|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 20 2018 05:11 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 04:52 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On January 20 2018 04:44 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:40 Mohdoo wrote:On January 20 2018 04:37 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:27 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 04:26 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:20 Mohdoo wrote:
Any of you guys remember the kinda stuff our resident republicans were saying the last time the government shut down? Can't help but wonder what is so different this time. Schumer's got some gems: You know, we could do the same thing on immigration. We believe strongly in immigration reform. We could say, ‘We’re shutting down the government, we’re not gonna raise the debt ceiling, until you pass immigration reform.’ It would be governmental chaos. Life comes at you fast. Except that not asking for reform but to continue on as in years prior. I know, its easy to forget it was Trump who blew up the DACA. The executive branch does unilaterally what Congress rejected. New executive that ran on a tougher immigration stance rescinds. Now they're shutting down the government to pressure Congress to pass it. Yeah, Schumer might regret saying it now, but he has his shills to cover his ass. On January 20 2018 04:30 Mohdoo wrote:On January 20 2018 04:26 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:20 Mohdoo wrote:
Any of you guys remember the kinda stuff our resident republicans were saying the last time the government shut down? Can't help but wonder what is so different this time. Schumer's got some gems: You know, we could do the same thing on immigration. We believe strongly in immigration reform. We could say, ‘We’re shutting down the government, we’re not gonna raise the debt ceiling, until you pass immigration reform.’ It would be governmental chaos. Life comes at you fast. I don't consider DACA immigration. If you've been here since you're a child, you are an American. Children should never be made to suffer for their parent's mistakes. If you illegally immigrate to America, you're subject to immigration law. In your eyes, what decisions did these children make? How much input did you have where your family lives? You haven't shown what responsibility these DACA kids have. Describe the decisions they made. They're a victim of the choices their parents made. The parents are responding to decades of failure of the US to secure its sudden border, and the failed economic/judicial/social policies of their host countries. The argument is for compassion for the victim, not that DACA isn't immigration. It's literally the definition of immigration. Do newborns get to choose who they were born to and where they were born? You say they are victims, but you advocate for punishing them. Why? If your parents decided to immigrate to an ISIS controlled city when you were 6 years old, and you got your head chopped off for being a white Christian, did you fuck up? Should you die for being such an idiot and moving to Syria? Newborns don't get to choose, which is why we have a million laws and protocols in place to make sure the state does a decent job at keeping children somewhat ok. The idea that it takes absolutely nothing to be a parent, meaning there are millions of garbage parents, is not a new idea. We try to fill in the gaps best we can. The idea that a child should not be blamed or punished for the mistakes of their parents is not new. Children have no expression of will, they are practically property. A southern border wall, tech surveillance, and beefed-up border patrol would prevent more victims from entering our country. As it stands, you advocate for creating more and for encouraging lawless behavior. You don't even consider it immigration law. You don't get to choose where you're born, so let's deny birthright citizenship as well. Well, it wasn't your choice. Wait... so you don't think the children have agency, but letting them stay encourages lawless behavior... by the children that have no agency? Remember, we're discussing kicking out the children here, not adults who immigrated by choice. Being separated from your early teen child is hardly a favorable outcome that people are going to be encouraged by in attempting to cross the border, and if it honestly is then severity of the humanitarian concern vs the low number of Dreamers would probably be sufficient argument to anyone who isn't a flaming [redacted]. Besides, there comes a point where the diminishing returns of more border security become more expensive than simply having a small number of immigrants, who already have to meet some reasonably high bars for renewal of deferred action. In regards to the Dreamers, they really are a lot of the "best", to be a bit on the nose. And please, forced removal from a place in which you've begun to establish a life isn't even f***ing comparable to just not being granted citizenship to somewhere from both.
That would be the weak border that encourages lawless behavior. That of their parents illegally crossing the border to bring their children over.
|
On January 20 2018 05:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:07 NewSunshine wrote:On January 20 2018 05:00 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:54 Leporello wrote:
Republicans have just become too used to playing their political games, and too obtuse to there being actual consequences. So, they can say things like this, because all they see is their political talking-point. They don't even see what they're actually saying.
It's impossible to actually exaggerate how disgusting, and tragically revealing, McConnell's tweet here is. "We held off funding CHIP so we could force you to choose between children and immigrant families."
"We held off funding the government so we can force you to choose DACA" I'd have less qualms if everybody agreed both sides were playing politics. But one side wants to claim moral high ground and declare themselves in the right. It kind of makes me sympathetic to McConnell's messaging. And you're implying they're not? You don't give someone a nonsense ultimatum and throw a tantrum when they don't play your game. The GOP deliberately dragged their feet on this and forced the issue. And when you're playing games with children's health insurance, you automatically lose the moral high ground. The Democrats don't get to be at fault for this just because you say so. "Pass DACA or you get no government funding" Nonsense ultimatums. Both sides playing politics. One side declaring that the other side must cave or face their wrath. It smells like 2017. Zero ownership, all politics, my shit doesn't stink.
This is the escalation conservatives have been asking for. They don’t want to compromise or give up ground, so this is how the process will go. Given the way the last two legislative pushes were designed to cut out the Democrats, the GOP leadership always knew things would grind to a halt once they had to work with the Democrats. Our government is designed to force compromise.
|
On January 20 2018 02:51 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 02:26 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2018 01:52 brian wrote:On January 20 2018 01:17 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2018 01:11 brian wrote:On January 20 2018 01:00 Introvert wrote:
I see where the Democrat talking points are going. Dems refusing to fund anything in their defense of non-citizens after calling 2013 Republicans arsonists, anarchists, and legislative terrorists. But we're all going to hang our hat on the last second CHIP 6 year funding carrot. i enjoy that you call children’s health insurance a carrot. that speaks volumes. The expected response. Devoid of anyt critical thought. No, I don't think "children's health insurance" is a "carrot." The extra SIX YEARS is a carrot. As I said before they've been haggling about how to pay for it for months. Also the GOP could prob get to 50, but as long as Dems are a hard no the wavering Republicans can stay a "no." This is a classic dilemma. I think last night McConnell asked Schumer to allow a majority vote. If Dems thought GOP couldn't get to 50 he would have allowed and have a super strong position. On January 20 2018 01:16 Logo wrote:On January 20 2018 01:12 zlefin wrote:
one thing I'll fault all sides on though, is not talking/doing enough on structural fixes to address the fact that problems like this occur.
simply not enough work is done on structure (admittedly most voters don't understand/care/vote on it, which makes it kinda hard) If the Republicans are repeatedly ok with passing bills that only have like a 30% general approval rating (if that) then I don't think voter popularity is much of an excuse. Tax law is much more popular now but popularity is bad reason to do things by itself anyways. save us your preachy bullshit, nobody made you say the words. i’m not a mind reader, apologies if you were as hollow as your representatives and only said it to troll. i had expected more. Read your first response again about what I said "speaking volumes." What response did you expect when you make such an accusation? The current CR is "clean." What is "stopping the Democrats from passing the clean CR?" "Nothing, except they are fighting over something unrelated to government funding." See? That works both ways! In fact the federal employees who won't get paid as long as this lasts are in danger more than CHIP! Every state is still dolling out cash. Maybe one stste will run out before the end of Feb, I think. I'd love if we passed individual appro bills but that would also undercut the Democrats portion, so that won't happen. If memory serves 2013 the GOP passed smaller funding bills for things like parks that Obama shut down. Both sides know that A) chip is not in imminent danger and B) that giving in on one things could cause a cascade that undermines their position. So in that light an extra 6 years is a real and PR carrot. the post was stupid as fuck, so i expected a stupid response. it wasn’t an accusation. your viewing of CHIP as a carrot is repugnant. i’m not accusing you of anything. aside from having just repulsive opinions on children’s health insurance, i guess. nobody wants a clean CR(republicans included,) that’s why the dems won’t pass it? what are you even asking? running the united states government one week at a time is an embarrassment for all of us. understanding there are circumstances where it’s the right move, this isn’t one of them. they’re fighting over government funding.. on a vote for government funding? this post is just garbage. you are posting with absolutely no awareness of the context. government employees do get paid, just not on time. i hold children’s health insurance and DACA as a higher priority than deferred paychecks. in a perfect world we wouldn’t have to shut down the government for children’s health insurance, but unfortunately you and the GOP see it as a carrot. lol. CHIP isn’t a bargaining chip and anyone who thinks so is actual human waste. boggles the mind how so many reps fell for it.
Keeping up on mobile is hard.
You are missing what I'm saying. The Democrats aren't fighting for funding, they are fighting for amnesty. The GOP wants a clean bill they are scared to death of shutdowns.
I agree that funding things like this is embarrassing.
You are being dense, I assume it's not intentional. If the Democrats wanted chip to be funded and the government to stay open they'd for the current CR. It's in there.
The problem is that no one in this thread had done no actual reading on the debates over CHIP in the past months. As soon as the GOP proposes a LONGER funding period they are now holding it hostage. I know government workers get their checks in the end, it's why conservatives don't use absurd language about shutdowns like "arson" and anarchy."
The only "bargaining chip" is an EXTENSION of CHIP for six years. It's NOT "six years or zero years." It's a carrot. If you really think that the GOP should be the one to buckle when it's the Democrats demanding a fight over DACA you are being ridiculous. The money for chip may end today but no state is out of money by Monday.
Let's put this another way. If the GOP allowed a standalone CHIP that wouldn't solve the issue. This impending shutdown is about Democrats and DACA. Both sides are playing with CHIP here because no child is yet in danger of losing anything.
Also the suggestion by someone that it should have been attached to the tax bill is ludicrous, don't insult my intelligence with that trash. As a purely political matter Democrats would have screamed bloody murder about playing politics.
Lastly, Schumer rejected the offer to let the bill require only 50 votes. He clearly thinks the GOP could most likely get them.
|
On January 20 2018 05:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:11 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:07 NewSunshine wrote:On January 20 2018 05:00 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:54 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/SenateMajLdr/status/954409393507876864Republicans have just become too used to playing their political games, and too obtuse to there being actual consequences. So, they can say things like this, because all they see is their political talking-point. They don't even see what they're actually saying. It's impossible to actually exaggerate how disgusting, and tragically revealing, McConnell's tweet here is. "We held off funding CHIP so we could force you to choose between children and immigrant families." https://twitter.com/KrangTNelson/status/954131426391175168 "We held off funding the government so we can force you to choose DACA" I'd have less qualms if everybody agreed both sides were playing politics. But one side wants to claim moral high ground and declare themselves in the right. It kind of makes me sympathetic to McConnell's messaging. And you're implying they're not? You don't give someone a nonsense ultimatum and throw a tantrum when they don't play your game. The GOP deliberately dragged their feet on this and forced the issue. And when you're playing games with children's health insurance, you automatically lose the moral high ground. The Democrats don't get to be at fault for this just because you say so. "Pass DACA or you get no government funding" Nonsense ultimatums. Both sides playing politics. One side declaring that the other side must cave or face their wrath. It smells like 2017. Zero ownership, all politics, my shit doesn't stink. This is the escalation conservatives have been asking for. They don’t want to compromise or give up ground, so this is how the process will go. Given the way the last two legislative pushes were designed to cut out the Democrats, the GOP leadership always knew things would grind to a halt once they had to work with the Democrats. Our government is designed to force compromise.
I also don't buy it in the sense that the republicans set the agenda and could have dealt with these issues way earlier. Instead they put themselves in a situation where they're going to look like they bungled things and caused a shutdown + destroyed funding for CHIP. Maybe they should have you know... worked towards averting this situation over the past few months?
|
On January 20 2018 05:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2018 05:01 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2018 04:55 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2018 04:44 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:40 Mohdoo wrote:On January 20 2018 04:37 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:27 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Except that not asking for reform but to continue on as in years prior.
I know, its easy to forget it was Trump who blew up the DACA. The executive branch does unilaterally what Congress rejected. New executive that ran on a tougher immigration stance rescinds. Now they're shutting down the government to pressure Congress to pass it. Yeah, Schumer might regret saying it now, but he has his shills to cover his ass. On January 20 2018 04:30 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
I don't consider DACA immigration. If you've been here since you're a child, you are an American. Children should never be made to suffer for their parent's mistakes. If you illegally immigrate to America, you're subject to immigration law. In your eyes, what decisions did these children make? How much input did you have where your family lives? You haven't shown what responsibility these DACA kids have. Describe the decisions they made. They're a victim of the choices their parents made. The parents are responding to decades of failure of the US to secure its sudden border, and the failed economic/judicial/social policies of their host countries. The argument is for compassion for the victim, not that DACA isn't immigration. It's literally the definition of immigration. Do newborns get to choose who they were born to and where they were born? I'm confused, do think that's a righteous position or an unfortunate and immoral necessity? Neither, if I understand your choices. That's their moral position from the immigration violations of their parents. It's important to get that straight (Did you read but not digest "I don't consider DACA immigration?), before we talk about what to do after. I don't consider it any great act to talk about the current 800,000 and close your eyes to the next 800,000. Kick the can and wag the moralizing finger at the opposition. Yes I saw that. So you're saying that being the victims of their parents choices is what now? That would be their moral position. Like I said in the post. The moral position of whom is what I'm asking? I referred to the children brought into this country as teenagers or younger. The original question is in the quote chain.
So to make sure I understand you correctly, you are saying that in your view the moral position is to punish children for choices their parents make?
|
On January 20 2018 05:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:11 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:07 NewSunshine wrote:On January 20 2018 05:00 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:54 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/SenateMajLdr/status/954409393507876864Republicans have just become too used to playing their political games, and too obtuse to there being actual consequences. So, they can say things like this, because all they see is their political talking-point. They don't even see what they're actually saying. It's impossible to actually exaggerate how disgusting, and tragically revealing, McConnell's tweet here is. "We held off funding CHIP so we could force you to choose between children and immigrant families." https://twitter.com/KrangTNelson/status/954131426391175168 "We held off funding the government so we can force you to choose DACA" I'd have less qualms if everybody agreed both sides were playing politics. But one side wants to claim moral high ground and declare themselves in the right. It kind of makes me sympathetic to McConnell's messaging. And you're implying they're not? You don't give someone a nonsense ultimatum and throw a tantrum when they don't play your game. The GOP deliberately dragged their feet on this and forced the issue. And when you're playing games with children's health insurance, you automatically lose the moral high ground. The Democrats don't get to be at fault for this just because you say so. "Pass DACA or you get no government funding" Nonsense ultimatums. Both sides playing politics. One side declaring that the other side must cave or face their wrath. It smells like 2017. Zero ownership, all politics, my shit doesn't stink. This is the escalation conservatives have been asking for. They don’t want to compromise or give up ground, so this is how the process will go. Given the way the last two legislative pushes were designed to cut out the Democrats, the GOP leadership always knew things would grind to a halt once they had to work with the Democrats. Our government is designed to force compromise.
Your neck might get sore here reading "It's you that's making ultimatums" (provides their ultimatum) "But it's you that made us do it." Maybe that's what I'm getting at with both sides playing politics. Just maybe. That's the only good thing that can come out with it ... nothing changes/is solved by funding the government for another month that only pushes it back another month.
|
On January 20 2018 05:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:12 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2018 05:01 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2018 04:55 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 20 2018 04:44 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:40 Mohdoo wrote:On January 20 2018 04:37 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
The executive branch does unilaterally what Congress rejected. New executive that ran on a tougher immigration stance rescinds. Now they're shutting down the government to pressure Congress to pass it. Yeah, Schumer might regret saying it now, but he has his shills to cover his ass.
[quote]
If you illegally immigrate to America, you're subject to immigration law.
In your eyes, what decisions did these children make? How much input did you have where your family lives? You haven't shown what responsibility these DACA kids have. Describe the decisions they made. They're a victim of the choices their parents made. The parents are responding to decades of failure of the US to secure its sudden border, and the failed economic/judicial/social policies of their host countries. The argument is for compassion for the victim, not that DACA isn't immigration. It's literally the definition of immigration. Do newborns get to choose who they were born to and where they were born? I'm confused, do think that's a righteous position or an unfortunate and immoral necessity? Neither, if I understand your choices. That's their moral position from the immigration violations of their parents. It's important to get that straight (Did you read but not digest "I don't consider DACA immigration?), before we talk about what to do after. I don't consider it any great act to talk about the current 800,000 and close your eyes to the next 800,000. Kick the can and wag the moralizing finger at the opposition. Yes I saw that. So you're saying that being the victims of their parents choices is what now? That would be their moral position. Like I said in the post. The moral position of whom is what I'm asking? I referred to the children brought into this country as teenagers or younger. The original question is in the quote chain. So to make sure I understand you correctly, you are saying that in your view the moral position is to punish children for choices their parents make?
Nope. I'm answering the questioner who asked what decision the children made/what was their agency. It's in the quote chain.
|
On January 20 2018 05:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:15 Plansix wrote:On January 20 2018 05:11 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:07 NewSunshine wrote:On January 20 2018 05:00 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:54 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/SenateMajLdr/status/954409393507876864Republicans have just become too used to playing their political games, and too obtuse to there being actual consequences. So, they can say things like this, because all they see is their political talking-point. They don't even see what they're actually saying. It's impossible to actually exaggerate how disgusting, and tragically revealing, McConnell's tweet here is. "We held off funding CHIP so we could force you to choose between children and immigrant families." https://twitter.com/KrangTNelson/status/954131426391175168 "We held off funding the government so we can force you to choose DACA" I'd have less qualms if everybody agreed both sides were playing politics. But one side wants to claim moral high ground and declare themselves in the right. It kind of makes me sympathetic to McConnell's messaging. And you're implying they're not? You don't give someone a nonsense ultimatum and throw a tantrum when they don't play your game. The GOP deliberately dragged their feet on this and forced the issue. And when you're playing games with children's health insurance, you automatically lose the moral high ground. The Democrats don't get to be at fault for this just because you say so. "Pass DACA or you get no government funding" Nonsense ultimatums. Both sides playing politics. One side declaring that the other side must cave or face their wrath. It smells like 2017. Zero ownership, all politics, my shit doesn't stink. This is the escalation conservatives have been asking for. They don’t want to compromise or give up ground, so this is how the process will go. Given the way the last two legislative pushes were designed to cut out the Democrats, the GOP leadership always knew things would grind to a halt once they had to work with the Democrats. Our government is designed to force compromise. Your neck might get sore here reading "It's you that's making ultimatums" (provides their ultimatum) "But it's you that made us do it." Maybe that's what I'm getting at with both sides playing politics. Just maybe. That's the only good thing that can come out with it ... funding the government for another month pushes this back by ... a month.
Both sides can back down at any time. They could hold a vote right now on any of these options. You can blame the democrats for playing politics with the budget, but politics is what they were hired to do. I can blame the conservatives for blowing up the DACA deal, but that is what their voters want. But both of our parties were voted into a system that does not work if people cannot compromise. So here we are and I’m excited to see who ends up taking the blame.
|
On January 20 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:03 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:00 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:54 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/SenateMajLdr/status/954409393507876864Republicans have just become too used to playing their political games, and too obtuse to there being actual consequences. So, they can say things like this, because all they see is their political talking-point. They don't even see what they're actually saying. It's impossible to actually exaggerate how disgusting, and tragically revealing, McConnell's tweet here is. "We held off funding CHIP so we could force you to choose between children and immigrant families." https://twitter.com/KrangTNelson/status/954131426391175168 "We held off funding the government so we can force you to choose DACA" I'd have less qualms if everybody agreed both sides were playing politics. But one side wants to claim moral high ground and declare themselves in the right. It kind of makes me sympathetic to McConnell's messaging. When he purposefully set up CHIP to be this bargaining chip I have 0 sympathy. Let's see, you get none of what you want ... and you get none of what you want. I don't like McConnell and I don't like what he'll do after this fight and for the rest of his tenure. But he's got plenty of reason to play hardball in the face of one-sided blame game. We'll get back to intraparty resolutions after.
Please provide the bill in question so we can point out the obvious poison pill.
There has not been a clean CHIP funding bill. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
|
On January 20 2018 05:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:11 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 20 2018 04:52 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On January 20 2018 04:44 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:40 Mohdoo wrote:On January 20 2018 04:37 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:27 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 04:26 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:20 Mohdoo wrote:
Any of you guys remember the kinda stuff our resident republicans were saying the last time the government shut down? Can't help but wonder what is so different this time. Schumer's got some gems: You know, we could do the same thing on immigration. We believe strongly in immigration reform. We could say, ‘We’re shutting down the government, we’re not gonna raise the debt ceiling, until you pass immigration reform.’ It would be governmental chaos. Life comes at you fast. Except that not asking for reform but to continue on as in years prior. I know, its easy to forget it was Trump who blew up the DACA. The executive branch does unilaterally what Congress rejected. New executive that ran on a tougher immigration stance rescinds. Now they're shutting down the government to pressure Congress to pass it. Yeah, Schumer might regret saying it now, but he has his shills to cover his ass. On January 20 2018 04:30 Mohdoo wrote:On January 20 2018 04:26 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:20 Mohdoo wrote:
Any of you guys remember the kinda stuff our resident republicans were saying the last time the government shut down? Can't help but wonder what is so different this time. Schumer's got some gems: You know, we could do the same thing on immigration. We believe strongly in immigration reform. We could say, ‘We’re shutting down the government, we’re not gonna raise the debt ceiling, until you pass immigration reform.’ It would be governmental chaos. Life comes at you fast. I don't consider DACA immigration. If you've been here since you're a child, you are an American. Children should never be made to suffer for their parent's mistakes. If you illegally immigrate to America, you're subject to immigration law. In your eyes, what decisions did these children make? How much input did you have where your family lives? You haven't shown what responsibility these DACA kids have. Describe the decisions they made. They're a victim of the choices their parents made. The parents are responding to decades of failure of the US to secure its sudden border, and the failed economic/judicial/social policies of their host countries. The argument is for compassion for the victim, not that DACA isn't immigration. It's literally the definition of immigration. Do newborns get to choose who they were born to and where they were born? You say they are victims, but you advocate for punishing them. Why? If your parents decided to immigrate to an ISIS controlled city when you were 6 years old, and you got your head chopped off for being a white Christian, did you fuck up? Should you die for being such an idiot and moving to Syria? Newborns don't get to choose, which is why we have a million laws and protocols in place to make sure the state does a decent job at keeping children somewhat ok. The idea that it takes absolutely nothing to be a parent, meaning there are millions of garbage parents, is not a new idea. We try to fill in the gaps best we can. The idea that a child should not be blamed or punished for the mistakes of their parents is not new. Children have no expression of will, they are practically property. A southern border wall, tech surveillance, and beefed-up border patrol would prevent more victims from entering our country. As it stands, you advocate for creating more and for encouraging lawless behavior. You don't even consider it immigration law. You don't get to choose where you're born, so let's deny birthright citizenship as well. Well, it wasn't your choice. Wait... so you don't think the children have agency, but letting them stay encourages lawless behavior... by the children that have no agency? Remember, we're discussing kicking out the children here, not adults who immigrated by choice. Being separated from your early teen child is hardly a favorable outcome that people are going to be encouraged by in attempting to cross the border, and if it honestly is then severity of the humanitarian concern vs the low number of Dreamers would probably be sufficient argument to anyone who isn't a flaming [redacted]. Besides, there comes a point where the diminishing returns of more border security become more expensive than simply having a small number of immigrants, who already have to meet some reasonably high bars for renewal of deferred action. In regards to the Dreamers, they really are a lot of the "best", to be a bit on the nose. And please, forced removal from a place in which you've begun to establish a life isn't even f***ing comparable to just not being granted citizenship to somewhere from both. That would be the weak border that encourages lawless behavior. That of their parents illegally crossing the border to bring their children over.
The discussion was about immigrant children, the ones under DACA.
You argued that Mohdoo's position was advocating for encouraging lawless behavior.
How hard it is/should be for people to get in and what you actually do with illegal immigrant children are two completely different discussions, and the former was not the discussion being had. You were the only person who actually brought up the policy that the US should have with regards to preventing people from entering. It feels like you are mis-attributing things to Mohdoo and then arguing that.
So to double check, you weren't saying that DACA, or similar policies for children, encourage lawless behavior?
|
On January 20 2018 05:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:03 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:00 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:54 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/SenateMajLdr/status/954409393507876864Republicans have just become too used to playing their political games, and too obtuse to there being actual consequences. So, they can say things like this, because all they see is their political talking-point. They don't even see what they're actually saying. It's impossible to actually exaggerate how disgusting, and tragically revealing, McConnell's tweet here is. "We held off funding CHIP so we could force you to choose between children and immigrant families." https://twitter.com/KrangTNelson/status/954131426391175168 "We held off funding the government so we can force you to choose DACA" I'd have less qualms if everybody agreed both sides were playing politics. But one side wants to claim moral high ground and declare themselves in the right. It kind of makes me sympathetic to McConnell's messaging. When he purposefully set up CHIP to be this bargaining chip I have 0 sympathy. https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/954434510078271488Let's see, you get none of what you want ... and you get none of what you want. I don't like McConnell and I don't like what he'll do after this fight and for the rest of his tenure. But he's got plenty of reason to play hardball in the face of one-sided blame game. We'll get back to intraparty resolutions after. Please provide the bill in question so we can point out the obvious poison pill. There has not been a clean CHIP funding bill. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Any compromise on spending reductions amount to "using it as a bargaining chip" to you. Not compromise, but bargaining chip. You have a definitional problem that won't get resolved.
|
On January 20 2018 05:28 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:13 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:11 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 20 2018 04:52 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On January 20 2018 04:44 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:40 Mohdoo wrote:On January 20 2018 04:37 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:27 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 04:26 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Schumer's got some gems:
[quote]
Life comes at you fast. Except that not asking for reform but to continue on as in years prior. I know, its easy to forget it was Trump who blew up the DACA. The executive branch does unilaterally what Congress rejected. New executive that ran on a tougher immigration stance rescinds. Now they're shutting down the government to pressure Congress to pass it. Yeah, Schumer might regret saying it now, but he has his shills to cover his ass. On January 20 2018 04:30 Mohdoo wrote:On January 20 2018 04:26 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Schumer's got some gems:
[quote]
Life comes at you fast. I don't consider DACA immigration. If you've been here since you're a child, you are an American. Children should never be made to suffer for their parent's mistakes. If you illegally immigrate to America, you're subject to immigration law. In your eyes, what decisions did these children make? How much input did you have where your family lives? You haven't shown what responsibility these DACA kids have. Describe the decisions they made. They're a victim of the choices their parents made. The parents are responding to decades of failure of the US to secure its sudden border, and the failed economic/judicial/social policies of their host countries. The argument is for compassion for the victim, not that DACA isn't immigration. It's literally the definition of immigration. Do newborns get to choose who they were born to and where they were born? You say they are victims, but you advocate for punishing them. Why? If your parents decided to immigrate to an ISIS controlled city when you were 6 years old, and you got your head chopped off for being a white Christian, did you fuck up? Should you die for being such an idiot and moving to Syria? Newborns don't get to choose, which is why we have a million laws and protocols in place to make sure the state does a decent job at keeping children somewhat ok. The idea that it takes absolutely nothing to be a parent, meaning there are millions of garbage parents, is not a new idea. We try to fill in the gaps best we can. The idea that a child should not be blamed or punished for the mistakes of their parents is not new. Children have no expression of will, they are practically property. A southern border wall, tech surveillance, and beefed-up border patrol would prevent more victims from entering our country. As it stands, you advocate for creating more and for encouraging lawless behavior. You don't even consider it immigration law. You don't get to choose where you're born, so let's deny birthright citizenship as well. Well, it wasn't your choice. Wait... so you don't think the children have agency, but letting them stay encourages lawless behavior... by the children that have no agency? Remember, we're discussing kicking out the children here, not adults who immigrated by choice. Being separated from your early teen child is hardly a favorable outcome that people are going to be encouraged by in attempting to cross the border, and if it honestly is then severity of the humanitarian concern vs the low number of Dreamers would probably be sufficient argument to anyone who isn't a flaming [redacted]. Besides, there comes a point where the diminishing returns of more border security become more expensive than simply having a small number of immigrants, who already have to meet some reasonably high bars for renewal of deferred action. In regards to the Dreamers, they really are a lot of the "best", to be a bit on the nose. And please, forced removal from a place in which you've begun to establish a life isn't even f***ing comparable to just not being granted citizenship to somewhere from both. That would be the weak border that encourages lawless behavior. That of their parents illegally crossing the border to bring their children over. The discussion was about immigrant children, the ones under DACA. You argued that Mohdoo's position was advocating for encouraging lawless behavior. How hard it is/should be for people to get in and what you actually do with illegal immigrant children are two completely different discussions, and the former was not the discussion being had. You were the only person who actually brought up the policy that the US should have with regards to preventing people from entering. It feels like you are mis-attributing things to Mohdoo and then arguing that. So to double check, you weren't saying that DACA, or similar policies for children, encourage lawless behavior?
No, keeping border protections weak was encouraging lawless behavior. That was the text of the post that you can look up at your convenience. I'd really like a show of reading comprehension before we sidetrack into things I didn't say but questions you'd like answers on anyways.
|
On January 20 2018 05:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:03 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:00 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:54 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/SenateMajLdr/status/954409393507876864Republicans have just become too used to playing their political games, and too obtuse to there being actual consequences. So, they can say things like this, because all they see is their political talking-point. They don't even see what they're actually saying. It's impossible to actually exaggerate how disgusting, and tragically revealing, McConnell's tweet here is. "We held off funding CHIP so we could force you to choose between children and immigrant families." https://twitter.com/KrangTNelson/status/954131426391175168 "We held off funding the government so we can force you to choose DACA" I'd have less qualms if everybody agreed both sides were playing politics. But one side wants to claim moral high ground and declare themselves in the right. It kind of makes me sympathetic to McConnell's messaging. When he purposefully set up CHIP to be this bargaining chip I have 0 sympathy. https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/954434510078271488Let's see, you get none of what you want ... and you get none of what you want. I don't like McConnell and I don't like what he'll do after this fight and for the rest of his tenure. But he's got plenty of reason to play hardball in the face of one-sided blame game. We'll get back to intraparty resolutions after. Please provide the bill in question so we can point out the obvious poison pill. There has not been a clean CHIP funding bill. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Any compromise on spending reductions amount to "using it as a bargaining chip" to you. Not compromise, but bargaining chip. You have a definitional problem that won't get resolved.
You don't compromise on child healthcare for people just above the medicaid cutoff and you don't purposefully stop funding it so you can put a gun to the kid's head to make Democrats vote for a budget.
I will also assume your failure to provide the bill means it was indeed a poison pill
|
On January 20 2018 05:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:03 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:00 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:54 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/SenateMajLdr/status/954409393507876864Republicans have just become too used to playing their political games, and too obtuse to there being actual consequences. So, they can say things like this, because all they see is their political talking-point. They don't even see what they're actually saying. It's impossible to actually exaggerate how disgusting, and tragically revealing, McConnell's tweet here is. "We held off funding CHIP so we could force you to choose between children and immigrant families." https://twitter.com/KrangTNelson/status/954131426391175168 "We held off funding the government so we can force you to choose DACA" I'd have less qualms if everybody agreed both sides were playing politics. But one side wants to claim moral high ground and declare themselves in the right. It kind of makes me sympathetic to McConnell's messaging. When he purposefully set up CHIP to be this bargaining chip I have 0 sympathy. https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/954434510078271488Let's see, you get none of what you want ... and you get none of what you want. I don't like McConnell and I don't like what he'll do after this fight and for the rest of his tenure. But he's got plenty of reason to play hardball in the face of one-sided blame game. We'll get back to intraparty resolutions after. Please provide the bill in question so we can point out the obvious poison pill. There has not been a clean CHIP funding bill. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Any compromise on spending reductions amount to "using it as a bargaining chip" to you. Not compromise, but bargaining chip. You have a definitional problem that won't get resolved.
But he asked for the bill that was offered last week. What was it?
|
On January 20 2018 05:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:29 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:03 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:00 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:54 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/SenateMajLdr/status/954409393507876864Republicans have just become too used to playing their political games, and too obtuse to there being actual consequences. So, they can say things like this, because all they see is their political talking-point. They don't even see what they're actually saying. It's impossible to actually exaggerate how disgusting, and tragically revealing, McConnell's tweet here is. "We held off funding CHIP so we could force you to choose between children and immigrant families." https://twitter.com/KrangTNelson/status/954131426391175168 "We held off funding the government so we can force you to choose DACA" I'd have less qualms if everybody agreed both sides were playing politics. But one side wants to claim moral high ground and declare themselves in the right. It kind of makes me sympathetic to McConnell's messaging. When he purposefully set up CHIP to be this bargaining chip I have 0 sympathy. https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/954434510078271488Let's see, you get none of what you want ... and you get none of what you want. I don't like McConnell and I don't like what he'll do after this fight and for the rest of his tenure. But he's got plenty of reason to play hardball in the face of one-sided blame game. We'll get back to intraparty resolutions after. Please provide the bill in question so we can point out the obvious poison pill. There has not been a clean CHIP funding bill. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Any compromise on spending reductions amount to "using it as a bargaining chip" to you. Not compromise, but bargaining chip. You have a definitional problem that won't get resolved. But he asked for the bill that was offered last week. What was it?
I'm not going to do his googling for him under threat of "so we can point out the obvious poison pill." There's literally no sense putting effort into a problem with partisan definitions. If you can't compromise and everything's a bargaining chip, you're constructing things to guarantee you're right in all cases. If he wanted to be honest, he could state the higher virtue: Anything that doesn't increase government spending is making a bargaining chip out of programs I favor.
|
On January 20 2018 05:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:29 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:03 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:00 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:54 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/SenateMajLdr/status/954409393507876864Republicans have just become too used to playing their political games, and too obtuse to there being actual consequences. So, they can say things like this, because all they see is their political talking-point. They don't even see what they're actually saying. It's impossible to actually exaggerate how disgusting, and tragically revealing, McConnell's tweet here is. "We held off funding CHIP so we could force you to choose between children and immigrant families." https://twitter.com/KrangTNelson/status/954131426391175168 "We held off funding the government so we can force you to choose DACA" I'd have less qualms if everybody agreed both sides were playing politics. But one side wants to claim moral high ground and declare themselves in the right. It kind of makes me sympathetic to McConnell's messaging. When he purposefully set up CHIP to be this bargaining chip I have 0 sympathy. https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/954434510078271488Let's see, you get none of what you want ... and you get none of what you want. I don't like McConnell and I don't like what he'll do after this fight and for the rest of his tenure. But he's got plenty of reason to play hardball in the face of one-sided blame game. We'll get back to intraparty resolutions after. Please provide the bill in question so we can point out the obvious poison pill. There has not been a clean CHIP funding bill. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Any compromise on spending reductions amount to "using it as a bargaining chip" to you. Not compromise, but bargaining chip. You have a definitional problem that won't get resolved. You don't compromise on child healthcare for people just above the medicaid cutoff and you don't purposefully stop funding it so you can put a gun to the kid's head to make Democrats vote for a budget. I will also assume your failure to provide the bill means it was indeed a poison pill
Again, you're declaring that anything you don't like is "purposefully stop funding it" and anything you like is "not compromising on child healthcare" because you judge what is a poison pill. The Republicans can do the exact same thing ... purposefully not voting for the CR is purposefully stopping its funding. They're your brothers in this, if you can see it.
|
On January 20 2018 05:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:33 Plansix wrote:On January 20 2018 05:29 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:03 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:00 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:54 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/SenateMajLdr/status/954409393507876864Republicans have just become too used to playing their political games, and too obtuse to there being actual consequences. So, they can say things like this, because all they see is their political talking-point. They don't even see what they're actually saying. It's impossible to actually exaggerate how disgusting, and tragically revealing, McConnell's tweet here is. "We held off funding CHIP so we could force you to choose between children and immigrant families." https://twitter.com/KrangTNelson/status/954131426391175168 "We held off funding the government so we can force you to choose DACA" I'd have less qualms if everybody agreed both sides were playing politics. But one side wants to claim moral high ground and declare themselves in the right. It kind of makes me sympathetic to McConnell's messaging. When he purposefully set up CHIP to be this bargaining chip I have 0 sympathy. https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/954434510078271488Let's see, you get none of what you want ... and you get none of what you want. I don't like McConnell and I don't like what he'll do after this fight and for the rest of his tenure. But he's got plenty of reason to play hardball in the face of one-sided blame game. We'll get back to intraparty resolutions after. Please provide the bill in question so we can point out the obvious poison pill. There has not been a clean CHIP funding bill. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Any compromise on spending reductions amount to "using it as a bargaining chip" to you. Not compromise, but bargaining chip. You have a definitional problem that won't get resolved. But he asked for the bill that was offered last week. What was it? I'm not going to do his googling for him under threat of "so we can point out the obvious poison pill." There's literally no sense putting effort into a problem with partisan definitions. If you can't compromise and everything's a bargaining chip, you're constructing things to guarantee you're right in all cases. If he wanted to be honest, he could state the higher virtue: Anything that doesn't increase government spending is making a bargaining chip out of programs I favor.
But you posted the tweet citing that the Democrats were offered to fund CHIP last week and refuted that it was being held as a bargaining tool. Why post the tweet if you are not aware of the bill in question? Did you even check if the tweet was factual? Did that happen?
|
On January 20 2018 05:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:33 Plansix wrote:On January 20 2018 05:29 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:03 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:00 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:54 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/SenateMajLdr/status/954409393507876864Republicans have just become too used to playing their political games, and too obtuse to there being actual consequences. So, they can say things like this, because all they see is their political talking-point. They don't even see what they're actually saying. It's impossible to actually exaggerate how disgusting, and tragically revealing, McConnell's tweet here is. "We held off funding CHIP so we could force you to choose between children and immigrant families." https://twitter.com/KrangTNelson/status/954131426391175168 "We held off funding the government so we can force you to choose DACA" I'd have less qualms if everybody agreed both sides were playing politics. But one side wants to claim moral high ground and declare themselves in the right. It kind of makes me sympathetic to McConnell's messaging. When he purposefully set up CHIP to be this bargaining chip I have 0 sympathy. https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/954434510078271488Let's see, you get none of what you want ... and you get none of what you want. I don't like McConnell and I don't like what he'll do after this fight and for the rest of his tenure. But he's got plenty of reason to play hardball in the face of one-sided blame game. We'll get back to intraparty resolutions after. Please provide the bill in question so we can point out the obvious poison pill. There has not been a clean CHIP funding bill. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Any compromise on spending reductions amount to "using it as a bargaining chip" to you. Not compromise, but bargaining chip. You have a definitional problem that won't get resolved. But he asked for the bill that was offered last week. What was it? I'm not going to do his googling for him under threat of "so we can point out the obvious poison pill." There's literally no sense putting effort into a problem with partisan definitions. If you can't compromise and everything's a bargaining chip, you're constructing things to guarantee you're right in all cases. If he wanted to be honest, he could state the higher virtue: Anything that doesn't increase government spending is making a bargaining chip out of programs I favor.
Holy mother of strawmans.
No.
You wanne haggle over infrastructure spending? military equipment? sure.
But you don't play Russian roulette with child healthcare.
|
On January 20 2018 05:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:28 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 20 2018 05:13 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:11 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On January 20 2018 04:52 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On January 20 2018 04:44 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:40 Mohdoo wrote:On January 20 2018 04:37 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:27 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Except that not asking for reform but to continue on as in years prior.
I know, its easy to forget it was Trump who blew up the DACA. The executive branch does unilaterally what Congress rejected. New executive that ran on a tougher immigration stance rescinds. Now they're shutting down the government to pressure Congress to pass it. Yeah, Schumer might regret saying it now, but he has his shills to cover his ass. On January 20 2018 04:30 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
I don't consider DACA immigration. If you've been here since you're a child, you are an American. Children should never be made to suffer for their parent's mistakes. If you illegally immigrate to America, you're subject to immigration law. In your eyes, what decisions did these children make? How much input did you have where your family lives? You haven't shown what responsibility these DACA kids have. Describe the decisions they made. They're a victim of the choices their parents made. The parents are responding to decades of failure of the US to secure its sudden border, and the failed economic/judicial/social policies of their host countries. The argument is for compassion for the victim, not that DACA isn't immigration. It's literally the definition of immigration. Do newborns get to choose who they were born to and where they were born? You say they are victims, but you advocate for punishing them. Why? If your parents decided to immigrate to an ISIS controlled city when you were 6 years old, and you got your head chopped off for being a white Christian, did you fuck up? Should you die for being such an idiot and moving to Syria? Newborns don't get to choose, which is why we have a million laws and protocols in place to make sure the state does a decent job at keeping children somewhat ok. The idea that it takes absolutely nothing to be a parent, meaning there are millions of garbage parents, is not a new idea. We try to fill in the gaps best we can. The idea that a child should not be blamed or punished for the mistakes of their parents is not new. Children have no expression of will, they are practically property. A southern border wall, tech surveillance, and beefed-up border patrol would prevent more victims from entering our country. As it stands, you advocate for creating more and for encouraging lawless behavior. You don't even consider it immigration law. You don't get to choose where you're born, so let's deny birthright citizenship as well. Well, it wasn't your choice. Wait... so you don't think the children have agency, but letting them stay encourages lawless behavior... by the children that have no agency? Remember, we're discussing kicking out the children here, not adults who immigrated by choice. Being separated from your early teen child is hardly a favorable outcome that people are going to be encouraged by in attempting to cross the border, and if it honestly is then severity of the humanitarian concern vs the low number of Dreamers would probably be sufficient argument to anyone who isn't a flaming [redacted]. Besides, there comes a point where the diminishing returns of more border security become more expensive than simply having a small number of immigrants, who already have to meet some reasonably high bars for renewal of deferred action. In regards to the Dreamers, they really are a lot of the "best", to be a bit on the nose. And please, forced removal from a place in which you've begun to establish a life isn't even f***ing comparable to just not being granted citizenship to somewhere from both. That would be the weak border that encourages lawless behavior. That of their parents illegally crossing the border to bring their children over. The discussion was about immigrant children, the ones under DACA. You argued that Mohdoo's position was advocating for encouraging lawless behavior. How hard it is/should be for people to get in and what you actually do with illegal immigrant children are two completely different discussions, and the former was not the discussion being had. You were the only person who actually brought up the policy that the US should have with regards to preventing people from entering. It feels like you are mis-attributing things to Mohdoo and then arguing that. So to double check, you weren't saying that DACA, or similar policies for children, encourage lawless behavior? No, keeping border protections weak was encouraging lawless behavior. That was the text of the post that you can look up at your convenience. I'd really like a show of reading comprehension before we sidetrack into things I didn't say but questions you'd like answers on anyways.
You were responding to this:
You say they are victims, but you advocate for punishing them. Why? If your parents decided to immigrate to an ISIS controlled city when you were 6 years old, and you got your head chopped off for being a white Christian, did you fuck up? Should you die for being such an idiot and moving to Syria?
Newborns don't get to choose, which is why we have a million laws and protocols in place to make sure the state does a decent job at keeping children somewhat ok. The idea that it takes absolutely nothing to be a parent, meaning there are millions of garbage parents, is not a new idea. We try to fill in the gaps best we can. The idea that a child should not be blamed or punished for the mistakes of their parents is not new. Children have no expression of will, they are practically property.
At no single point since page 9730 has Mohdoo even mentioned security, nor have any of arguments had anything to do with, or to what degree the immigration itself should be prevented. Mohdoo was entirely discussing DACA, i.e., what do with children who have already been pulled across that border. You sidetracked, and then attack my reading comprehension for not respecting your strawman of what Mohdoo was arguing.
Dear lord.
|
On January 20 2018 05:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 05:38 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:33 Plansix wrote:On January 20 2018 05:29 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:09 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:03 Gorsameth wrote:On January 20 2018 05:00 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 04:54 Leporello wrote:https://twitter.com/SenateMajLdr/status/954409393507876864Republicans have just become too used to playing their political games, and too obtuse to there being actual consequences. So, they can say things like this, because all they see is their political talking-point. They don't even see what they're actually saying. It's impossible to actually exaggerate how disgusting, and tragically revealing, McConnell's tweet here is. "We held off funding CHIP so we could force you to choose between children and immigrant families." https://twitter.com/KrangTNelson/status/954131426391175168 "We held off funding the government so we can force you to choose DACA" I'd have less qualms if everybody agreed both sides were playing politics. But one side wants to claim moral high ground and declare themselves in the right. It kind of makes me sympathetic to McConnell's messaging. When he purposefully set up CHIP to be this bargaining chip I have 0 sympathy. https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/954434510078271488Let's see, you get none of what you want ... and you get none of what you want. I don't like McConnell and I don't like what he'll do after this fight and for the rest of his tenure. But he's got plenty of reason to play hardball in the face of one-sided blame game. We'll get back to intraparty resolutions after. Please provide the bill in question so we can point out the obvious poison pill. There has not been a clean CHIP funding bill. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Any compromise on spending reductions amount to "using it as a bargaining chip" to you. Not compromise, but bargaining chip. You have a definitional problem that won't get resolved. But he asked for the bill that was offered last week. What was it? I'm not going to do his googling for him under threat of "so we can point out the obvious poison pill." There's literally no sense putting effort into a problem with partisan definitions. If you can't compromise and everything's a bargaining chip, you're constructing things to guarantee you're right in all cases. If he wanted to be honest, he could state the higher virtue: Anything that doesn't increase government spending is making a bargaining chip out of programs I favor. But you posted the tweet citing that the Democrats were offered to fund CHIP last week and refuted that it was being held as a bargaining tool. Why post the tweet if you are not aware of the bill in question? Did you even check if the tweet was factual? Did that happen?
It's kind of adorable you thought he'd post a link to the bill.
Hell he did the same thing like 2 days ago when posted a tweet & claimed a bunch of liberals were blaming Trump for Hawaii's alarm scare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
