Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Schumer's Shutdown

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
    Everyone bitches about the filibuster when they're in the majority, and defends it when they're in the minority.

    Getting rid of it is like shooting someone in the head by shooting yourself in the head while they're standing next to you.
    I agree, but the filibuster rule means this is Schumer's Shutdown since he is exercising the minority veto it provides. You can't have it both way, you can't deny the power of the minority veto and demand the majority rule in defiance of the minority.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by zraver View Post
      I agree, but the filibuster rule means this is Schumer's Shutdown since he is exercising the minority veto it provides. You can't have it both way, you can't deny the power of the minority veto and demand the majority rule in defiance of the minority.
      Again, this whole shutdown is in my 'don't give a shit' file, but McConnell barely had a majority. The vote was 50-49. He certainly did not have a majority from his own party (45 Republican yeas).
      Last edited by Ironduke; 21 Jan 18,, 16:37.
      "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
        Again, this whole shutdown is in my 'don't give a shit' file, but McConnell barely had a majority. The vote was 50-49. He certainly did not have a majority from his own party (45 Republican yeas).
        Which throws the ball to Schumer, who shut down the government for illegals who were not facing deportation. All over a bill that did not exist and thus could not be voted on. Its pure grandstanding by the Dems and they will eat it. Sure they may may the coastal states a bit bluer, but this is not playing well in red states which make up a majority of the House Districts they need to flip. If it goes past the 3rd of Feb and food stamps get cut off its really not going to play well in the Inner City where Trump's approval among African American men is climbing. They are already mad that the Dem party has dropped them for the Hispanic vote without ever delivering on the promises they made.

        Comment


        • #34
          It stands to reason if you want their votes, you make concessions, especially when your legislation is already being filibustered by 5 Republican senators.
          "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

          Comment


          • #35
            Donald J. Trump
            ‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
            7 Oct 2013

            The Obama Administration has a very important duty to provide a budget - and then negotiate! OUR COUNTRY is a laughingstock!

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by snapper View Post
              Donald J. Trump
              ‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
              7 Oct 2013

              The Obama Administration has a very important duty to provide a budget - and then negotiate! OUR COUNTRY is a laughingstock!
              The House passed the budget in September. Trump set up a meeting to resolve the immigration issue. The leaders were supposed to be the minority and majority leaders of each house of Congress. Those 4 were supposed to work out the details. Instead Durbin teamed up with another open border fan Graham and blew up the process on purpose and likely ion Schumer's orders. There is nothing to negotiate, there is no bill to be voted on and the dreamers were not facing deportation.

              Comment


              • #37
                Whatever - and really this is all about his 'wall' which I seem to recall Mexico was supposed to pay (if you believe that lie) - your traitor is in the WH, you own both chambers of the Parliament; the onus is on your idiot to get a deal and not on others; all the cards are in his hands and so is the responsibility. Perhaps he is not so 'genius' at 'making great deals'?
                Last edited by snapper; 21 Jan 18,, 18:33.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by snapper View Post
                  Whatever - and really this is all about his 'wall' which I seem to recall Mexico was supposed to pay (if you believe that lie) - your traitor is in the WH, you own both chambers of the Parliament; the onus is on your idiot to get a deal and not on others; all the cards are in his hands and so is the responsibility. Perhaps he is not so 'genius' at 'making great deals'?
                  We don't have a parliament... Trump is many things, he is not a traitor. As for the Wall, walls work at their purpose. Properly manned border walls work to channel people and good to areas where they are either 1. subject to inspection or 2. so remote as to drive up the cost reducing the supply of people willing to do it. If current trends continue then the reduction of people crossing, the self imposed repatriations and ICE enforced deportations then Mexico will pay for the wall as they deal with their own poor instead of shipping them to us to feed and house. A smaller pool of illegals also means a smaller pool of money stolen by illegal workers being sent off shore where it leaves our economic cycle and contributes nothing to our economy. We are currently spending 5x the cost of the wall each year due to illegal immigration that mostly stems from Mexico and is overwhelmingly Hispanic when you add in the Central American countries. Europeans, Asians etc due over stay visas, that would most easily be solved by e-verify, but the big problem is the Southern border.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    No wall has or ever will work.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by zraver View Post
                      The House passed the budget in September. Trump set up a meeting to resolve the immigration issue. The leaders were supposed to be the minority and majority leaders of each house of Congress. Those 4 were supposed to work out the details. Instead Durbin teamed up with another open border fan Graham and blew up the process on purpose and likely ion Schumer's orders. There is nothing to negotiate, there is no bill to be voted on and the dreamers were not facing deportation.
                      So go blame Graham and Rand Paul. They are "your" guys.
                      "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Maybe, go nuclear? Thanks, Harry Reid!
                        https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...-option-353881
                        Last edited by surfgun; 21 Jan 18,, 21:01.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by zraver View Post
                          Which throws the ball to Schumer, who shut down the government for illegals who were not facing deportation. All over a bill that did not exist and thus could not be voted on. Its pure grandstanding by the Dems and they will eat it. Sure they may may the coastal states a bit bluer, but this is not playing well in red states which make up a majority of the House Districts they need to flip. If it goes past the 3rd of Feb and food stamps get cut off its really not going to play well in the Inner City where Trump's approval among African American men is climbing. They are already mad that the Dem party has dropped them for the Hispanic vote without ever delivering on the promises they made.
                          Schumer this and Schumer that. What it really boils down to is that McConnell needs all Republican votes, which he doesn't have by the way, and then he needs 9 Democrats. He doesn't need Schumer's vote and do you really think Schumer has God's Almighty power over all the other Democrats? If McConnell can't get 9 Democrats, and probably more, then the real root of the problem rests with McConnell and Trump negotiation skills. Ok, so I said skills so I guess that leaves out Trump.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by snapper View Post
                            No wall has or ever will work.
                            It has and does work to keep illegal crossings down. There's already 750 miles of it. It doesn't do a thing to reduce the drug trade, most of which enters the US at legal points of entry. Trump's ideas of what a wall should be, as Kelly stated, are 'uninformed' though. Specifically the idea of a solid concrete wall.
                            "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              the silly thing is that when all is said and done, the contours of a deal already exist from the multiple negotiations that have occurred.

                              Dems get DACA and long-term CHIP; GOP gets partial funding for the wall and the end of the diversity visa lottery. the end result will probably be along those lines, but only after a lot of chest-beating and billions of dollars wasted.
                              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by zraver View Post
                                We don't have a parliament... Trump is many things, he is not a traitor. As for the Wall, walls work at their purpose. Properly manned border walls work to channel people and good to areas where they are either 1. subject to inspection or 2. so remote as to drive up the cost reducing the supply of people willing to do it. If current trends continue then the reduction of people crossing, the self imposed repatriations and ICE enforced deportations then Mexico will pay for the wall as they deal with their own poor instead of shipping them to us to feed and house. A smaller pool of illegals also means a smaller pool of money stolen by illegal workers being sent off shore where it leaves our economic cycle and contributes nothing to our economy. We are currently spending 5x the cost of the wall each year due to illegal immigration that mostly stems from Mexico and is overwhelmingly Hispanic when you add in the Central American countries. Europeans, Asians etc due over stay visas, that would most easily be solved by e-verify, but the big problem is the Southern border.
                                I always get a kick out of those like you when talking about a wall yet none live along the border much less seen it. So tell me have you been along the border of California-Mexico as I have given all the years I lived in San Diego. How about Arizona-Mexico which is even more forbidding? Before talking like an expert maybe you need to spend a year surveying the entire region first hand.

                                I truly believe, that honest to God, you have absolutely no idea whatsoever about illegal aliens particularly Hispanic. Reading about them versus living in a region for decades, where they have been present for decades in large numbers, is a whole other thing. In California, industries, whole industries, would shut down.

                                The there is your comment about sending money back that will no longer benefit our country. Really? The government sends financial aid overseas every year. I always question not the idea of it but where is that money going to end up in some of those countries. Does it benefit the people or the corrupt? Consequently a family member sending money back is far more targeted and will definitely have a bigger direct impact. That, in my mind, does more overall good than sending the money to a government agency. I'd much rather see that country to end up on the more stable side than unstable side because the people were starving.

                                My favorite example is the Philippines and her OFWs along with overseas ex-pats like my wife. The $26+ billion dollars sent back greatly improves the living conditions of each family it goes to. They can buy food, which is fairly expensive, and continue their educations. It improves the countries earnings of foreign exchange. It helps their balance of payments position. It helps stabilize the country so it doesn't go full on basket case. My wife and I send $150/month back to help three families and it does help. Two are now going to college which would have never been possible. Should I have kept that money here to benefit the US instead of those families? By your reasoning, yes, but you would be wrong. Family stability is the name of the game world wide which is why snapper is right about walls. Family members are going to find ways to help family members. They always have and they always will.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X