Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

thelawlorfaithful

Government Shutdown 2018

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Rebelbacker said:

You facts are not facts.

1. How did Trump start shithole gate when what he said was in a private meeting? He didn't run to the press and leak it. The dems used it as a wedge. 

2. The protections for DACA and DAPA are unconstitutional. It never should have happened in the first place. Like so many other things(budget, North Korea, immigration) this can has been kicked down the road for years and Trump is now trying to find a solution. That is not of his making. 

3. He rejected a compromise that had none of the items he asked for. They didn't give him anything of what he wanted so why would he agree to it? 

DACA and dreamers are not the same thing. Dems are mixing the 2 and that is just wrong. The reasons we are here is because 1. Obama made an unconstitutional EO concerning DACA. 2. Obama promised comprehensive immigration reform in his FIRST term. Never happened. 

1. That private meeting was the same one that Trump rejected the bipartisan compromise. It should be expected that when the reason for rejection is "I'm a massive racist and I lied about signing any bipartisan compromise put in front of me" that the reason why would make it into the press.

2. The protections are constitutional given that no court ever struck them down. You can have your own opinions on the matter, but the fact that they were in place before Trump took them away means that Trump is directly responsible for the current situation.

3. Actually, it had a number of items he wanted. It nixed family based-migration plans for parents, cut the visas awarded through the diversity programs by half, reorienting them to people with Temporary Proected Status. It diverted visas away from new immigrants to TPS-protected people and it gave Trump billions in border security including money for "fencing". (Wall.) Last, but not least, it gave something else that Trump himself said he wanted to see happen: protections for the dreamers. Which again, you'll recall, Trump says he wanted. The fact he did not get EVERYTHING he wanted does not mean he got NOTHING he wanted.

Particularly given that Trump is on video basically agreeing to everything everyone said in the first bipartisan meeting: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/trump-professes-desire-to-protect-dreamers--but-fate-of-deal-remains-uncertain/2018/01/09/cdf2f51c-f562-11e7-beb6-c8d48830c54d_story.html

"Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats emerging from the meeting between Trump and 26 lawmakers said the first round of immigration talks would focus on four major points: settling the fate of DACA recipients; restricting family migration policy, which some conservatives deride as “chain migration”; curbing a diversity lottery system that grants visas to 55,000 people from countries with low immigration each year; and determining how to bolster security along the U.S. border with Mexico."

https://www.vox.com/2018/1/11/16880360/immigration-congress-bill-daca-trump

Both parties jointly met with him, agreed on the four major points to compromise on, they did so, and then Trump rejected the compromise despite getting nearly exactly what he asked for: DACA recipients protected, family migration policy restricted, billions of dollars for increased border security and diversity lottery system cut in half.

Perhaps he should have added "and no black people" in his original ask if it was part of what he wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

1. That private meeting was the same one that Trump rejected the bipartisan compromise. It should be expected that when the reason for rejection is "I'm a massive racist and I lied about signing any bipartisan compromise put in front of me" that the reason why would make it into the press.

2. The protections are constitutional given that no court ever struck them down. You can have your own opinions on the matter, but the fact that they were in place before Trump took them away means that Trump is directly responsible for the current situation.

3. Actually, it had a number of items he wanted. It nixed family based-migration plans for parents, cut the visas awarded through the diversity programs by half, reorienting them to people with Temporary Proected Status. It diverted visas away from new immigrants to TPS-protected people and it gave Trump billions in border security including money for "fencing". (Wall.) Last, but not least, it gave something else that Trump himself said he wanted to see happen: protections for the dreamers. Which again, you'll recall, Trump says he wanted. The fact he did not get EVERYTHING he wanted does not mean he got NOTHING he wanted.

Particularly given that Trump is on video basically agreeing to everything everyone said in the first bipartisan meeting: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/trump-professes-desire-to-protect-dreamers--but-fate-of-deal-remains-uncertain/2018/01/09/cdf2f51c-f562-11e7-beb6-c8d48830c54d_story.html

"Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats emerging from the meeting between Trump and 26 lawmakers said the first round of immigration talks would focus on four major points: settling the fate of DACA recipients; restricting family migration policy, which some conservatives deride as “chain migration”; curbing a diversity lottery system that grants visas to 55,000 people from countries with low immigration each year; and determining how to bolster security along the U.S. border with Mexico."

https://www.vox.com/2018/1/11/16880360/immigration-congress-bill-daca-trump

Both parties jointly met with him, agreed on the four major points to compromise on, they did so, and then Trump rejected the compromise despite getting nearly exactly what he asked for: DACA recipients protected, family migration policy restricted, billions of dollars for increased border security and diversity lottery system cut in half.

Perhaps he should have added "and no black people" in his original ask if it was part of what he wanted.

The unconstitutionality of Obama's actions were confirmed when Obama tried to implement a second, similar program in 2014 called the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program, or DAPA. Like DACA, DAPA provided an administrative amnesty for illegal aliens who came to the U.S. as adults and gave them work authorizations and access to government benefits.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a nationwide injunction against DAPA, which the Supreme Court allowed to stand. As the Fifth Circuit said, the fact that the president declined to enforce the law and remove illegal aliens "does not transform presence deemed unlawful by Congress into lawful presence and confer eligibility for otherwise unavailable benefits based on that change."

Under our Constitution, Congress has plenary authority over immigration. The president only has the authority delegated to him by Congress – and Congress has never given the president the power to provide a pseudo-amnesty and government benefits to illegal aliens.

The DACA program suffers from exactly the same constitutional infirmities as DAPA. 

You know why else I know it is unconstitutional? Obama said so! Multiple times. 

It was also supposed to be temporary. How do I know that? Let's go to the tape. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

The unconstitutionality of Obama's actions were confirmed when Obama tried to implement a second, similar program in 2014 called the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program, or DAPA. Like DACA, DAPA provided an administrative amnesty for illegal aliens who came to the U.S. as adults and gave them work authorizations and access to government benefits.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a nationwide injunction against DAPA, which the Supreme Court allowed to stand. As the Fifth Circuit said, the fact that the president declined to enforce the law and remove illegal aliens "does not transform presence deemed unlawful by Congress into lawful presence and confer eligibility for otherwise unavailable benefits based on that change."

Under our Constitution, Congress has plenary authority over immigration. The president only has the authority delegated to him by Congress – and Congress has never given the president the power to provide a pseudo-amnesty and government benefits to illegal aliens.

The DACA program suffers from exactly the same constitutional infirmities as DAPA. 

You know why else I know it is unconstitutional? Obama said so! Multiple times. 

It was also supposed to be temporary. How do I know that? Let's go to the tape. 

 

That's referring to a completely separate thing. The Dream Act Bill was duly passed and signed into law. The 800K individuals we're talking about were Constitutional. Obama attempting to expand that to cover additional immigrants is what was ruled unconstitutional.

"The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was an American immigration policy that allowed some individuals who entered the country as minors, and had either entered or remained in the country illegally, to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and to be eligible for a work permit. As of 2017, approximately 800,000 individuals—referred to as Dreamers after the DREAM Act bill—were enrolled in the program created by DACA. The policy was established by the Obama Administration in June 2012 and rescinded by the Trump Administration in September 2017.[1]

In November 2014 President Barack Obama announced his intention to expand DACA to cover additional illegal immigrants. But multiple states immediately sued to prevent the expansion, which was ultimately blocked by the courts. The United States Department of Homeland Security rescinded the expansion on June 16, 2017, while continuing to review the existence of the DACA program as a whole. The DACA policy was rescinded by the Trump administration on September 5, 2017, but full implementation of the rescission was delayed six months to give Congress time to decide how to deal with the population that was previously eligible under the policy.[2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals

Now that we've got that cleared up, should I take by your ignoring the rest of my post which pointed out exactly what Trump said he wanted, got, and then immediately rejected can I assume you concede that point?

If not, I also have this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/01/17/sen-mitch-mcconnells-passive-aggressive-dig-at-trump/?utm_term=.4c8bd7c78a18

Senator Lindsay Graham AND Senator Mitch McConnell, saying that they thought that they knew what Trump wanted, went out and negotiated, and then Trump changed his mind.
If that's not enough, it also has Trump himself on the record: I think my positions are going to be what the people in this room come up with” and, “I'm not going to say, 'Oh, gee, I want this,' or 'I want that.' I will be signing it.” <------This is on video.

-Donald Trump

Graham suggested they were on the verge of a bipartisan immigration deal at 10 a.m. Thursday, only to have Trump rip the rug from beneath it two hours later. “I don't know where that guy went,” Graham said at a hearing. “I want him back!”

-Lindsey Graham

“I'm looking for something that President Trump supports, and he has not yet indicated what measure he is willing to sign. As soon as we figure out what he is for, then I would be convinced that we were not just spinning our wheels.”

-Mitch McConnell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

That's referring to a completely separate thing. The Dream Act Bill was duly passed and signed into law. The 800K individuals we're talking about were Constitutional. Obama attempting to expand that to cover additional immigrants is what was ruled unconstitutional.

"The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was an American immigration policy that allowed some individuals who entered the country as minors, and had either entered or remained in the country illegally, to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and to be eligible for a work permit. As of 2017, approximately 800,000 individuals—referred to as Dreamers after the DREAM Act bill—were enrolled in the program created by DACA. The policy was established by the Obama Administration in June 2012 and rescinded by the Trump Administration in September 2017.[1]

In November 2014 President Barack Obama announced his intention to expand DACA to cover additional illegal immigrants. But multiple states immediately sued to prevent the expansion, which was ultimately blocked by the courts. The United States Department of Homeland Security rescinded the expansion on June 16, 2017, while continuing to review the existence of the DACA program as a whole. The DACA policy was rescinded by the Trump administration on September 5, 2017, but full implementation of the rescission was delayed six months to give Congress time to decide how to deal with the population that was previously eligible under the policy.[2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals

Now that we've got that cleared up, should I take by your ignoring the rest of my post which pointed out exactly what Trump said he wanted, got, and then immediately rejected can I assume you concede that point?

If not, I also have this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/01/17/sen-mitch-mcconnells-passive-aggressive-dig-at-trump/?utm_term=.4c8bd7c78a18

Senator Lindsay Graham AND Senator Mitch McConnell, saying that they thought that they knew what Trump wanted, went out and negotiated, and then Trump changed his mind.
If that's not enough, it also has Trump himself on the record: I think my positions are going to be what the people in this room come up with” and, “I'm not going to say, 'Oh, gee, I want this,' or 'I want that.' I will be signing it.” <------This is on video.

-Donald Trump

Graham suggested they were on the verge of a bipartisan immigration deal at 10 a.m. Thursday, only to have Trump rip the rug from beneath it two hours later. “I don't know where that guy went,” Graham said at a hearing. “I want him back!”

-Lindsey Graham

“I'm looking for something that President Trump supports, and he has not yet indicated what measure he is willing to sign. As soon as we figure out what he is for, then I would be convinced that we were not just spinning our wheels.”

-Mitch McConnell

The dream act was never passed and signed into law.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

The dream act was never passed and signed into law.

I stand corrected on that narrow point. It's been introduced so many times that I misrembered. It was an Obama executive order that was never struck down by the courts. (Unlike the expansion attempt.)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/sep/11/eric-schneiderman/has-daca-been-ruled-unconstitutional/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

I stand corrected on that narrow point. It's been introduced so many times that I misrembered. It was an Obama executive order that was never struck down by the courts. (Unlike the expansion attempt.)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/sep/11/eric-schneiderman/has-daca-been-ruled-unconstitutional/

It was just a matter of time before it was struck down,

 

The democrats could have passed whatever immigration bill they wanted when Obama was elected on the promise of an immigration bill in his first year.

The democrats have 0 interest in passing DACA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, NorCalCoug said:

Meh, people over-exaggerate the doom and gloom of a short term government shutdown.

This is what the last short term government shutdown cost.

 $24 billion in lost economic output, or 0.6 percent of projected annualized GDP growth, according to the Standard and Poor’s ratings agency. Similarly, Moody’s Analytics estimated the impact at $23 billion.

The ratings agencies calculate their estimates using complicated formulas that consider past economic behavior, combined with the number of federal employees and contractors who were not paid during the shutdown, according to Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2013/10/18/how-much-did-the-shutdown-cost-the-economy/?utm_term=.a2930fd2633c

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nocoolnamejim said:

That's referring to a completely separate thing. The Dream Act Bill was duly passed and signed into law. The 800K individuals we're talking about were Constitutional. Obama attempting to expand that to cover additional immigrants is what was ruled unconstitutional.

"The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was an American immigration policy that allowed some individuals who entered the country as minors, and had either entered or remained in the country illegally, to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and to be eligible for a work permit. As of 2017, approximately 800,000 individuals—referred to as Dreamers after the DREAM Act bill—were enrolled in the program created by DACA. The policy was established by the Obama Administration in June 2012 and rescinded by the Trump Administration in September 2017.[1]

In November 2014 President Barack Obama announced his intention to expand DACA to cover additional illegal immigrants. But multiple states immediately sued to prevent the expansion, which was ultimately blocked by the courts. The United States Department of Homeland Security rescinded the expansion on June 16, 2017, while continuing to review the existence of the DACA program as a whole. The DACA policy was rescinded by the Trump administration on September 5, 2017, but full implementation of the rescission was delayed six months to give Congress time to decide how to deal with the population that was previously eligible under the policy.[2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals

Now that we've got that cleared up, should I take by your ignoring the rest of my post which pointed out exactly what Trump said he wanted, got, and then immediately rejected can I assume you concede that point?

If not, I also have this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/01/17/sen-mitch-mcconnells-passive-aggressive-dig-at-trump/?utm_term=.4c8bd7c78a18

Senator Lindsay Graham AND Senator Mitch McConnell, saying that they thought that they knew what Trump wanted, went out and negotiated, and then Trump changed his mind.
If that's not enough, it also has Trump himself on the record: I think my positions are going to be what the people in this room come up with” and, “I'm not going to say, 'Oh, gee, I want this,' or 'I want that.' I will be signing it.” <------This is on video.

-Donald Trump

Graham suggested they were on the verge of a bipartisan immigration deal at 10 a.m. Thursday, only to have Trump rip the rug from beneath it two hours later. “I don't know where that guy went,” Graham said at a hearing. “I want him back!”

-Lindsey Graham

“I'm looking for something that President Trump supports, and he has not yet indicated what measure he is willing to sign. As soon as we figure out what he is for, then I would be convinced that we were not just spinning our wheels.”

-Mitch McConnell

It was never passed into law. It was an EO that is not constitutional. You quoted Politifact, I quoted the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Which has more say? BTW, the DOJ just asked it to go to SCOTUS today to bypass a stupid, partisan Ninth Circuit Court ruling. We will see very soon how constitutional it really is. I'm willing to bet you SCOTUS sees it my way. Wanna bet? 

As for your second point it was so wrong there was no need to respond but since you called me out I now have to. Here is what was in the bill they presented:

'If passed, the bill would appropriate $2.705 billion in border security improvements, eliminate the visa lottery, make permanent the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program -- offering a pathway to citizenship to those who qualify -- and limit "chain migration," or family-based migration, of the individuals eligible for the program.'

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/17/politics/dreamers-bill-immigration-graham-durbin-congress/index.html

Here is the exact quote of what Trump said he wanted in that meeting:

'But it also has to be a bill where we’re able to secure our border.  Drugs are pouring into our country at a record pace and a lot of people are coming in that we can’t have.  We’ve greatly stiffened, as you know, and fewer people are trying to come in.

But we have tremendous numbers of people and drugs pouring into our country.

So, in order to secure it, we need a wall.  We need closing enforcement — we have to close enforcement loopholes.  Give immigration officers — and these are tremendous people, the border security agents, the ICE agents — we have to give them the equipment they need, we have to close loopholes, and this really does include a very strong amount of different things for border security.

I think everybody in the room would agree to that.  I think that we — it’s a question of the amounts.  But I think everyone agrees we have to have border security.  I don’t think there would be anybody that says “no.”

Second, it has to be a bill to end chain migration.  Chain migration is bringing in many, many people with one, and often it doesn’t work out very well.  Those many people are not doing us right.  And I think a lot of people in the room — and I’m not sure I can speak for everybody, but a lot of the people in this room want to see chain migration ended.

And we have a recent case along the West Side Highway, having to do with chain migration, where a man ran over — killed eight people and many people injured badly.  Loss of arms, loss of legs.  Horrible thing happened, and then you look at the chain and all of the people that came in because of him.  Terrible situation.

And the other is — cancel the lottery program.  They call it “visa lottery,” I just call it “lottery.”  But countries come in and they put names in a hopper.  They’re not giving you their best names; common sense means they’re not giving you their best names.  They’re giving you people that they don’t want.  And then we take them out of the lottery.  And when they do it by hand — where they put the hand in a bowl — they’re probably — what’s in their hand are the worst of the worst.

But they put people that they don’t want into a lottery and the United States takes those people.  And again, they’re going back to that same person who came in through the lottery program.  They went — they visited his neighborhood and the people in the neighborhood said, “oh my God, we suffered with this man — the rudeness, the horrible way he treated us right from the beginning.”  So we don’t want the lottery system or the visa lottery system.  We want it ended.

So those three things are paramount.  These are measures that will make our community safer and more prosperous.  These reforms are supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans.  They’re from every standpoint, from every poll, and they’re being requested by law enforcement officers.'

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-meeting-bipartisan-members-congress-immigration/

So, Trump wanted:

1. The Wall and close enforcement loopholes and give border security added equipment and staffing

2. END chain migration

3. CANCEL the lottery program

He said those three items were paramount for him. The ONLY item in the bipartisan bill that met his rerquirements was the lottery program being eliminated. That's it. No wall, no ending chain migration. He CLEARLY stated what he wanted. McConnell and Graham were playing politics. They knew what he wanted. It's right on the WH website. You just never saw what Turmp actually said and went by what you heard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nocoolnamejim said:

I stand corrected on that narrow point. It's been introduced so many times that I misrembered. It was an Obama executive order that was never struck down by the courts. (Unlike the expansion attempt.)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/sep/11/eric-schneiderman/has-daca-been-ruled-unconstitutional/

Misremembered? Dude you have a future in government! Or at least at the table in front of a Congressional Committee. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jackmormon said:

This is what the last short term government shutdown cost.

 $24 billion in lost economic output, or 0.6 percent of projected annualized GDP growth, according to the Standard and Poor’s ratings agency. Similarly, Moody’s Analytics estimated the impact at $23 billion.

The ratings agencies calculate their estimates using complicated formulas that consider past economic behavior, combined with the number of federal employees and contractors who were not paid during the shutdown, according to Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2013/10/18/how-much-did-the-shutdown-cost-the-economy/?utm_term=.a2930fd2633c

Government produces nothing it just takes tax dollars and spends them.  They will still spend those tax dollars and more don't worry.

There can't be any lost economic output because tapeworms don't produce anything.

 

No one who matters to the economy will care much if the government closes for a week or a month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rebelbacker said:

It was never passed into law. It was an EO that is not constitutional. You quoted Politifact, I quoted the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Which has more say? BTW, the DOJ just asked it to go to SCOTUS today to bypass a stupid, partisan Ninth Circuit Court ruling. We will see very soon how constitutional it really is. I'm willing to bet you SCOTUS sees it my way. Wanna bet? 

As for your second point it was so wrong there was no need to respond but since you called me out I now have to. Here is what was in the bill they presented:

'If passed, the bill would appropriate $2.705 billion in border security improvements, eliminate the visa lottery, make permanent the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program -- offering a pathway to citizenship to those who qualify -- and limit "chain migration," or family-based migration, of the individuals eligible for the program.'

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/17/politics/dreamers-bill-immigration-graham-durbin-congress/index.html

Here is the exact quote of what Trump said he wanted in that meeting:

'But it also has to be a bill where we’re able to secure our border.  Drugs are pouring into our country at a record pace and a lot of people are coming in that we can’t have.  We’ve greatly stiffened, as you know, and fewer people are trying to come in.

But we have tremendous numbers of people and drugs pouring into our country.

So, in order to secure it, we need a wall.  We need closing enforcement — we have to close enforcement loopholes.  Give immigration officers — and these are tremendous people, the border security agents, the ICE agents — we have to give them the equipment they need, we have to close loopholes, and this really does include a very strong amount of different things for border security.

I think everybody in the room would agree to that.  I think that we — it’s a question of the amounts.  But I think everyone agrees we have to have border security.  I don’t think there would be anybody that says “no.”

Second, it has to be a bill to end chain migration.  Chain migration is bringing in many, many people with one, and often it doesn’t work out very well.  Those many people are not doing us right.  And I think a lot of people in the room — and I’m not sure I can speak for everybody, but a lot of the people in this room want to see chain migration ended.

And we have a recent case along the West Side Highway, having to do with chain migration, where a man ran over — killed eight people and many people injured badly.  Loss of arms, loss of legs.  Horrible thing happened, and then you look at the chain and all of the people that came in because of him.  Terrible situation.

And the other is — cancel the lottery program.  They call it “visa lottery,” I just call it “lottery.”  But countries come in and they put names in a hopper.  They’re not giving you their best names; common sense means they’re not giving you their best names.  They’re giving you people that they don’t want.  And then we take them out of the lottery.  And when they do it by hand — where they put the hand in a bowl — they’re probably — what’s in their hand are the worst of the worst.

But they put people that they don’t want into a lottery and the United States takes those people.  And again, they’re going back to that same person who came in through the lottery program.  They went — they visited his neighborhood and the people in the neighborhood said, “oh my God, we suffered with this man — the rudeness, the horrible way he treated us right from the beginning.”  So we don’t want the lottery system or the visa lottery system.  We want it ended.

So those three things are paramount.  These are measures that will make our community safer and more prosperous.  These reforms are supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans.  They’re from every standpoint, from every poll, and they’re being requested by law enforcement officers.'

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-meeting-bipartisan-members-congress-immigration/

So, Trump wanted:

1. The Wall and close enforcement loopholes and give border security added equipment and staffing

2. END chain migration

3. CANCEL the lottery program

He said those three items were paramount for him. The ONLY item in the bipartisan bill that met his rerquirements was the lottery program being eliminated. That's it. No wall, no ending chain migration. He CLEARLY stated what he wanted. McConnell and Graham were playing politics. They knew what he wanted. It's right on the WH website. You just never saw what Turmp actually said and went by what you heard. 

I already corrected myself on the narrow point of whether it was passed into law or enacted via executive order. See above.

The rest of your post is one long exercise in goal post moving. You originally said Trump got "nothing of what he wanted". I then pointed out that the Democrats gave substantial concessions and then quoted Trump, verbatim, that what he wanted was "I think my positions are going to be what the people in this room come up with” and, “I'm not going to say, 'Oh, gee, I want this,' or 'I want that.' I will be signing it.” 

A quote you definitely avoided responding to.

I also pointed out that two Senators from his own party essentially accused him of moving the goal posts and going back on his word. The definition of "bipartisan compromise" is that neither side gets exactly and everything that they want.  To get substantial concessions and call them "nothing" is bargaining in substantial bad faith.

To have those concessions pointed out and quoting the President that he'd sign whatever compromise put in front of him, and then ignoring those points?

That's debating in substantially bad faith.

Also @halfmanhalfbronco

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

Misremembered? Dude you have a future in government! Or at least at the table in front of a Congressional Committee. 

I'm sorry. I thought it was good form to admit you were wrong about something when someone says so, you look it up, and see that they're right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

Democrats don't want to pass DACA.

I'd argue that democratic leadership doesn't want to. Democrat rank and file do, but party discipline is much stronger than it was 25 years ago on both sides. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Akkula said:

Trump is gassing up the plane to go golfing in Florida this weekend.   I guess that government entourage won't shut down.   He will sign any deal via tweet.  What bad optics for him! 

 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

I'm sorry. I thought it was good form to admit you were wrong about something when someone says so, you look it up, and see that they're right.

Lighten up. I was only joking.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t “misremember” things. I forget. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, mugtang said:

 

"GET IT DONE OR I'M NOT LEAVING!!!!!!!"

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...