{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by tjustie:
1/21/2018 10:17:38 PM
14
[quote]Republicans didn't put something in the bill to piss off dems, it didn't have anything in it they actually oppose. They pulled this stunt because they wanted DACA slipped in with no immigration concessions whatsoever from republicans. [/quote]
Mfw Democrats tried to negotiate moderate bipartisan deals that included cuts to chain migration, (full!) funding for the border wall, end of the lottery system, etc, but:
•Trump is a nightmare to negotiate with, holds no consistent positions, and reneges on previously made agreements
•Trump and the white house clearly have different policy prescriptions, or more accurately, Trump is a weak piece of jello while the white house is staunchly anti-immigration
•Building on 1 & 2, Trump always ends up subservient to his immigration hawk advisors and friends in Congress, meaning he won't sign anything moderate
[quote]They literally, not figuratively, put amnesty for illegal immigrants ahead of children's health insurance and soldiers getting paid on time, among other things.[/quote]
Mfw McConnell held CHIP hostage for months just to use it as a bargaining chip. Mfw [url=https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4710181/senator-mcconnell-objects-military-pay-protection]McConnell[/url] cares about the military. Mildly related throwback to when McConnell [url=https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/12/06/mitch_mcconnell_filibusters_his_own_bill.html]filibustered a bill[/url] [i]he[/i] introduced because he didn't expect the Dems to agree with it. Mfw it's all just theatrics with McConnell.
[quote]DACA wasn't going to be ended until march, there was no reason DACA had to be injected into funding the government. None. This was democrat's and their desperate attempt to get leverage because they have a minority in both houses and don't have the white house.[/quote]
Mfw Democrats think [url=https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/955095991711084546]it's clear[/url] that a DACA solution won't happen, which is why they're are trying to force it through right now.
Also, completely unrelated, but lol @ Trump suggesting Repubs take the nuclear option, a proposal so silly that McConnell immediately rejected it.
Additionally, [url=https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/01/19/politics/cnn-poll-shutdown-trump-immigration-daca/index.html#ampshare=http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/19/politics/cnn-poll-shutdown-trump-immigration-daca/index.html]here's some interesting polling[/url] on who's being held responsible for the shutdown now and whether people think shutting down the government over DACA is worth it. Turns out Dems are actually fairly divided on whether a shutdown is worth it, and independents are pretty broadly against the shutdown.
English
-
[quote]Mfw Democrats tried to negotiate moderate bipartisan deals that included cuts to chain migration, (full!) funding for the border wall, end of the lottery system, etc, but: •Trump is a nightmare to negotiate with, holds no consistent positions, and reneges on previously made agreements •Trump and the white house clearly have different policy prescriptions, or more accurately, Trump is a weak piece of jello while the white house is staunchly anti-immigration •Building on 1 & 2, Trump always ends up subservient to his immigration hawk advisors and friends in Congress, meaning he won't sign anything moderate[/quote] The Dems wanted the codification of DACA as part of this deal. Trump wisely rejected it. Instead if fearmongering just put out the facts.
-
Yes, I believe I acknowledged the current situation at the end of my comment. Read past the first paragraph. Dunno where you see any fear mongering either unless you think recognizing Trump's actions as "chief negotiator" or literally explaining the Democrats' rationale is fear mongering.
-
[quote]Yes, I believe I acknowledged the current situation at the end of my comment. Read past the first paragraph.[/quote] That's nice. But you failed to address the fact that the Dems wanted codification of DACA in exchange for passing the bill. Which is why Trump reneged on previous agreements. Odd you left that out of your comment. [quote]Dunno where you see any fear mongering either unless you think recognizing Trump's actions as "chief negotiator" or literally explaining the Democrats' rationale is fear mongering.[/quote] Trump is doing a great job negotiating. And you didn't explain all of their rationale. I don't see anything in your post about the Dems wanting the codification of DACA which is why Trump rejected it.
-
Trump reneged because his hardline advisors told him the agreements didn't do enough for the white house's demands. I explained the Dem's rationale for shutting down the government fine. Dems wanting DACA kids legalized is literally the whole point of the negotiations. If you needed that spoon fed to you as the ultimate reason for them shutting down the government, then I don't know what to tell you.
-
[quote]Trump reneged because his hardline advisors told him the agreements didn't do enough for the white house's demands.[/quote] http://www.businessinsider.com/government-shutdown-schumer-wall-funding-for-daca-trump-deal-2018-1 [i]Schumer told members that a deal he offered to Trump would have given the president some funding for the long-promised wall in exchange for codification of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration program. The president rejected the offer, according to Schumer.[/i] [quote]I explained the Dem's rationale for shutting down the government fine. Dems wanting DACA kids legalized is literally the whole point of the negotiations. If you needed that spoon fed to you as the ultimate reason for them shutting down the government, then I don't know what to tell you.[/quote] Policy is not the same as a code. The Dems wanted the codification of DACA.
-
Edited by tjustie: 1/23/2018 2:33:42 PMThe [url=https://nyti.ms/2DlQ0K7 ]stated reasons[/url] for Trump rejecting the deal were: [quote]their consensus broke down later in the day when the president and his chief of staff demanded more concessions on immigration, according to people on both sides familiar with the lunch and follow-up calls between Mr. Trump and Mr. Schumer... The immigration concessions from Democrats were not conservative enough, Mr. Trump told Mr. Schumer. The president said he needed more border security measures as well as more enforcement of illegal immigration in parts of the country far from the border.[/quote] There's also Trump's [url=https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/01/19/lindsey-graham-rips-white-house-for-trumps-change-on-immigration-deal.html#ampshare=https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/19/lindsey-graham-rips-white-house-for-trumps-change-on-immigration-deal.html]backpedaling[/url] on the bipartisan deal. He didn't renege because it codified DACA and your article doesn't suggest he did.
-
Edited by Unicorn Goo: 1/23/2018 3:04:55 PM[quote]The [url=https://nyti.ms/2DlQ0K7 ]stated reasons[/url] for Trump rejecting the deal were: their consensus broke down later in the day when the president and his chief of staff demanded more concessions on immigration, according to people on both sides familiar with the lunch and follow-up calls between Mr. Trump and Mr. Schumer... The immigration concessions from Democrats were not conservative enough, Mr. Trump told Mr. Schumer. The president said he needed more border security measures as well as more enforcement of illegal immigration in parts of the country far from the border.[/quote] My link provides statements from Schumer's himself while yours is from anonymous sources familiar with it. [quote]There's also Trump's [url=https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/01/19/lindsey-graham-rips-white-house-for-trumps-change-on-immigration-deal.html#ampshare=https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/19/lindsey-graham-rips-white-house-for-trumps-change-on-immigration-deal.html]backpedaling[/url] on the bipartisan deal. He didn't renege because it codified DACA and your article doesn't suggest he did.[/quote] Which deal do you want to discuss here? Graham's or the Dems?
-
Edited by tjustie: 1/23/2018 3:12:27 PMYeah, your article says this: [quote]Schumer offered not just wall funding, but the full amount of funding requested by the White House for defense spending. That was not enough, Schumer said[/quote] Which corroborates the accounts in my article perfectly, so once again, it wasn't DACA being codified that sunk the deal, and your article doesn't suggest it was. Trump [url=https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/negotiating-with-jell-o-how-trumps-shifting-positions-fueled-the-rush-to-a-shutdown/2018/01/20/81215b90-fd71-11e7-a46b-a3614530bd87_story.html#ampshare=https://washingtonpost.com/politics/negotiating-with-jell-o-how-trumps-shifting-positions-fueled-the-rush-to-a-shutdown/2018/01/20/81215b90-fd71-11e7-a46b-a3614530bd87_story.html]isn't consistent[/url], full stop.
-
[quote]Yeah, your article says this: Schumer offered not just wall funding, but the full amount of funding requested by the White House for defense spending. That was not enough, Schumer said[/quote] Because he wanted the codification of DACA in exchange for those. It's not hard to follow, it really isn't. [quote]Which corroborates the accounts in my article perfectly, so once again, it wasn't DACA being codified that sunk the deal, and your article doesn't suggest it was.[/quote] What?!? I'll quote it again for you sport: [i]Schumer told members that a deal he offered to Trump would have given the president some funding for the long-promised wall in exchange for codification of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration program. The president rejected the offer, according to Schumer.[/i] [quote]Trump [url=https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/negotiating-with-jell-o-how-trumps-shifting-positions-fueled-the-rush-to-a-shutdown/2018/01/20/81215b90-fd71-11e7-a46b-a3614530bd87_story.html#ampshare=https://washingtonpost.com/politics/negotiating-with-jell-o-how-trumps-shifting-positions-fueled-the-rush-to-a-shutdown/2018/01/20/81215b90-fd71-11e7-a46b-a3614530bd87_story.html]isn't consistent[/url], full stop.[/quote] Neat!
-
Jesus Christ. "Trump rejected the deal because of X" [i]does not follow[/i] from "The deal included X and Y, and Trump rejected it," which is what the BI section you're quoting says. It's actually embarrassing that you think it does. And given that Trump reneged on and rejected the Graham-Durbin deal over similar reasons (not enough concessions), despite that deal not codifying DACA, it would seem to suggest that codifying DACA [i]was not the main reason[/i], despite your incompetent logical leaps. Further, you originally tried to rebut my assertion that Trump reneged due to hardline concession demands by claiming that actually Trump rejected the deal because it included codifying DACA. That is wholly different from claiming that Trump rejected the deal because he didn't get enough in concessions in exchange for codifying DACA, a line of argument that [i]isn't even contrary to the original claims I made[/i].
-
[quote]Jesus Christ. "Trump rejected the deal because of X" [i]does not follow[/i] from "The deal included X and Y, and Trump rejected it," which is what the BI section you're quoting says. It's actually embarrassing that you think it does. And given that Trump reneged on and rejected the Graham-Durbin deal over similar reasons (not enough concessions), despite that deal not codifying DACA, it would seem to suggest that codifying DACA [i]was not the main reason[/i], despite your incompetent logical leaps. Further, you originally tried to rebut my assertion that Trump reneged due to hardline concession demands by claiming that actually Trump rejected the deal because it included codifying DACA. That is wholly different from claiming that Trump rejected the deal because he didn't get enough in concessions in exchange for codifying DACA, a line of argument that [i]isn't even contrary to the original claims I made[/i].[/quote] http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/17/politics/dreamers-bill-immigration-graham-durbin-congress/index.html [i]If passed, the bill would appropriate $2.705 billion in border security improvements, eliminate the visa lottery,[b]make permanent the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program[/b][/i] 🤔
-
Edited by tjustie: 1/23/2018 5:40:42 PMYes, my bad, I misremembered and thought that specific bill didn't permanently extend protection. It changes nothing else. Your original response is still, at best, overly nitpicky and as I said not at all contrary to my assertion that the Dems tried to compromise, Trump wanted a more hardline bill, and Trump reneged on previous agreements.
-
[quote]Mfw Democrats tried to negotiate moderate bipartisan deals that included cuts to chain migration, (full!) funding for the border wall, end of the lottery system, etc, but: •Trump •Trump •Building on 1 & 2, Trump [/quote] Trump shouldn't be negotiating this deal. At all. He's supposed to enforce shit, not write it. And regarding those negotiations, there are [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSGHxd0qjHs]some accounts[/url] from those committees that don't sound as if the democrats were dealing in good faith. I get that Trump is supposedly the head of the party for the Republicans, but he's off in the weeds doing his own thing.
-
Whether you think he should or shouldn't be a player in negotiations is irrelevant to the fact that he is. Whatever bipartisan bill Congress can come up with won't matter if the white house vetoes it. And yeah, I doubt the Democrats have been entirely saints, and I'm certainly not going to try to paint them as such, but the fact of the matter is that OP said Democrats made zero concessions when they did in fact try to make several. You might think they're weak concessions, and maybe some of them are, but they do exist.
