All Congress has to do is put it all into one bill for him to sign.The offer of a DACA-esque compromise is part of what he should've been doing all along (that is, offer comprehensive immigration reform ideas). Good for Trump for putting it on the table. (Another example of how I think he has people monitoring INGO for good ideas.)
Yeah, sure, the Dems rejected what was offered, but it is now up for negotiation. They're again over-playing their hand - they should accept something soon as a starting point - and its being reflected in the RCP aggregate polling. After dropping fairly steadily up until last week, Trump's approval numbers appear to be leveling out, as with the difference between approval and disapproval.
Pelosi, et al., will usually find ways to alienate most reasonable people.
Now, this also assumes we can trust Trump to actually do what he says, which remains an open question. But, at least offering the limited "amnesty" is a starting point for moving in the right direction.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!
- Thread starter PaulF
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
I think Ben Shapiro should throw his hat in the ring as a democrat candidate.
Not exactly. At least, in the Senate, they want to have some clear direction on whether Trump will sign something. There've been some mixed signals at different points about what Trump would accept (not only on this, but on other matters), and the leadership wants to know before they pass something.
That works out better for both Trump and the senators.
They could just ask him.
Pretty much what NNBG said. If they ask him and he says yes, then vote on the silly thing.
Then again, then the R's in the Senate would have to compromise as well. Getting all three sides to compromise might take an act of God.
SheepDog4Life
Natural Gray Man
T, the President pointed out his immigration priorities in October, 2017. They haven't changed. He has said many times that he would sign permanent DACA if it was packaged with the following:
Whitehouse: President Donald J. Trump’s Letter to House and Senate Leaders & Immigration Principles and Policies
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...nate-leaders-immigration-principles-policies/
Or read the immigration policy statement he sent to them... see above.
KAMALA HARRIS AND HER RADICAL COLLEAGUES ARE COMPLETELY OUT OF STEP WITH MLK
...Martin Luther King, Jr. was an effective leader in part because he recognized that economic opportunity is among the most important civil rights of all.
Democrats who use race as a weapon, such as Kamala Harris, a U.S. senator who used MLK Day to launch her presidential campaign, are completely out of step with Dr. King’s legacy.
The history books don’t usually mention this, but on the day MLK gave his famous “I Have a Dream” speech in 1963, calling for an end to racial discrimination, nine other civil rights leaders gave speeches that called for economic equality and living wages...
.
...Martin Luther King, Jr. was an effective leader in part because he recognized that economic opportunity is among the most important civil rights of all.
Democrats who use race as a weapon, such as Kamala Harris, a U.S. senator who used MLK Day to launch her presidential campaign, are completely out of step with Dr. King’s legacy.
The history books don’t usually mention this, but on the day MLK gave his famous “I Have a Dream” speech in 1963, calling for an end to racial discrimination, nine other civil rights leaders gave speeches that called for economic equality and living wages...
.
I guess there's a problem with the forum not displaying the entirety of my posts.T, the President pointed out his immigration priorities in October, 2017. They haven't changed. He has said many times that he would sign permanent DACA if it was packaged with the following:
Whitehouse: President Donald J. Trump’s Letter to House and Senate Leaders & Immigration Principles and Policies
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...nate-leaders-immigration-principles-policies/
Or read the immigration policy statement he sent to them... see above.
I remember him saying that during the campaign, but has he tied the wall financing to these other issues? Not asking confrontationally, just asking because I haven't seen him mention it in the context of the shutdown or SOTU scheduling or flight plans.
And I certainly don't expect perfection on the immigration thing.
No one has been able to direct to Trump putting additional immigration reforms on the table for this shutdown.
Last year, when the GOP controlled Congress, there was an effort to do immigration reform, and it failed. It failed because Trump moved the goalposts in what he wanted to see.
Again, if other reforms had been a negotiating point all along in the shutdown, then Trump wouldn't have needed to make an announcement of it.
As I was pointing out, Trump may have been pursuing the policies he ran on earlier in his political career, but not with regard to the shutdown.
I've been consistent in this discussion about the time period I'm talking about: the recent shutdown. But then, I have no expectation of consistency from certain other INGOers.
This is just anti-Trump drivel. Frankly I am surprised at the lack of sense here. I have never seen anybody imply that the wall would be a comprehensive fix to the alien invasion problem.
When one is injured one of the first things that needs to be done is to stop the bleeding. That is not meant to address all the problems involved. That will not set broken bones for instance but you still need to stop the bleeding or the other stuff won't matter.
In combat if your location is being invaded one of the first things that needs to be done is to close the breach in the perimeter. That is not meant to address all the problems involved. That will not neutralize the invaders already in your location for instance but you still need to stop the invasion or the problem will get worse.
That is the purpose of the wall - to stop the bleeding - to stop the problem from getting worse.
The entirety of the alien invasion problem does justify the wall because it shows we need to stop the bleeding, we need to stop the problem from getting worse. Nobody said the wall will fix the rest of the problem.
Also your example of a handgun not addressing the entirety of national defense is equally lame. Is this supposed to be an argument against military handguns? Submarines do not address the entirety of national defense either. Neither do tanks, fighter planes, bombers, aircraft carriers or missiles. That doesn't mean we don't need them.
We need to stop the bleeding at the southern border or the problem just gets worse every day.
Patton was right if you are referring to tank battles - but when your country has fixed line boundaries (and I'm pretty sure most of them do) you have a fixed line to defend by default.
Agreed, but some think you just build it and walk away. The wall is the beginning, not the end. It is not a "fire and forget" weapon. There has to be support and support for the support and support for those who support the supported and on and on.
To build the wall without a commitment to the wall and what it is for gets us right back to Patton's statement. Who is to say that the next administration doesn't put in turnstiles...
To build the wall without a commitment to the wall and what it is for gets us right back to Patton's statement. Who is to say that the next administration doesn't put in turnstiles...
SheepDog4Life
Natural Gray Man
I recall a year ago that the Democrats would shut down government, would block the budget bills, until DACA was included.
Prior to that, there was talk of comprehensive immigration reform ('member Acosta's infantile performance with Miller?) and Trump's policy statement above of what comprehensive reform should look like, and comments that with zero Democrat votes due to #Resistance and only one extra Republican vote in the Senate, it would never happen.
ETA: Just a sample from the Summer 2017 reporting, and from far-left Vox no less:
https://www.vox.com/2017/8/3/16083368/trump-immigration-bill-cotton
There's no way Dems would allow Trump to sign comprehensive Immigration Reform. Their hate is all-consuming.
Last edited:
Everyone is biased. I’m saying there are ways to know how biased your position is. For example if you’ve decided we should build a wall because Trump wants it, without regard to the other facts, then you didn’t arrive at that very objectively. Maybe you end up lucky and you’re accidentally correct.Lolz. What you seek/advocate sounds desirable in the abstract but is oh so difficult in the realz. I'll see if I can borrow Diogenes' lantern for you, might help with the search for that unbiased expert in all the facets of the problem
Edit: Probably had the slider on 'mocking tone' a bit high on that mix. I know your heart's in the right place, and I have heard of these 'unbiased sources' of which you speak; I just haven't actually found one outside of areas of narrow scientific endeavor and damn few of them there
Well, that's not really the point - the part about the Dems not signing. Doesn't matter if they do or not. Trump should be converting the issue to his own uses (as he now appears to be doing). Propose the stuff, make the Dems reject it. He starts looking more reasonable; they go back to looking like fools.
Along those lines, did anyone see that the Senate will now have 2 votes - one on Trump's funding plan and the other on a Dem sponsored no-wall funding plan. My magic decoder ring is a bit dusty, but this is a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too procedure. Both sides will be able to publish campaign materials saying what they want.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate...als-to-end-shutdown-neither-expected-to-pass/
You seem quite unable to give credence to the possibility that Trump gets my support because he was the only one of the fifteen who sought to address problems I already believed we (as Americans) have. This apparent belief that a person could only support Trump if they are somehow mentally deficient - easily led, low information etc. - is itself arguably elitist and a bit insulting
You praise me with faint damns
I did see that. It looks like the first vote will be on a package for long term funding, including the wall, and the second vote, if needed, will just be a temporary funding thing through Feb 8 which of course does not include funding for the wall. I don't think either one has a prayer of passing because these senate children are nowhere near the point where they will agree on anything and the votes are too evenly split along party lines for anybody to actually get the 60 votes needed.
- Status
