|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 12 2019 01:06 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2019 22:28 iamthedave wrote:On February 11 2019 10:57 Sermokala wrote:On February 11 2019 10:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2019 10:31 IgnE wrote:
Oh so you weren't actually trying to have a conversation. Glad to see that with the closing of the blog we have thusly returned to the endless feedback loops of "you're misinterpreting me" and "read my first post". Which is doubly weird because its not the same people who posted in the blog thread. We should build a wall between the US politics thread and the euro politics thread for a month. One thread has just euro people talknig about politics that can include the us and the other just has north american people talking about poltiics that can include the euro politics. Actually both me and Igne did post over there. I would like to say that the reason I posted in this manner was entirely because I wanted to avoid that cycle and make Igne clarify his point rather than wait for me to say something so he could leap upon his high horse and say how he didn't mean that. I certainly don't intend for it to become a theme. Has there been any further whispers about the government re-shutting down/another fight over the wall? I'm not seeing anything on my side of the pond but I distinctly remember Trump saying he was going to do it in another two weeks was it? I'm sorry that was a poorly worded shitpost I remember intending for more likes in it in order to be sarcastic. I guess I just was tired and forgot. There has been rumors that the negotiations are completely stalled and people are trying to create a backstop in case they don't come up with a deal that trump will sign onto. Things are looking day-to-day for what might turn out.
That was confirmed by NPR this morning. The Democrats are willing to give some money for border fencing /The Wall to put an end to the issue. But in return, they want to limit the funding of the detention centers and push the Trump administration to focus on criminals, rather than anyone they can find. Of course, it is also to combat the tactic employed by the administration of locking away illegal immigrants for long periods of time while they wait for deportation hearings. The administration views it as a deterrent. But most asylum seekers would rather be locked up in a US prison than be sent back to their country.
|
My guess is that a deal comes together sometime this week, maybe at the eleventh hour. Then again, political predictions in the age of Trump are more fraught than ever before it seems lol.
|
so that's the spin the Democrats are putting on fewer beds? Selectivity? lol. why not just announce you are for open bordsrs and as many people coming in as possible and be done with it.
|
On February 12 2019 01:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 01:06 Sermokala wrote:On February 11 2019 22:28 iamthedave wrote:On February 11 2019 10:57 Sermokala wrote:On February 11 2019 10:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2019 10:31 IgnE wrote:
Oh so you weren't actually trying to have a conversation. Glad to see that with the closing of the blog we have thusly returned to the endless feedback loops of "you're misinterpreting me" and "read my first post". Which is doubly weird because its not the same people who posted in the blog thread. We should build a wall between the US politics thread and the euro politics thread for a month. One thread has just euro people talknig about politics that can include the us and the other just has north american people talking about poltiics that can include the euro politics. Actually both me and Igne did post over there. I would like to say that the reason I posted in this manner was entirely because I wanted to avoid that cycle and make Igne clarify his point rather than wait for me to say something so he could leap upon his high horse and say how he didn't mean that. I certainly don't intend for it to become a theme. Has there been any further whispers about the government re-shutting down/another fight over the wall? I'm not seeing anything on my side of the pond but I distinctly remember Trump saying he was going to do it in another two weeks was it? I'm sorry that was a poorly worded shitpost I remember intending for more likes in it in order to be sarcastic. I guess I just was tired and forgot. There has been rumors that the negotiations are completely stalled and people are trying to create a backstop in case they don't come up with a deal that trump will sign onto. Things are looking day-to-day for what might turn out. That was confirmed by NPR this morning. The Democrats are willing to give some money for border fencing /The Wall to put an end to the issue. But in return, they want to limit the funding of the detention centers and push the Trump administration to focus on criminals, rather than anyone they can find. Of course, it is also to combat the tactic employed by the administration of locking away illegal immigrants for long periods of time while they wait for deportation hearings. The administration views it as a deterrent. But most asylum seekers would rather be locked up in a US prison than be sent back to their country. Yeah see, that I cannot agree with. Giving Trump some money is not going to 'put an end to the issue'. Its just going to get them to do the same again for more money next time.
Give them 0 money for the wall and let them shut the government down again.
|
On February 12 2019 02:14 Introvert wrote:
so that's the spin the Democrats are putting on fewer beds? Selectivity? lol. why not just announce you are for open bordsrs and as many people coming in as possible and be done with it.
Are you saying you actually think democrats want open borders? How are you defining "open borders"?
|
On February 12 2019 02:14 Introvert wrote:
so that's the spin the Democrats are putting on fewer beds? Selectivity? lol. why not just announce you are for open bordsrs and as many people coming in as possible and be done with it.
Dude, can you put more effort into these? I get it that you dislike immigration of any kind, but the whole "open borders" is kinda lazy at this point. No one buys into this argument, including you.
On February 12 2019 02:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 02:14 Introvert wrote:
so that's the spin the Democrats are putting on fewer beds? Selectivity? lol. why not just announce you are for open bordsrs and as many people coming in as possible and be done with it. Are you saying you actually think democrats want open borders? How are you defining "open borders"?
WHY WOULD YOU ENGAGE WITH THIS, YOU KNOW IT IS BULLSHIT!?!?!?!?!
|
On February 12 2019 02:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 02:14 Introvert wrote:
so that's the spin the Democrats are putting on fewer beds? Selectivity? lol. why not just announce you are for open bordsrs and as many people coming in as possible and be done with it. Dude, can you put more effort into these? I get it that you dislike immigration of any kind, but the whole "open borders" is kinda lazy at this point. No one buys into this argument, including you. Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 02:20 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2019 02:14 Introvert wrote:
so that's the spin the Democrats are putting on fewer beds? Selectivity? lol. why not just announce you are for open bordsrs and as many people coming in as possible and be done with it. Are you saying you actually think democrats want open borders? How are you defining "open borders"? WHY WOULD YOU ENGAGE WITH THIS, YOU KNOW IT IS BULLSHIT!?!?!?!?!
I imagine he defines open borders as something other than every single person on the planet being granted free entry to the US, so I want to at least know what he is arguing against.
|
On February 12 2019 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 02:20 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 02:14 Introvert wrote:
so that's the spin the Democrats are putting on fewer beds? Selectivity? lol. why not just announce you are for open bordsrs and as many people coming in as possible and be done with it. Dude, can you put more effort into these? I get it that you dislike immigration of any kind, but the whole "open borders" is kinda lazy at this point. No one buys into this argument, including you. On February 12 2019 02:20 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2019 02:14 Introvert wrote:
so that's the spin the Democrats are putting on fewer beds? Selectivity? lol. why not just announce you are for open bordsrs and as many people coming in as possible and be done with it. Are you saying you actually think democrats want open borders? How are you defining "open borders"? WHY WOULD YOU ENGAGE WITH THIS, YOU KNOW IT IS BULLSHIT!?!?!?!?! I imagine he defines open borders as something other than every single person on the planet being granted free entry to the US, so I want to at least know what he is arguing against.
I've been down this road with Introvert a number of times.I am convinced even he doesn't know what Open Borders really means. Must like "securing the border". But I am open to being surprised this time.
|
On February 12 2019 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 02:20 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 02:14 Introvert wrote:
so that's the spin the Democrats are putting on fewer beds? Selectivity? lol. why not just announce you are for open bordsrs and as many people coming in as possible and be done with it. Dude, can you put more effort into these? I get it that you dislike immigration of any kind, but the whole "open borders" is kinda lazy at this point. No one buys into this argument, including you. On February 12 2019 02:20 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2019 02:14 Introvert wrote:
so that's the spin the Democrats are putting on fewer beds? Selectivity? lol. why not just announce you are for open bordsrs and as many people coming in as possible and be done with it. Are you saying you actually think democrats want open borders? How are you defining "open borders"? WHY WOULD YOU ENGAGE WITH THIS, YOU KNOW IT IS BULLSHIT!?!?!?!?! I imagine he defines open borders as something other than every single person on the planet being granted free entry to the US, so I want to at least know what he is arguing against.
He defines it as "Trump said they want open borders". You don't have to look further, since even Trump doesn't know what it is he wants apart from being in the news, "strong against crimes and illegal immigrants".
|
On February 12 2019 02:16 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 01:15 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 01:06 Sermokala wrote:On February 11 2019 22:28 iamthedave wrote:On February 11 2019 10:57 Sermokala wrote:On February 11 2019 10:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2019 10:31 IgnE wrote:
Oh so you weren't actually trying to have a conversation. Glad to see that with the closing of the blog we have thusly returned to the endless feedback loops of "you're misinterpreting me" and "read my first post". Which is doubly weird because its not the same people who posted in the blog thread. We should build a wall between the US politics thread and the euro politics thread for a month. One thread has just euro people talknig about politics that can include the us and the other just has north american people talking about poltiics that can include the euro politics. Actually both me and Igne did post over there. I would like to say that the reason I posted in this manner was entirely because I wanted to avoid that cycle and make Igne clarify his point rather than wait for me to say something so he could leap upon his high horse and say how he didn't mean that. I certainly don't intend for it to become a theme. Has there been any further whispers about the government re-shutting down/another fight over the wall? I'm not seeing anything on my side of the pond but I distinctly remember Trump saying he was going to do it in another two weeks was it? I'm sorry that was a poorly worded shitpost I remember intending for more likes in it in order to be sarcastic. I guess I just was tired and forgot. There has been rumors that the negotiations are completely stalled and people are trying to create a backstop in case they don't come up with a deal that trump will sign onto. Things are looking day-to-day for what might turn out. That was confirmed by NPR this morning. The Democrats are willing to give some money for border fencing /The Wall to put an end to the issue. But in return, they want to limit the funding of the detention centers and push the Trump administration to focus on criminals, rather than anyone they can find. Of course, it is also to combat the tactic employed by the administration of locking away illegal immigrants for long periods of time while they wait for deportation hearings. The administration views it as a deterrent. But most asylum seekers would rather be locked up in a US prison than be sent back to their country. Yeah see, that I cannot agree with. Giving Trump some money is not going to 'put an end to the issue'. Its just going to get them to do the same again for more money next time. Give them 0 money for the wall and let them shut the government down again.
Honestly, the wall is some of the least harmful shit Trump is doing when it comes to immigration and asylum seekers. If the Democrats can some control and oversight of those aspects of the administration through control of the budget, it will be worth the nominal amount of money he wants.
The part that boggles my mind is just how small the amount of money is Trump has picked this fight over. 5 billion is nothing on the national scale and would be the easiest get for any other president that was willing to do some horse trading. But with folks like Mark Meadows whispering in Trump's ear, he isn't going to give up anything.
I think that is sort of the plan too. The anti-immigration wing of the Republican party is happy with the way things are going. They would like the "wall" for symbolic reasons, but they really just want to keep doing what they are doing on immigration. This is why they won't trade the Wall funding for DACA or any other immigration reforms. They dont' want reform, they want to deport.
|
|
|
He could have gotten 25 billion for the wall without a fight if he accepted DACA a few months ago. Now hes bleeding out the last of his moderate support for a tenth of that.
|
On February 12 2019 03:59 Sermokala wrote:
He could have gotten 25 billion for the wall without a fight if he accepted DACA a few months ago. Now hes bleeding out the last of his moderate support for a tenth of that.
Dems should have made a deal by now IMO. Not much has changed from those few months ago, and if Trump brings a proper DACA deal (not the old one, a longer term one), the media should report it fairly, that way we avoid a shutdown.
If the media reported that the Dems then refused a proper DACA deal, a lot of democrats would be mad. Instead the media will just blame Trump again.
I saw a youtube video of someone going out on the streets asking if people would support a DACA trade for wall funding, and they all said yes to it, but were not informed it was even on the table...
|
On February 12 2019 04:10 youngjiddle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 03:59 Sermokala wrote:
He could have gotten 25 billion for the wall without a fight if he accepted DACA a few months ago. Now hes bleeding out the last of his moderate support for a tenth of that. Dems should have made a deal by now IMO. Not much has changed from those few months ago, and if Trump brings a proper DACA deal (not the old one, a longer term one), the media should report it fairly, that way we avoid a shutdown. If the media reported that the Dems then refused a proper DACA deal, a lot of democrats would be mad. Instead the media will just blame Trump again. I saw a youtube video of someone going out on the streets asking if people would support a DACA trade for wall funding, and they all said yes to it, but were not informed it was even on the table...
Insofar as I understand this, Pelosi has repeatedly mentioned DACA for the wall as an option, and Trump and/or McConnell have repeatedly shot it down. So if you want that, the ball appears to be in the Republicans' court.
|
The anti-immigration wing of Republican party do not want DACA or any other form of immigration reform. People like Meadows and Steve Miller will kill any deal that involves DACA protections.
Lots of folks forget that back in 2006 we almost had immigration reform. The Democrats and Bush wanted to do it. Sessions and Steve Miller moved hell and high water to kill it. That is the dynamic playing out right now, but without Sessions at the helm.
|
On February 12 2019 04:16 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 04:10 youngjiddle wrote:On February 12 2019 03:59 Sermokala wrote:
He could have gotten 25 billion for the wall without a fight if he accepted DACA a few months ago. Now hes bleeding out the last of his moderate support for a tenth of that. Dems should have made a deal by now IMO. Not much has changed from those few months ago, and if Trump brings a proper DACA deal (not the old one, a longer term one), the media should report it fairly, that way we avoid a shutdown. If the media reported that the Dems then refused a proper DACA deal, a lot of democrats would be mad. Instead the media will just blame Trump again. I saw a youtube video of someone going out on the streets asking if people would support a DACA trade for wall funding, and they all said yes to it, but were not informed it was even on the table... Insofar as I understand this, Pelosi has repeatedly mentioned DACA for the wall as an option, and Trump and/or McConnell have repeatedly shot it down. So if you want that, the ball appears to be in the Republicans' court.
McConnell did get paid over $10 million from Russian Oligarchy through his SuperPAC or whatever it was... They want more money they can squeeze out of this country, into their pockets. This is nothing else but extortion to the tax payers, just like they tried Jeff Bezos...
|
On February 12 2019 04:16 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 04:10 youngjiddle wrote:On February 12 2019 03:59 Sermokala wrote:
He could have gotten 25 billion for the wall without a fight if he accepted DACA a few months ago. Now hes bleeding out the last of his moderate support for a tenth of that. Dems should have made a deal by now IMO. Not much has changed from those few months ago, and if Trump brings a proper DACA deal (not the old one, a longer term one), the media should report it fairly, that way we avoid a shutdown. If the media reported that the Dems then refused a proper DACA deal, a lot of democrats would be mad. Instead the media will just blame Trump again. I saw a youtube video of someone going out on the streets asking if people would support a DACA trade for wall funding, and they all said yes to it, but were not informed it was even on the table... Insofar as I understand this, Pelosi has repeatedly mentioned DACA for the wall as an option, and Trump and/or McConnell have repeatedly shot it down. So if you want that, the ball appears to be in the Republicans' court.
Pelosi said in the meeting with Trump no wall talk whatsoever, so obviously she is sending mixed messages.
As for McConnell, yeah, that's why I said "if Trump brings a proper DACA deal" ...
|
On February 12 2019 02:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 02:14 Introvert wrote:
so that's the spin the Democrats are putting on fewer beds? Selectivity? lol. why not just announce you are for open bordsrs and as many people coming in as possible and be done with it. Are you saying you actually think democrats want open borders? How are you defining "open borders"?
What do democrats want immigration wise? What is their policy?
|
On February 12 2019 04:16 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 04:10 youngjiddle wrote:On February 12 2019 03:59 Sermokala wrote:
He could have gotten 25 billion for the wall without a fight if he accepted DACA a few months ago. Now hes bleeding out the last of his moderate support for a tenth of that. Dems should have made a deal by now IMO. Not much has changed from those few months ago, and if Trump brings a proper DACA deal (not the old one, a longer term one), the media should report it fairly, that way we avoid a shutdown. If the media reported that the Dems then refused a proper DACA deal, a lot of democrats would be mad. Instead the media will just blame Trump again. I saw a youtube video of someone going out on the streets asking if people would support a DACA trade for wall funding, and they all said yes to it, but were not informed it was even on the table... Insofar as I understand this, Pelosi has repeatedly mentioned DACA for the wall as an option, and Trump and/or McConnell have repeatedly shot it down. So if you want that, the ball appears to be in the Republicans' court.
There was a handshake deal for $25 billion in exchange for DACA protections last year. Then Trump talked to Miller or some other hardliner who threw a fit and nixed the deal.
The problem is when Trump goes and renege on a deal like that, his credibility is fucking shot and people will have zero inclination to give him even an inch. Especially now when negotiating from a stronger position.
|
On February 12 2019 04:38 youngjiddle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 04:16 Acrofales wrote:On February 12 2019 04:10 youngjiddle wrote:On February 12 2019 03:59 Sermokala wrote:
He could have gotten 25 billion for the wall without a fight if he accepted DACA a few months ago. Now hes bleeding out the last of his moderate support for a tenth of that. Dems should have made a deal by now IMO. Not much has changed from those few months ago, and if Trump brings a proper DACA deal (not the old one, a longer term one), the media should report it fairly, that way we avoid a shutdown. If the media reported that the Dems then refused a proper DACA deal, a lot of democrats would be mad. Instead the media will just blame Trump again. I saw a youtube video of someone going out on the streets asking if people would support a DACA trade for wall funding, and they all said yes to it, but were not informed it was even on the table... Insofar as I understand this, Pelosi has repeatedly mentioned DACA for the wall as an option, and Trump and/or McConnell have repeatedly shot it down. So if you want that, the ball appears to be in the Republicans' court. Pelosi said in the meeting with Trump no wall talk whatsoever, so obviously she is sending mixed messages. As for McConnell, yeah, that's why I said "if Trump brings a proper DACA deal" ...
i mean, he can’t. these need to come from congress. though it has been shown that mcconnell essentially works for trump these days, especially in regards to using shut downs as a weapon, as ass backwards as that is. so it is a distinction without a difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
