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.
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?
If that AC is not paying attention then you can't do simple math. At best you can say "Trump supports 50% border wall". Only one question was asked regarding the full length and not whether he would do the full length border wall but whether how, which is a non-question just as he gave a non-answer.
Here are the quotes from that article. The first one refutes the claim he supports 100%:
"You don’t need a wall for the entire piece because we have wonderful people," "Reporter: How are you going to build a 1,900-mile wall? Trump: Very easy. I’m a builder. That’s easy. " "Here, we actually need 1,000 " "In our case, we need really 1,000 miles" "It’s 2,000 miles, but we need 1,000" " So the wall. The wall’s never meant to be 2,100 miles long. "
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.
Walls are effective. Plenty of evidence of their efficacy. Walls are not immoral. "You don't build walls because you hate people outside but because you love the people inside.". Large supply of low skill workers hurt the poorest in our nation. The governments responsibility is to the citizens first and foremost not citizens of other nations that cannot fix their own country and economy. The shutdown will cost more than 5.7. The democrats have spent more on identical policy.
So what would be is a rational argument against?
Ecological.
So what's your rational, defensible arguments against me doing those things?
You are bringing up violence to a political discussion. Maybe you don't see a problem with that and that is your own personal deficiency as a person but I and most others do. Might doesn't make right and your "non" threats of violence are pathetic and abhorrent.
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.
10 Democrats what? The Republicans had a clear Senate majority, as well as the tie-breaking vote. The bill could have been passed without a single Democrat voting for it
You are misunderstanding how the Senate operates. You need 2/3s to pass budgets. The only way a simple majority would have happened is if the republicans "used the nuclear option" and changed the Senate rules to be simple majority. That assumes the nuclear option would have been passed by Republicans. But the problem with using "the nuclear option" is that would have more devastating consequences than a shutdown further down the road. Remember, the democrats used the nuclear option for judicial appointments and now regret it.
it's GOP vs Dems, when really it's Trump vs an alliance of part of the GOP & the Dems.
No, if you look at media presentation, which is I was alluding to with narrative, it would be portrayed as GOP v Trump instead of what it is now Trump vs Democrats. Any budget Trump would want would require some kind of Democrat support even if all the GOP was on board. When the media portrays it as "Trump v GOP" they are giving the Democrats that are obstructing a pass on their responsibilities.
I still don't think the Democrats would want to fund this boondoggle of a wall
Every single democratic leader has already supported the exact same thing. It isn't the wall because Democrats have supported it before and the border patrol want it. It isn't the money because the shutdown is going to cost more. This is what I don't understand. What is their principles behind this if they have supported it before and are willing to spend more money. Just to spite Trump? I understand Trumps position even if I don't like it. He's trying to keep a promise and being stubborn. Democrats? Never Trump isn't a good position to govern.
If someone threatens to burn your house down unless you give them money,
This is the bigger bullshit. Doing something that has been done before, is requested by the people doing the work, costs less then the actual shutdown, and was promised is not "threatening to burn your house down". Or did democrats burn down the house by doing the exact same thing?
Ignoring politics,
You are an idiot because this is pure politics. As pure as it gets when you have equal opposition.
he wants is worth the consequences.
And the democrats rejecting anything associated with Trump keeping a promise that they have supported before has consequences. 10 democrats in the Senate in December could have avoided all of this. They don't get any blame because???
Democrats to agree to one on anything approaching reasonable terms.
What is their position beyond "Never Trump"? What are they actually negotiating and compromising on? What are their principles? They have supported a wall before with more money, willing to cost more then what is requested, ignore the border agents requesting this, and are not acting in good faith. What reasonable terms have the democrats proposed? "End this now and we will "talk about this" politically means "we talk but nothing will happen" is bad faith negotiation.
Democrats own this too just as much as Trump. Maybe more because this could have been avoided if 10 democrats in the Senate were willing to compromise in December.
Great, he lied/changed definition about funding. Two promises made: "Build a wall and Mexico will pay" Better to break both promises because you can't keep one?
Trump was a Democrat because he doesn't really have a political philosophy.
I could probably agree with that. It's why Republicans are generally wary of him and get a little nervous.
When the opportunity arose to hijack the Republican Party, he took it.
Now your going off the rails. Many Republicans were very angry at media and the establishment and after the love-affair with Obama it was enough for many to say "Fuck it. Throw in a political grenade and fuck the entire establishment.".
Trump was the hand grenade that shook everything up in politics. That isn't "hijacking" that is people desperate and angry.
Why did Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell want to prevent him from getting that key campaign promise through?
Couple things. Paul Ryan delivered on the $5.7 but the Senate didn't have enough votes (10 democrats).
From an optics or political maneuvering point of new, Ryan and McConnell knew they had flakey Republicans like Flake that would drag out or even scuttle any negotiation on this issue because of GOP never Trumpers. Democrats were fortified in their opposition. If a shutdown had happened before the election the media would have made it out to be "GOP v Trump". The GOP would take all the blame while democrats sit back and watch the GOP destroy themselves over a minuscule non-controversial thing because Trump was such a slap in the face to Democrats and Republicans. That isn't an accurate picture because the last congress would require democrat support but that wouldn't be the narrative "Trump fights his own party and is really unpopular everyone hates him and he is crazy".
By waiting till after the election (especially after losing the House) McConnell, Trump, and Ryan have made the division in government clear. It isn't GOP v Trump. It's Democrats v Trump and the democrats are not acting based on principle but rather "Never Trump".
The republicans had two years of full control and couldn't get this thing passed. This is nothing more than an 11th hour stunt.
Set your bias aside for a second.
The Republicans were barely able to pass legislation generally favorable to Republicans because of Senate rules regarding budgets. There is only so much political capital that can be used during that time with Senators like Flake that flake. Just like Democrats passing only the ACA instead of the myriad of things they want during the 2 years they had a 2/3s majority in the Senate and House. They had 60 votes to pass anything they wanted and only were able to pass a handful of a things just like now.
This could have been avoided by 10 democrats in the senate from the last congress.
Yes, the Republicans are late on this. But it highlights the differences. Democrats are not digging in based on principle. It isn't the money. It isn't the wall. It isn't the time. It is because they hate trump to the point that he cannot have any kind of "win" regardless who it hurts. That is different from other shutdowns.
Trump is being stubborn trying to keep a promise late. Yes it is late I agree it should have been done earlier but we still would have had this fight and the media would have portrayed it as GOP fighting Trump instead of the real issue of Democrats fighting Trump.
The republican house approved a version that Trump would sign but it never made it to the Senate vote because there were not enough votes from Democrats.
Trump was a democrat for most of his life but democrats have moved farther to the left and have become more radical over time.
A shutdown is the only leverage he has as president. Sure, he owns it but it's also congress because they control the purse. Democrats could easily end this just as much as Trump. Who is acting from a position of principle?
When two cars are playing chicken both are at fault when they crash not just the one who accelerated first.
In some areas, a barrier does make sense - and we have a barrier already built along much of the southern border.
And if he people that patrol that border request additional funding for physical barriers to help them enforce our laws?
Yes, we have walls already on the border making this entire shutdown retarded. If the people enforcing the law that patrol the border say "we need more wall" why is it contentious to give them more wall?
We all know why. It isn't the wall. It isn't the money. It's because Democrats hate Trump to such a degree that nothing else matters.
I don't think the republicans would have been able to pass what they wanted when they were in control (barely) for a wall when other things were so contentious and drawn out.
Trump promised a wall. He is trying to deliver, albeit late I'll grant. Democrats have supported walls before, are willing to cost more in shutdown costs than the 5.7, and are willing to ignore the expert advice on the people who actually enforce immigration law on the border.
This whole thing is because democrats refuse to give anything to Trump even if they have supported it before. They are not acting in good faith. They are not acting from a position of principle (I could at least understand). Trump is being a stubborn idiot but everyone knows this.
Between someone trying to keep a late promise being stubborn and someone that is unprincipled against anything Trump. I think the unprincipled NeverTrump is acting more like a child.
There are reasons not to support the wall "in-effective, immoral, expensive, and Never Trump" are not rational defensible arguments.
TPP was in part to address the trade deal with China as it meant to isolate and contain the Chinese. Obama was more passive aggressive. IOW, creating a favorable economic relationship with China has been the goal of many past administrations. One my say, status quo.
Comparing a trade war to "someone beats you up" is hyperbolic and you know it. There is no violence and both parties are working together reasonably and civilly despite disagreements and other issues.
"how civilized people do negotiations." Yea, better to be passive aggressive and dishonest in your intentions than to state the issue forwardly./s Besides, "how civilized people do negotiations" isn't addressing the point that trade relations and negotiation are common and mundane.
Civilized people used to march in lines and stand in front of guns to fight wars. Civilized people used enslaved others for their own good. "how civilized people do things" is a flowery wording of "jump on the band wagon I am on because I'm better than you". It means nothing. Civilized people lose to barbarians because a barbarian knows how stupid "civilized" people can be.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
I agree.
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?
If that AC is not paying attention then you can't do simple math. At best you can say "Trump supports 50% border wall". Only one question was asked regarding the full length and not whether he would do the full length border wall but whether how, which is a non-question just as he gave a non-answer.
Here are the quotes from that article. The first one refutes the claim he supports 100%:
"You don’t need a wall for the entire piece because we have wonderful people,"
"Reporter: How are you going to build a 1,900-mile wall?
Trump: Very easy. I’m a builder. That’s easy. "
"Here, we actually need 1,000 "
"In our case, we need really 1,000 miles"
"It’s 2,000 miles, but we need 1,000"
" So the wall. The wall’s never meant to be 2,100 miles long. "
Then let's listen to the people that actually do the border control stuff. How about someone from the Obama administration?
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.
The people patrolling the border say they need more physical barriers.
Democrats have already supported identical and more costly policy. Why is now different?
Walls are effective. Plenty of evidence of their efficacy.
Walls are not immoral. "You don't build walls because you hate people outside but because you love the people inside.". Large supply of low skill workers hurt the poorest in our nation. The governments responsibility is to the citizens first and foremost not citizens of other nations that cannot fix their own country and economy.
The shutdown will cost more than 5.7. The democrats have spent more on identical policy.
So what would be is a rational argument against?
Ecological.
So what's your rational, defensible arguments against me doing those things?
You are bringing up violence to a political discussion. Maybe you don't see a problem with that and that is your own personal deficiency as a person but I and most others do. Might doesn't make right and your "non" threats of violence are pathetic and abhorrent.
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.
10 Democrats what? The Republicans had a clear Senate majority, as well as the tie-breaking vote. The bill could have been passed without a single Democrat voting for it
You are misunderstanding how the Senate operates. You need 2/3s to pass budgets. The only way a simple majority would have happened is if the republicans "used the nuclear option" and changed the Senate rules to be simple majority. That assumes the nuclear option would have been passed by Republicans. But the problem with using "the nuclear option" is that would have more devastating consequences than a shutdown further down the road. Remember, the democrats used the nuclear option for judicial appointments and now regret it.
it's GOP vs Dems, when really it's Trump vs an alliance of part of the GOP & the Dems.
No, if you look at media presentation, which is I was alluding to with narrative, it would be portrayed as GOP v Trump instead of what it is now Trump vs Democrats. Any budget Trump would want would require some kind of Democrat support even if all the GOP was on board. When the media portrays it as "Trump v GOP" they are giving the Democrats that are obstructing a pass on their responsibilities.
I still don't think the Democrats would want to fund this boondoggle of a wall
Every single democratic leader has already supported the exact same thing. It isn't the wall because Democrats have supported it before and the border patrol want it. It isn't the money because the shutdown is going to cost more. This is what I don't understand. What is their principles behind this if they have supported it before and are willing to spend more money. Just to spite Trump? I understand Trumps position even if I don't like it. He's trying to keep a promise and being stubborn. Democrats? Never Trump isn't a good position to govern.
If someone threatens to burn your house down unless you give them money,
This is the bigger bullshit. Doing something that has been done before, is requested by the people doing the work, costs less then the actual shutdown, and was promised is not "threatening to burn your house down". Or did democrats burn down the house by doing the exact same thing?
Ignoring politics,
You are an idiot because this is pure politics. As pure as it gets when you have equal opposition.
he wants is worth the consequences.
And the democrats rejecting anything associated with Trump keeping a promise that they have supported before has consequences. 10 democrats in the Senate in December could have avoided all of this. They don't get any blame because???
Democrats to agree to one on anything approaching reasonable terms.
What is their position beyond "Never Trump"? What are they actually negotiating and compromising on? What are their principles? They have supported a wall before with more money, willing to cost more then what is requested, ignore the border agents requesting this, and are not acting in good faith. What reasonable terms have the democrats proposed? "End this now and we will "talk about this" politically means "we talk but nothing will happen" is bad faith negotiation.
Democrats own this too just as much as Trump. Maybe more because this could have been avoided if 10 democrats in the Senate were willing to compromise in December.
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.
Great, he lied/changed definition about funding. Two promises made: "Build a wall and Mexico will pay" Better to break both promises because you can't keep one?
Or he realized he would never get elected as a democrat.
Maybe he understood how deep the loyalty and corruption was for Clinton.
Trump was a Democrat because he doesn't really have a political philosophy.
I could probably agree with that. It's why Republicans are generally wary of him and get a little nervous.
When the opportunity arose to hijack the Republican Party, he took it.
Now your going off the rails. Many Republicans were very angry at media and the establishment and after the love-affair with Obama it was enough for many to say "Fuck it. Throw in a political grenade and fuck the entire establishment.".
Trump was the hand grenade that shook everything up in politics. That isn't "hijacking" that is people desperate and angry.
Why did Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell want to prevent him from getting that key campaign promise through?
Couple things. Paul Ryan delivered on the $5.7 but the Senate didn't have enough votes (10 democrats).
From an optics or political maneuvering point of new, Ryan and McConnell knew they had flakey Republicans like Flake that would drag out or even scuttle any negotiation on this issue because of GOP never Trumpers. Democrats were fortified in their opposition. If a shutdown had happened before the election the media would have made it out to be "GOP v Trump". The GOP would take all the blame while democrats sit back and watch the GOP destroy themselves over a minuscule non-controversial thing because Trump was such a slap in the face to Democrats and Republicans. That isn't an accurate picture because the last congress would require democrat support but that wouldn't be the narrative "Trump fights his own party and is really unpopular everyone hates him and he is crazy".
By waiting till after the election (especially after losing the House) McConnell, Trump, and Ryan have made the division in government clear. It isn't GOP v Trump. It's Democrats v Trump and the democrats are not acting based on principle but rather "Never Trump".
Good job he told a lie about Mexico paying. Is that really worth shutting down the government because the more important part of that promise is kept?
The GOP in December gave Trump what he wanted. 10 democrats in the Senate could have avoided this shutdown entirely.
The republicans had two years of full control and couldn't get this thing passed. This is nothing more than an 11th hour stunt.
Set your bias aside for a second.
The Republicans were barely able to pass legislation generally favorable to Republicans because of Senate rules regarding budgets. There is only so much political capital that can be used during that time with Senators like Flake that flake. Just like Democrats passing only the ACA instead of the myriad of things they want during the 2 years they had a 2/3s majority in the Senate and House. They had 60 votes to pass anything they wanted and only were able to pass a handful of a things just like now.
This could have been avoided by 10 democrats in the senate from the last congress.
Yes, the Republicans are late on this. But it highlights the differences. Democrats are not digging in based on principle. It isn't the money. It isn't the wall. It isn't the time. It is because they hate trump to the point that he cannot have any kind of "win" regardless who it hurts. That is different from other shutdowns.
Trump is being stubborn trying to keep a promise late. Yes it is late I agree it should have been done earlier but we still would have had this fight and the media would have portrayed it as GOP fighting Trump instead of the real issue of Democrats fighting Trump.
What about the democrats in the senate that could have avoided all of this?
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...
The republican house approved a version that Trump would sign but it never made it to the Senate vote because there were not enough votes from Democrats.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...
Trump was a democrat for most of his life but democrats have moved farther to the left and have become more radical over time.
A shutdown is the only leverage he has as president. Sure, he owns it but it's also congress because they control the purse. Democrats could easily end this just as much as Trump. Who is acting from a position of principle?
When two cars are playing chicken both are at fault when they crash not just the one who accelerated first.
In some areas, a barrier does make sense - and we have a barrier already built along much of the southern border.
And if he people that patrol that border request additional funding for physical barriers to help them enforce our laws?
Yes, we have walls already on the border making this entire shutdown retarded. If the people enforcing the law that patrol the border say "we need more wall" why is it contentious to give them more wall?
We all know why. It isn't the wall. It isn't the money. It's because Democrats hate Trump to such a degree that nothing else matters.
I don't think the republicans would have been able to pass what they wanted when they were in control (barely) for a wall when other things were so contentious and drawn out.
Trump promised a wall. He is trying to deliver, albeit late I'll grant.
Democrats have supported walls before, are willing to cost more in shutdown costs than the 5.7, and are willing to ignore the expert advice on the people who actually enforce immigration law on the border.
This whole thing is because democrats refuse to give anything to Trump even if they have supported it before. They are not acting in good faith. They are not acting from a position of principle (I could at least understand). Trump is being a stubborn idiot but everyone knows this.
Between someone trying to keep a late promise being stubborn and someone that is unprincipled against anything Trump. I think the unprincipled NeverTrump is acting more like a child.
There are reasons not to support the wall "in-effective, immoral, expensive, and Never Trump" are not rational defensible arguments.
Not separating the words "hockey" and "stick" tells me you are not serious about drinking...
tsk. tsk.
TPP was in part to address the trade deal with China as it meant to isolate and contain the Chinese. Obama was more passive aggressive. IOW, creating a favorable economic relationship with China has been the goal of many past administrations. One my say, status quo.
Comparing a trade war to "someone beats you up" is hyperbolic and you know it. There is no violence and both parties are working together reasonably and civilly despite disagreements and other issues.
"how civilized people do negotiations." Yea, better to be passive aggressive and dishonest in your intentions than to state the issue forwardly. /s Besides, "how civilized people do negotiations" isn't addressing the point that trade relations and negotiation are common and mundane.
Civilized people used to march in lines and stand in front of guns to fight wars. Civilized people used enslaved others for their own good. "how civilized people do things" is a flowery wording of "jump on the band wagon I am on because I'm better than you". It means nothing. Civilized people lose to barbarians because a barbarian knows how stupid "civilized" people can be.