Trump's "Non-Starter"

Post by **_Res Ipsa** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:55 am

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:The Democrats could just give him the money and the government would open up immediately.

- Doc

Yes, one can always pay the hostage takers.

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:58 am

Res Ipsa wrote:
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:The Democrats could just give him the money and the government would open up immediately.

- Doc

Yes, one can always pay the hostage takers.

Why are you using the same phrase that Schumer uses? How does this constitute hostage taking?

Post by **_Doctor CamNC4Me** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:07 am

No. It's not even close. It's political brinkmanship and the people, the people both sides claim to care about, are the pawns. Luckily I'm in the place where this doesn't really affect me too much, but I can't imagine not paying our Coasties or border patrol or whomever because I'm not getting my way.

Man. That Ann Coulter really got under Trump's skin. Lol.

- Doc

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:09 am

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:The Democrats could just give him the money and the government would open up immediately.

- Doc

Do you think that they should do so?

If not, why not?

Post by **_Doctor CamNC4Me** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:12 am

I think they had a deal in mid-December that fell through for some reason. I forgot why. But, yeah, I don't think shutting our government down is a good idea. I'd give him his retarded wall to keep the government operating.

- Doc

Post by **_Res Ipsa** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:14 am

Jersey Girl, I’m saying the positions of Trump and the Democrats aren’t symmetrical. Trump took the hostages. Democrats are the ransom payers.

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:15 am

Res Ipsa wrote:It’s not fair because Trump is still taking the livelihoods of 800,000 Americans hostage because he can’t persuade the legislature to do something he wants. What would be fair is to release his hostages, put the government back to work, and try to negotiate an immigration deal that includes a wall or fencing or barriers.

Haven't the Democrats already proven they are unwilling to negotiate on the wall?

Aren't they, in fact, proving it right now by rejecting his proposal?

Post by **_Res Ipsa** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:25 am

Jersey Girl, I don’t give a crap about who else uses the language I use. I describe it as hostage taking because that’s what it looks like. Trump: pass the bill I want or I’ll withhold pay from 800,000 Americans, forcing half to work without pay. Those Americans aren’t part of the dispute. They’re being hurt solely because the President wants something. Just like holding hostages for ransom.

How do you not see this as hostage taking?

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:33 am

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:I think they had a deal in mid-December that fell through for some reason. I forgot why. But, yeah, I don't think shutting our government down is a good idea. I'd give him his retarded wall to keep the government operating.

- Doc

I said earlier that I thought it was a reasonable offer. Aren't we losing money keeping the gov't shut down? (I thought I read that somewhere in my life, so I'm borrowing that and can't articulate why it costs money). In any case, I do think he's made concessions on just what constitutes the wall and what areas it will cover. He's including natural borders in the calculation of the 2K (?--going on memory I haven't watched the speech a second time) mile border, he's adding in increased manpower to patrol the wall, technology, the 3 year extension of DACA and TPS and during that time says he wants to negotiate, agree upon, and plan measures to revamp the immigration system so I don't see where the bitch is.

Maybe I am missing something.

Wasn't there a proposal years ago during the Obama admin. with 20B for the wall and/or border security? I was barely alive and treading water during those years so I am only going on what I've read.

Was DACA part of that previous Democrat proposal and did that provide a permanent solution? I don't know the answer to that.

What I think I see is the guy making reasonable concessions to an unreasonable recipient that has already indicated they are unwilling to move on his request for wall funding. They already said on camera that the proposal must include more than a wall--increased security measures--tech and manpower.

What the hell else do they want? It looks to me as though he is willing to meet them half way...why isn't that good enough?

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:35 am

Res Ipsa wrote:Jersey Girl, I don’t give a crap about who else uses the language I use. I describe it as hostage taking because that’s what it looks like. Trump: pass the bill I want or I’ll withhold pay from 800,000 Americans, forcing half to work without pay. Those Americans aren’t part of the dispute. They’re being hurt solely because the President wants something. Just like holding hostages for ransom.

How do you not see this as hostage taking?

Well, like I just stated in my reply to Cam, I see that the guy is making concessions that previously he rejected, the Democrats are now rejecting that so who is unwilling to negotiate?

It looks like the Democrats to me right now.

They want him to end the shut down and negotiate after the fact, when they have already proven that they aren't willing to negotiate even when he gives them part of what they demanded in the first place.

I don't see his proposals as unreasonable.

DiscussMormonism.com

Trump's "Non-Starter"

Re: Trump's "Non-Starter"

Re: Trump's "Non-Starter"

Re: Trump's "Non-Starter"

Re: Trump's "Non-Starter"

Re: Trump's "Non-Starter"

Re: Trump's "Non-Starter"

Re: Trump's "Non-Starter"

Re: Trump's "Non-Starter"

Re: Trump's "Non-Starter"

Re: Trump's "Non-Starter"