starts in on you,
You're either missing the point or are being disingenuous. Either way, I'm not going to waste my time trying to un-brainwash you.
It takes two to fight.
No, it doesn't.
So it looks like I was right- you've never been married. Call me back after your first couple of marriages go south and I'll be glad to accept your admission that I was, in fact, correct.
That's his personality and has always been that way?
Is that the kind of dysfunctional asshole you want for a president? Really? SMH.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
lol, yes i am just a brainwashed incel. What does that make you? A big brain IQ alpha that's married to the queen of england. posh posh posh.
>>Is that the kind of dysfunctional asshole you want for a president?
It doesn't matter what I want. He was duly elected.
The only thing people get from knowing a post was made by "Zero__Kelvin" is the assurance that what they just read was posted by a fucking idiot manchild with the most serious case of Asperger’s syndrome Slashdot has ever seen. In you had any brains you'd post anonymously, but for you it's all about ego.
lol, yes i am just a brainwashed incel. What does that make you? A big brain IQ alpha that's married to the queen of england. posh posh
I'm a happily-married guy who knows a thing or two because I've seen a thing or two. I don't claim to have a big brain, but it's done pretty well for me so far. For example, it helps me spot the kind of numbnuts who blindly support authoritarian assholes and wanna-be dictators. Yes, I'm referring to Trump. I don't mean to be condescending*, but I suspect your support for him is based on an inability to think critically and face facts regardless of how they conflict with your worldview. .
Is that the kind of dysfunctional asshole you want for a president?
It doesn't matter what I want. He was duly elected.
See, and that's where you run off the rails. First of all even if he was duly elected, that is not a reason to support him (or anybody, for that matter). Not to Godwin the discussion, but Hitler was duly elected. So was Nixon. Neither of them deserved support.
Second, it's not clear if Trump was, in fact, "duly elected". Personally I have some strong doubts that he was elected legitimately and without outside interference. But even if he was, so what? If a leader is an ignorant dick and an idiot, why support him or her? That's the blind sheeplike follower mentality that allows dictators and tyrants to flourish. And they love people like you.
Finally, saying "It doesn't matter what I want" is a mind-bendingly foolish thing to say. Of course it matters, that's what this is all about. Only a fool thinks it doesn't matter what they want. From deciding on dinner to picking a world leader, it definitely matters. You may not get what you want, but it still matters.
.
* That means "talking down to someone".
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
>> I suspect your support for him is based on an inability to think critically and face facts regardless of how they conflict with your worldview.
Projecting much. I think it's funny you say this when this conversation started with asking simple questions and stating simple facts. Can't have that now can we. How dare someone question the hive mind!
>> it's not clear if Trump was, in fact, "duly elected"
Yes it is. I suspect your partisan narrative is based on an inability to think critically and face facts regardless of how they conflict with your worldview.
>You may not get what you want, but it still matters.
Other people can get what they want. I'll wait for the one time it actually matters instead of buying into lies like the recent Buzzfeed "bombshell" that they refuse to retract despite Mueller saying it's bullshit.
"If it's what you say it is, I love it."
What's amazing is that the same people who saw a conspiracy in everything the Clintons and Obama did refuse to connect far more evidence-based dots in Trump's case. No matter what happens, it's always "fake news" or "nothing to see" or "But Hillary and Obama..."
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I seem to recall a "we want to talk about the shutdown, but stop the shutdown first and we're not giving you any wall money" speech, so neither side is particularly interested in talking.
They both need to go.
There really isn't a middle ground.
That's what gets us into these messes. In your world, either you actively despise everything Trump touches, or you completely love him.
That's a nice strawman. Was that intentional, or did you just not read this thread at all?
The GGP posted a list of factually incorrect statements, all right wing talking points, then said he "wasn't taking sides". My "not a middle ground" was between "not knowing enough to speak on the topic" and "taking the side of Trump". I was being somewhat generous there, because when all your statements are factually wrong talking points from one side, it's pretty clear that you have indeed taken a side. On the off chance that he really hadn't picked that side, I offered an out of ignorance.
Facts are facts. There isn't a middle ground on them. If you think there is, you're part of the problem.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor