What Did Shutting Down the Government have to do with 5.7 Billion for Border Wall?

[bendog]

NOTHING.

It has all to do with Trump's promise to build a wall, a campaign promise which had only one detail, Mexico will pay for it.

His promise appealed to the biddable who remain his only real supporters, even when the only detail proved to be false - Mexico will not pay for the wall - and still no details on how long the wall will be and the estimated cost of such a barrier.

The only thing we have to fear, is Trump himself. It's time for even his most ardent supporters to say "enough" and recognize the abuse of power by what they created, a megalomaniac who seeks autocratic power.

Isn't that you 3-4 rows back on the right?

View attachment 241878

HEY I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO REALLY DOES HAVE A ROBE AND HOOD. Ah inherited em, and not much else. (joke)

 

[Slade3200]

LMAO If Pelousy had approved the border wall money, the same wall she voted for in the past, then there would never have been a shutdown.

Trump won't sign any bills till he gets that 5 billion. Until then the Govt. is shut down.

Wonderful precedent... so next time there is a Dem President they can shut down the government until they get single payer or a gun ban and you’ll be just fine with that right? I mean as long as they promised it in a campaign it should be acceptable to shut down the government or declare a national emergency to get it done... is that what I’m hearing from you?

 

[Winston]

LMAO If Pelousy had approved the border wall money, the same wall she voted for in the past, then there would have been shutdown.

Trump won't sign any bills till he gets that 5 billion. Until then the Govt. is shut down.

Thanks once again for your echo of the propaganda (poopaganda) by other Trumpanzees and the liars in the White House.

You are too blind to reality to have ever posted anything substantive, thoughtful or thought provoking, and this is but one example.

Nah Thanks once again for your echo of the propaganda by other lefty loons and liars in the House.

You are too blind to reality to have ever posted anything substantive, thoughtful or thought provoking, and this is but one example.

LMAO So post some more of your drivel dingbat.

There is no express wall building power in our Constitution; Government should not be shut down over any implied power.

But there is security for the country in our Constitution and border security is part of it. For that we need a wall so illegals or others can't get in. Once we have that wall we can boot those that are here out.

These illegals cost we the tax payer billions each year. They are here illegally and need to be booted out.

You reveal your ignorance. A wall will not stop illegal immigration, probably will not slow it, and more than likely, as happened in California, will make it worse. Prior to that wall workers traveled back and forth across the border. They came here to work and then they went home to Mexico. Now, they STAY. Besides, more than half of illegal immigrants get here legally through ports of entry with a Visa, then they over stay. And illegal immigrants don't cost billions. By every measure, from every reputable economist, they make a positive contribution to the US economy, increasing productivity and increasing pay.

 

[toomuchtime_]

NOTHING.

It has all to do with Trump's promise to build a wall, a campaign promise which had only one detail, Mexico will pay for it.

His promise appealed to the biddable who remain his only real supporters, even when the only detail proved to be false - Mexico will not pay for the wall - and still no details on how long the wall will be and the estimated cost of such a barrier.

The only thing we have to fear, is Trump himself. It's time for even his most ardent supporters to say "enough" and recognize the abuse of power by what they created, a megalomaniac who seeks autocratic power.

The shutdown has nothing to do with the border barrier, which the Democrats supported right up until Trump was elected. It is all about the Democrats' attempt to unite the Party by opposing the fence, which they had previously supported, just because the President wants it. The lesson to be drawn from this is that when President Trump sets a policy for his administration, he is also setting the policy for Democrats since the only thing holding them to together is opposing anything Trump proposes. If the Democrats had been willing to negotiate building the fence, which they admit is a necessary part of border security, there would have been no shutdown.

 

[edward37]

NOTHING.

It has all to do with Trump's promise to build a wall, a campaign promise which had only one detail, Mexico will pay for it.

His promise appealed to the biddable who remain his only real supporters, even when the only detail proved to be false - Mexico will not pay for the wall - and still no details on how long the wall will be and the estimated cost of such a barrier.

The only thing we have to fear, is Trump himself. It's time for even his most ardent supporters to say "enough" and recognize the abuse of power by what they created, a megalomaniac who seeks autocratic power.

The shutdown has nothing to do with the border barrier, which the Democrats supported right up until Trump was elected. It is all about the Democrats' attempt to unite the Party by opposing the fence, which they had previously supported, just because the President wants it. The lesson to be drawn from this is that when President Trump sets a policy for his administration, he is also setting the policy for Democrats since the only thing holding them to together is opposing anything Trump proposes. If the Democrats had been willing to negotiate building the fence, which they admit is a necessary part of border security, there would have been no shutdown.

WILLING?????
As we discussed at the time, the basic contours of the deal were straightforward: Schumer was willing to accept funding for a border wall in exchange for DACA protections for Dreamers.

After Trump negotiated the terms, the White House balked: Chief of Staff John Kelly called Schumer soon after to explain the plan wasn’t far enough to the right for Republicans. Trump himself declared that he’d need far more in any deal, including significant cuts to legal immigration.

I’m reminded of something Slate’s Jim Newell wrote back in Matrch:

[All Trump] had to do was accept a 10- to 14-year path to citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States at a young age.

That deal has been on the table for more than a month now: Trump gives Democrats a path to citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers; Democrats give Trump his full $25 billion wall funding request. […]

It is confounding that Trump didn’t just take the deal.

That was published nearly nine months ago. It’s still confounding that Trump didn’t just take the deal.

54 votes, despite a veto threat from Trump. Sure, it needed 60 votes to advance, but the president’s preferred immigration alternative received just 39 votes in a chamber with a Republican majority.

At this point, some of you might be thinking, “Well, wait a second. If the odds of a shutdown next week are improving, what’s to stop Trump and Dems from rekindling that same deal? The president may have rejected the offer before, but in his desperation, maybe he’d accept it now?”

Trump might wish he had it to do over again, but it’s too late. For one thing, the White House lost its leverage when the courts ruled that the president couldn’t scrap the DACA policy.

For another, Dems made that offer long before the midterm elections. They’re in a far stronger negotiating position now – which is why they’ve taken their previous offer off the table.

It would’ve been the biggest victory of Trump’s presidency. For reasons he ought to regret, he rejected it.

 

[Marion Morrison]

NOTHING.

It has all to do with Trump's promise to build a wall, a campaign promise which had only one detail, Mexico will pay for it.

His promise appealed to the biddable who remain his only real supporters, even when the only detail proved to be false - Mexico will not pay for the wall - and still no details on how long the wall will be and the estimated cost of such a barrier.

The only thing we have to fear, is Trump himself. It's time for even his most ardent supporters to say "enough" and recognize the abuse of power by what they created, a megalomaniac who seeks autocratic power.

The shutdown has nothing to do with the border barrier, which the Democrats supported right up until Trump was elected. It is all about the Democrats' attempt to unite the Party by opposing the fence, which they had previously supported, just because the President wants it. The lesson to be drawn from this is that when President Trump sets a policy for his administration, he is also setting the policy for Democrats since the only thing holding them to together is opposing anything Trump proposes. If the Democrats had been willing to negotiate building the fence, which they admit is a necessary part of border security, there would have been no shutdown.

WILLING?????
As we discussed at the time, the basic contours of the deal were straightforward: Schumer was willing to accept funding for a border wall in exchange for DACA protections for Dreamers.

After Trump negotiated the terms, the White House balked: Chief of Staff John Kelly called Schumer soon after to explain the plan wasn’t far enough to the right for Republicans. Trump himself declared that he’d need far more in any deal, including significant cuts to legal immigration.

I’m reminded of something Slate’s Jim Newell wrote back in Matrch:

[All Trump] had to do was accept a 10- to 14-year path to citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States at a young age.

That deal has been on the table for more than a month now: Trump gives Democrats a path to citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers; Democrats give Trump his full $25 billion wall funding request. […]

It is confounding that Trump didn’t just take the deal.

That was published nearly nine months ago. It’s still confounding that Trump didn’t just take the deal.

54 votes, despite a veto threat from Trump. Sure, it needed 60 votes to advance, but the president’s preferred immigration alternative received just 39 votes in a chamber with a Republican majority.

At this point, some of you might be thinking, “Well, wait a second. If the odds of a shutdown next week are improving, what’s to stop Trump and Dems from rekindling that same deal? The president may have rejected the offer before, but in his desperation, maybe he’d accept it now?”

Trump might wish he had it to do over again, but it’s too late. For one thing, the White House lost its leverage when the courts ruled that the president couldn’t scrap the DACA policy.

For another, Dems made that offer long before the midterm elections. They’re in a far stronger negotiating position now – which is why they’ve taken their previous offer off the table.

It would’ve been the biggest victory of Trump’s presidency. For reasons he ought to regret, he rejected it.

Have I told you lately what a moron you are?

 

[toomuchtime_]

NOTHING.

It has all to do with Trump's promise to build a wall, a campaign promise which had only one detail, Mexico will pay for it.

His promise appealed to the biddable who remain his only real supporters, even when the only detail proved to be false - Mexico will not pay for the wall - and still no details on how long the wall will be and the estimated cost of such a barrier.

The only thing we have to fear, is Trump himself. It's time for even his most ardent supporters to say "enough" and recognize the abuse of power by what they created, a megalomaniac who seeks autocratic power.

The shutdown has nothing to do with the border barrier, which the Democrats supported right up until Trump was elected. It is all about the Democrats' attempt to unite the Party by opposing the fence, which they had previously supported, just because the President wants it. The lesson to be drawn from this is that when President Trump sets a policy for his administration, he is also setting the policy for Democrats since the only thing holding them to together is opposing anything Trump proposes. If the Democrats had been willing to negotiate building the fence, which they admit is a necessary part of border security, there would have been no shutdown.

WILLING?????
As we discussed at the time, the basic contours of the deal were straightforward: Schumer was willing to accept funding for a border wall in exchange for DACA protections for Dreamers.

After Trump negotiated the terms, the White House balked: Chief of Staff John Kelly called Schumer soon after to explain the plan wasn’t far enough to the right for Republicans. Trump himself declared that he’d need far more in any deal, including significant cuts to legal immigration.

I’m reminded of something Slate’s Jim Newell wrote back in Matrch:

[All Trump] had to do was accept a 10- to 14-year path to citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States at a young age.

That deal has been on the table for more than a month now: Trump gives Democrats a path to citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers; Democrats give Trump his full $25 billion wall funding request. […]

It is confounding that Trump didn’t just take the deal.

That was published nearly nine months ago. It’s still confounding that Trump didn’t just take the deal.

54 votes, despite a veto threat from Trump. Sure, it needed 60 votes to advance, but the president’s preferred immigration alternative received just 39 votes in a chamber with a Republican majority.

At this point, some of you might be thinking, “Well, wait a second. If the odds of a shutdown next week are improving, what’s to stop Trump and Dems from rekindling that same deal? The president may have rejected the offer before, but in his desperation, maybe he’d accept it now?”

Trump might wish he had it to do over again, but it’s too late. For one thing, the White House lost its leverage when the courts ruled that the president couldn’t scrap the DACA policy.

For another, Dems made that offer long before the midterm elections. They’re in a far stronger negotiating position now – which is why they’ve taken their previous offer off the table.

It would’ve been the biggest victory of Trump’s presidency. For reasons he ought to regret, he rejected it.

NOTHING.

It has all to do with Trump's promise to build a wall, a campaign promise which had only one detail, Mexico will pay for it.

His promise appealed to the biddable who remain his only real supporters, even when the only detail proved to be false - Mexico will not pay for the wall - and still no details on how long the wall will be and the estimated cost of such a barrier.

The only thing we have to fear, is Trump himself. It's time for even his most ardent supporters to say "enough" and recognize the abuse of power by what they created, a megalomaniac who seeks autocratic power.

The shutdown has nothing to do with the border barrier, which the Democrats supported right up until Trump was elected. It is all about the Democrats' attempt to unite the Party by opposing the fence, which they had previously supported, just because the President wants it. The lesson to be drawn from this is that when President Trump sets a policy for his administration, he is also setting the policy for Democrats since the only thing holding them to together is opposing anything Trump proposes. If the Democrats had been willing to negotiate building the fence, which they admit is a necessary part of border security, there would have been no shutdown.

WILLING?????
As we discussed at the time, the basic contours of the deal were straightforward: Schumer was willing to accept funding for a border wall in exchange for DACA protections for Dreamers.

After Trump negotiated the terms, the White House balked: Chief of Staff John Kelly called Schumer soon after to explain the plan wasn’t far enough to the right for Republicans. Trump himself declared that he’d need far more in any deal, including significant cuts to legal immigration.

I’m reminded of something Slate’s Jim Newell wrote back in Matrch:

[All Trump] had to do was accept a 10- to 14-year path to citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States at a young age.

That deal has been on the table for more than a month now: Trump gives Democrats a path to citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers; Democrats give Trump his full $25 billion wall funding request. […]

It is confounding that Trump didn’t just take the deal.

That was published nearly nine months ago. It’s still confounding that Trump didn’t just take the deal.

54 votes, despite a veto threat from Trump. Sure, it needed 60 votes to advance, but the president’s preferred immigration alternative received just 39 votes in a chamber with a Republican majority.

At this point, some of you might be thinking, “Well, wait a second. If the odds of a shutdown next week are improving, what’s to stop Trump and Dems from rekindling that same deal? The president may have rejected the offer before, but in his desperation, maybe he’d accept it now?”

Trump might wish he had it to do over again, but it’s too late. For one thing, the White House lost its leverage when the courts ruled that the president couldn’t scrap the DACA policy.

For another, Dems made that offer long before the midterm elections. They’re in a far stronger negotiating position now – which is why they’ve taken their previous offer off the table.

It would’ve been the biggest victory of Trump’s presidency. For reasons he ought to regret, he rejected it.

Schumer is full of shit. Trump offered paths to citizenship for the dreamers and 1,000,000 other illegals with special circumstances in his 2018 State of the Union address and the Democrats turned it down.

 

[edward37]

NOTHING.

It has all to do with Trump's promise to build a wall, a campaign promise which had only one detail, Mexico will pay for it.

His promise appealed to the biddable who remain his only real supporters, even when the only detail proved to be false - Mexico will not pay for the wall - and still no details on how long the wall will be and the estimated cost of such a barrier.

The only thing we have to fear, is Trump himself. It's time for even his most ardent supporters to say "enough" and recognize the abuse of power by what they created, a megalomaniac who seeks autocratic power.

The shutdown has nothing to do with the border barrier, which the Democrats supported right up until Trump was elected. It is all about the Democrats' attempt to unite the Party by opposing the fence, which they had previously supported, just because the President wants it. The lesson to be drawn from this is that when President Trump sets a policy for his administration, he is also setting the policy for Democrats since the only thing holding them to together is opposing anything Trump proposes. If the Democrats had been willing to negotiate building the fence, which they admit is a necessary part of border security, there would have been no shutdown.

WILLING?????
As we discussed at the time, the basic contours of the deal were straightforward: Schumer was willing to accept funding for a border wall in exchange for DACA protections for Dreamers.

After Trump negotiated the terms, the White House balked: Chief of Staff John Kelly called Schumer soon after to explain the plan wasn’t far enough to the right for Republicans. Trump himself declared that he’d need far more in any deal, including significant cuts to legal immigration.

I’m reminded of something Slate’s Jim Newell wrote back in Matrch:

[All Trump] had to do was accept a 10- to 14-year path to citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States at a young age.

That deal has been on the table for more than a month now: Trump gives Democrats a path to citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers; Democrats give Trump his full $25 billion wall funding request. […]

It is confounding that Trump didn’t just take the deal.

That was published nearly nine months ago. It’s still confounding that Trump didn’t just take the deal.

54 votes, despite a veto threat from Trump. Sure, it needed 60 votes to advance, but the president’s preferred immigration alternative received just 39 votes in a chamber with a Republican majority.

At this point, some of you might be thinking, “Well, wait a second. If the odds of a shutdown next week are improving, what’s to stop Trump and Dems from rekindling that same deal? The president may have rejected the offer before, but in his desperation, maybe he’d accept it now?”

Trump might wish he had it to do over again, but it’s too late. For one thing, the White House lost its leverage when the courts ruled that the president couldn’t scrap the DACA policy.

For another, Dems made that offer long before the midterm elections. They’re in a far stronger negotiating position now – which is why they’ve taken their previous offer off the table.

It would’ve been the biggest victory of Trump’s presidency. For reasons he ought to regret, he rejected it.

Have I told you lately what a moron you are?

coming from you it's an honor

 

[edward37]

NOTHING.

It has all to do with Trump's promise to build a wall, a campaign promise which had only one detail, Mexico will pay for it.

His promise appealed to the biddable who remain his only real supporters, even when the only detail proved to be false - Mexico will not pay for the wall - and still no details on how long the wall will be and the estimated cost of such a barrier.

The only thing we have to fear, is Trump himself. It's time for even his most ardent supporters to say "enough" and recognize the abuse of power by what they created, a megalomaniac who seeks autocratic power.

The shutdown has nothing to do with the border barrier, which the Democrats supported right up until Trump was elected. It is all about the Democrats' attempt to unite the Party by opposing the fence, which they had previously supported, just because the President wants it. The lesson to be drawn from this is that when President Trump sets a policy for his administration, he is also setting the policy for Democrats since the only thing holding them to together is opposing anything Trump proposes. If the Democrats had been willing to negotiate building the fence, which they admit is a necessary part of border security, there would have been no shutdown.

WILLING?????
As we discussed at the time, the basic contours of the deal were straightforward: Schumer was willing to accept funding for a border wall in exchange for DACA protections for Dreamers.

After Trump negotiated the terms, the White House balked: Chief of Staff John Kelly called Schumer soon after to explain the plan wasn’t far enough to the right for Republicans. Trump himself declared that he’d need far more in any deal, including significant cuts to legal immigration.

I’m reminded of something Slate’s Jim Newell wrote back in Matrch:

[All Trump] had to do was accept a 10- to 14-year path to citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States at a young age.

That deal has been on the table for more than a month now: Trump gives Democrats a path to citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers; Democrats give Trump his full $25 billion wall funding request. […]

It is confounding that Trump didn’t just take the deal.

That was published nearly nine months ago. It’s still confounding that Trump didn’t just take the deal.

54 votes, despite a veto threat from Trump. Sure, it needed 60 votes to advance, but the president’s preferred immigration alternative received just 39 votes in a chamber with a Republican majority.

At this point, some of you might be thinking, “Well, wait a second. If the odds of a shutdown next week are improving, what’s to stop Trump and Dems from rekindling that same deal? The president may have rejected the offer before, but in his desperation, maybe he’d accept it now?”

Trump might wish he had it to do over again, but it’s too late. For one thing, the White House lost its leverage when the courts ruled that the president couldn’t scrap the DACA policy.

For another, Dems made that offer long before the midterm elections. They’re in a far stronger negotiating position now – which is why they’ve taken their previous offer off the table.

It would’ve been the biggest victory of Trump’s presidency. For reasons he ought to regret, he rejected it.

NOTHING.

It has all to do with Trump's promise to build a wall, a campaign promise which had only one detail, Mexico will pay for it.

His promise appealed to the biddable who remain his only real supporters, even when the only detail proved to be false - Mexico will not pay for the wall - and still no details on how long the wall will be and the estimated cost of such a barrier.

The only thing we have to fear, is Trump himself. It's time for even his most ardent supporters to say "enough" and recognize the abuse of power by what they created, a megalomaniac who seeks autocratic power.

The shutdown has nothing to do with the border barrier, which the Democrats supported right up until Trump was elected. It is all about the Democrats' attempt to unite the Party by opposing the fence, which they had previously supported, just because the President wants it. The lesson to be drawn from this is that when President Trump sets a policy for his administration, he is also setting the policy for Democrats since the only thing holding them to together is opposing anything Trump proposes. If the Democrats had been willing to negotiate building the fence, which they admit is a necessary part of border security, there would have been no shutdown.

WILLING?????
As we discussed at the time, the basic contours of the deal were straightforward: Schumer was willing to accept funding for a border wall in exchange for DACA protections for Dreamers.

After Trump negotiated the terms, the White House balked: Chief of Staff John Kelly called Schumer soon after to explain the plan wasn’t far enough to the right for Republicans. Trump himself declared that he’d need far more in any deal, including significant cuts to legal immigration.

I’m reminded of something Slate’s Jim Newell wrote back in Matrch:

[All Trump] had to do was accept a 10- to 14-year path to citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States at a young age.

That deal has been on the table for more than a month now: Trump gives Democrats a path to citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers; Democrats give Trump his full $25 billion wall funding request. […]

It is confounding that Trump didn’t just take the deal.

That was published nearly nine months ago. It’s still confounding that Trump didn’t just take the deal.

54 votes, despite a veto threat from Trump. Sure, it needed 60 votes to advance, but the president’s preferred immigration alternative received just 39 votes in a chamber with a Republican majority.

At this point, some of you might be thinking, “Well, wait a second. If the odds of a shutdown next week are improving, what’s to stop Trump and Dems from rekindling that same deal? The president may have rejected the offer before, but in his desperation, maybe he’d accept it now?”

Trump might wish he had it to do over again, but it’s too late. For one thing, the White House lost its leverage when the courts ruled that the president couldn’t scrap the DACA policy.

For another, Dems made that offer long before the midterm elections. They’re in a far stronger negotiating position now – which is why they’ve taken their previous offer off the table.

It would’ve been the biggest victory of Trump’s presidency. For reasons he ought to regret, he rejected it.

Schumer is full of shit. Trump offered paths to citizenship for the dreamers and 1,000,000 other illegals with special circumstances in his 2018 State of the Union address and the Democrats turned it down.

as soon as you agree with trump the next day he rescinds the offer Coulter and Rush is advisers have him by the gonads

 

[toomuchtime_]

NOTHING.

It has all to do with Trump's promise to build a wall, a campaign promise which had only one detail, Mexico will pay for it.

His promise appealed to the biddable who remain his only real supporters, even when the only detail proved to be false - Mexico will not pay for the wall - and still no details on how long the wall will be and the estimated cost of such a barrier.

The only thing we have to fear, is Trump himself. It's time for even his most ardent supporters to say "enough" and recognize the abuse of power by what they created, a megalomaniac who seeks autocratic power.

The shutdown has nothing to do with the border barrier, which the Democrats supported right up until Trump was elected. It is all about the Democrats' attempt to unite the Party by opposing the fence, which they had previously supported, just because the President wants it. The lesson to be drawn from this is that when President Trump sets a policy for his administration, he is also setting the policy for Democrats since the only thing holding them to together is opposing anything Trump proposes. If the Democrats had been willing to negotiate building the fence, which they admit is a necessary part of border security, there would have been no shutdown.

WILLING?????
As we discussed at the time, the basic contours of the deal were straightforward: Schumer was willing to accept funding for a border wall in exchange for DACA protections for Dreamers.

After Trump negotiated the terms, the White House balked: Chief of Staff John Kelly called Schumer soon after to explain the plan wasn’t far enough to the right for Republicans. Trump himself declared that he’d need far more in any deal, including significant cuts to legal immigration.

I’m reminded of something Slate’s Jim Newell wrote back in Matrch:

[All Trump] had to do was accept a 10- to 14-year path to citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States at a young age.

That deal has been on the table for more than a month now: Trump gives Democrats a path to citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers; Democrats give Trump his full $25 billion wall funding request. […]

It is confounding that Trump didn’t just take the deal.

That was published nearly nine months ago. It’s still confounding that Trump didn’t just take the deal.

54 votes, despite a veto threat from Trump. Sure, it needed 60 votes to advance, but the president’s preferred immigration alternative received just 39 votes in a chamber with a Republican majority.

At this point, some of you might be thinking, “Well, wait a second. If the odds of a shutdown next week are improving, what’s to stop Trump and Dems from rekindling that same deal? The president may have rejected the offer before, but in his desperation, maybe he’d accept it now?”

Trump might wish he had it to do over again, but it’s too late. For one thing, the White House lost its leverage when the courts ruled that the president couldn’t scrap the DACA policy.

For another, Dems made that offer long before the midterm elections. They’re in a far stronger negotiating position now – which is why they’ve taken their previous offer off the table.

It would’ve been the biggest victory of Trump’s presidency. For reasons he ought to regret, he rejected it.

NOTHING.

It has all to do with Trump's promise to build a wall, a campaign promise which had only one detail, Mexico will pay for it.

His promise appealed to the biddable who remain his only real supporters, even when the only detail proved to be false - Mexico will not pay for the wall - and still no details on how long the wall will be and the estimated cost of such a barrier.

The only thing we have to fear, is Trump himself. It's time for even his most ardent supporters to say "enough" and recognize the abuse of power by what they created, a megalomaniac who seeks autocratic power.

The shutdown has nothing to do with the border barrier, which the Democrats supported right up until Trump was elected. It is all about the Democrats' attempt to unite the Party by opposing the fence, which they had previously supported, just because the President wants it. The lesson to be drawn from this is that when President Trump sets a policy for his administration, he is also setting the policy for Democrats since the only thing holding them to together is opposing anything Trump proposes. If the Democrats had been willing to negotiate building the fence, which they admit is a necessary part of border security, there would have been no shutdown.

WILLING?????
As we discussed at the time, the basic contours of the deal were straightforward: Schumer was willing to accept funding for a border wall in exchange for DACA protections for Dreamers.

After Trump negotiated the terms, the White House balked: Chief of Staff John Kelly called Schumer soon after to explain the plan wasn’t far enough to the right for Republicans. Trump himself declared that he’d need far more in any deal, including significant cuts to legal immigration.

I’m reminded of something Slate’s Jim Newell wrote back in Matrch:

[All Trump] had to do was accept a 10- to 14-year path to citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States at a young age.

That deal has been on the table for more than a month now: Trump gives Democrats a path to citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers; Democrats give Trump his full $25 billion wall funding request. […]

It is confounding that Trump didn’t just take the deal.

That was published nearly nine months ago. It’s still confounding that Trump didn’t just take the deal.

54 votes, despite a veto threat from Trump. Sure, it needed 60 votes to advance, but the president’s preferred immigration alternative received just 39 votes in a chamber with a Republican majority.

At this point, some of you might be thinking, “Well, wait a second. If the odds of a shutdown next week are improving, what’s to stop Trump and Dems from rekindling that same deal? The president may have rejected the offer before, but in his desperation, maybe he’d accept it now?”

Trump might wish he had it to do over again, but it’s too late. For one thing, the White House lost its leverage when the courts ruled that the president couldn’t scrap the DACA policy.

For another, Dems made that offer long before the midterm elections. They’re in a far stronger negotiating position now – which is why they’ve taken their previous offer off the table.

It would’ve been the biggest victory of Trump’s presidency. For reasons he ought to regret, he rejected it.

Schumer is full of shit. Trump offered paths to citizenship for the dreamers and 1,000,000 other illegals with special circumstances in his 2018 State of the Union address and the Democrats turned it down.

as soon as you agree with trump the next day he rescinds the offer Coulter and Rush is advisers have him by the gonads

In this case, he didn't rescind it and the Democrats just ignored the offer and then some months later claimed they had made and he had turned it down. What Schumer and Pelosi understand is that Democrats like you, the facts mean nothing and opposing the President is everything regardless of the issue.

 

[Marion Morrison]

NOTHING.

It has all to do with Trump's promise to build a wall, a campaign promise which had only one detail, Mexico will pay for it.

His promise appealed to the biddable who remain his only real supporters, even when the only detail proved to be false - Mexico will not pay for the wall - and still no details on how long the wall will be and the estimated cost of such a barrier.

The only thing we have to fear, is Trump himself. It's time for even his most ardent supporters to say "enough" and recognize the abuse of power by what they created, a megalomaniac who seeks autocratic power.

The shutdown has nothing to do with the border barrier, which the Democrats supported right up until Trump was elected. It is all about the Democrats' attempt to unite the Party by opposing the fence, which they had previously supported, just because the President wants it. The lesson to be drawn from this is that when President Trump sets a policy for his administration, he is also setting the policy for Democrats since the only thing holding them to together is opposing anything Trump proposes. If the Democrats had been willing to negotiate building the fence, which they admit is a necessary part of border security, there would have been no shutdown.

WILLING?????
As we discussed at the time, the basic contours of the deal were straightforward: Schumer was willing to accept funding for a border wall in exchange for DACA protections for Dreamers.

After Trump negotiated the terms, the White House balked: Chief of Staff John Kelly called Schumer soon after to explain the plan wasn’t far enough to the right for Republicans. Trump himself declared that he’d need far more in any deal, including significant cuts to legal immigration.

I’m reminded of something Slate’s Jim Newell wrote back in Matrch:

[All Trump] had to do was accept a 10- to 14-year path to citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States at a young age.

That deal has been on the table for more than a month now: Trump gives Democrats a path to citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers; Democrats give Trump his full $25 billion wall funding request. […]

It is confounding that Trump didn’t just take the deal.

That was published nearly nine months ago. It’s still confounding that Trump didn’t just take the deal.

54 votes, despite a veto threat from Trump. Sure, it needed 60 votes to advance, but the president’s preferred immigration alternative received just 39 votes in a chamber with a Republican majority.

At this point, some of you might be thinking, “Well, wait a second. If the odds of a shutdown next week are improving, what’s to stop Trump and Dems from rekindling that same deal? The president may have rejected the offer before, but in his desperation, maybe he’d accept it now?”

Trump might wish he had it to do over again, but it’s too late. For one thing, the White House lost its leverage when the courts ruled that the president couldn’t scrap the DACA policy.

For another, Dems made that offer long before the midterm elections. They’re in a far stronger negotiating position now – which is why they’ve taken their previous offer off the table.

It would’ve been the biggest victory of Trump’s presidency. For reasons he ought to regret, he rejected it.

Have I told you lately what a moron you are?

coming from you it's an honor

Why thanky! Doesn't change that you're a moron, but OK. :/

 

[edward37]

NOTHING.

It has all to do with Trump's promise to build a wall, a campaign promise which had only one detail, Mexico will pay for it.

His promise appealed to the biddable who remain his only real supporters, even when the only detail proved to be false - Mexico will not pay for the wall - and still no details on how long the wall will be and the estimated cost of such a barrier.

The only thing we have to fear, is Trump himself. It's time for even his most ardent supporters to say "enough" and recognize the abuse of power by what they created, a megalomaniac who seeks autocratic power.

The shutdown has nothing to do with the border barrier, which the Democrats supported right up until Trump was elected. It is all about the Democrats' attempt to unite the Party by opposing the fence, which they had previously supported, just because the President wants it. The lesson to be drawn from this is that when President Trump sets a policy for his administration, he is also setting the policy for Democrats since the only thing holding them to together is opposing anything Trump proposes. If the Democrats had been willing to negotiate building the fence, which they admit is a necessary part of border security, there would have been no shutdown.

WILLING?????
As we discussed at the time, the basic contours of the deal were straightforward: Schumer was willing to accept funding for a border wall in exchange for DACA protections for Dreamers.

After Trump negotiated the terms, the White House balked: Chief of Staff John Kelly called Schumer soon after to explain the plan wasn’t far enough to the right for Republicans. Trump himself declared that he’d need far more in any deal, including significant cuts to legal immigration.

I’m reminded of something Slate’s Jim Newell wrote back in Matrch:

[All Trump] had to do was accept a 10- to 14-year path to citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States at a young age.

That deal has been on the table for more than a month now: Trump gives Democrats a path to citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers; Democrats give Trump his full $25 billion wall funding request. […]

It is confounding that Trump didn’t just take the deal.

That was published nearly nine months ago. It’s still confounding that Trump didn’t just take the deal.

54 votes, despite a veto threat from Trump. Sure, it needed 60 votes to advance, but the president’s preferred immigration alternative received just 39 votes in a chamber with a Republican majority.

At this point, some of you might be thinking, “Well, wait a second. If the odds of a shutdown next week are improving, what’s to stop Trump and Dems from rekindling that same deal? The president may have rejected the offer before, but in his desperation, maybe he’d accept it now?”

Trump might wish he had it to do over again, but it’s too late. For one thing, the White House lost its leverage when the courts ruled that the president couldn’t scrap the DACA policy.

For another, Dems made that offer long before the midterm elections. They’re in a far stronger negotiating position now – which is why they’ve taken their previous offer off the table.

It would’ve been the biggest victory of Trump’s presidency. For reasons he ought to regret, he rejected it.

Have I told you lately what a moron you are?

coming from you it's an honor

Why thanky! Doesn't change that you're a moron, but OK. :/

if so I'm way ahead of any of the morons here that support the biggest ah ever to step into our wh

 

[22lcidw]

NOTHING.

It has all to do with Trump's promise to build a wall, a campaign promise which had only one detail, Mexico will pay for it.

His promise appealed to the biddable who remain his only real supporters, even when the only detail proved to be false - Mexico will not pay for the wall - and still no details on how long the wall will be and the estimated cost of such a barrier.

The only thing we have to fear, is Trump himself. It's time for even his most ardent supporters to say "enough" and recognize the abuse of power by what they created, a megalomaniac who seeks autocratic power.

The shutdown has nothing to do with the border barrier, which the Democrats supported right up until Trump was elected. It is all about the Democrats' attempt to unite the Party by opposing the fence, which they had previously supported, just because the President wants it. The lesson to be drawn from this is that when President Trump sets a policy for his administration, he is also setting the policy for Democrats since the only thing holding them to together is opposing anything Trump proposes. If the Democrats had been willing to negotiate building the fence, which they admit is a necessary part of border security, there would have been no shutdown.

WILLING?????
As we discussed at the time, the basic contours of the deal were straightforward: Schumer was willing to accept funding for a border wall in exchange for DACA protections for Dreamers.

After Trump negotiated the terms, the White House balked: Chief of Staff John Kelly called Schumer soon after to explain the plan wasn’t far enough to the right for Republicans. Trump himself declared that he’d need far more in any deal, including significant cuts to legal immigration.

I’m reminded of something Slate’s Jim Newell wrote back in Matrch:

[All Trump] had to do was accept a 10- to 14-year path to citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States at a young age.

That deal has been on the table for more than a month now: Trump gives Democrats a path to citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers; Democrats give Trump his full $25 billion wall funding request. […]

It is confounding that Trump didn’t just take the deal.

That was published nearly nine months ago. It’s still confounding that Trump didn’t just take the deal.

54 votes, despite a veto threat from Trump. Sure, it needed 60 votes to advance, but the president’s preferred immigration alternative received just 39 votes in a chamber with a Republican majority.

At this point, some of you might be thinking, “Well, wait a second. If the odds of a shutdown next week are improving, what’s to stop Trump and Dems from rekindling that same deal? The president may have rejected the offer before, but in his desperation, maybe he’d accept it now?”

Trump might wish he had it to do over again, but it’s too late. For one thing, the White House lost its leverage when the courts ruled that the president couldn’t scrap the DACA policy.

For another, Dems made that offer long before the midterm elections. They’re in a far stronger negotiating position now – which is why they’ve taken their previous offer off the table.

It would’ve been the biggest victory of Trump’s presidency. For reasons he ought to regret, he rejected it.

The lies over the decades by progressive socialists after laws were enacted with promises is the reason there is no trust in you. And you think that Repubs are on Trump's side. He speaks softly but knows many are on your side. The globalists have layer after layer after layer to get their world government. And the will impoverish hundreds of millions of Americans when accomplished. All of those checks and benefits will be cut. Who pays blue collar government workers massive pension checks? What stupidity. You know what else is funny? At cruise ports you have longshoremen who already are parasites making six figure salaries and getting haf more in benefits taking luggage from cruisers and getting tipped. For putting baggage on a pallet. Then you have the foreigners on the ship who make squat compared to the taking all of the luggage off the pallets and placing them in front of the cabins. It is time to break the stanglehold of the longshoremen union. For we pay much more for our products because of them. You mickee dee guys, you do more then they do.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, I have some sympathy for Trump on this. "The wall" was really a symbol for his overall pledge to "get a grip" on immigration. And honestly when Obama was potus, children started being sent over the border because parents we Americans out of generous spirit would put the kids in taxpayer funded foster care, give them Medicaid and "free" educations .. free at least to them, and certainly not free to our own children for whom we end up working longer and later than we'd need to just to support ourselves. And Obama got forced into the "catch and release" by a lower fed court ruling that was never appealed and Obama never instituted policies for holding families until deportation that might have held up in court.

But Trump appealed to fear and used scapegoating. Your chances of being raped or murdered by an illegal alien are lower than being raped or killed by an America. Still, it's undeniable that the illegal aliens who commit crimes shouldn't be here to commit the crimes. BUT a wall has nothing to do with people overstaying visas .... Trump was less interested in actually fixing immigration that he was ginning up angry white people at his rallies.

He was called out during the campaign with "Americans are not going to vote to pay for a wall." And obviously a maj of us steadfastly have refused to do so, which is why the gummit is shut down. LOL Then he came up with the absurdity that Mexico would pay for it. The angry white folks liked that a LOT.

But hilariously it's Coulter and Rush won't let him back down with a little dignity. The dems repeatedly offered figleaves .... only to see Daca trashed. Even when he started deporting people who'd been here for a decade, and had kids .... it's totally counterproductive to destroy two parent households, kids are at least indirectly punished when they are citizens but they are taken to another country when their parent is deported. But having a kid is no defense to selling drugs or robbing a bank .....

But, I think something fundamentally changed in America when he put kids in cages and directly said he was doing it to make examples for their parents. That was the action of a sociopath. A clown is sometimes funny, but Pennywise is not. I don't think Pelosi has much interest in giving Trump a way to step this down. She may have to give him something to end this, but it's not going to be generous.

All Trump needs to do is say his reference to a ‘wall’ was only a metaphor; that it was never his intent to build an unbroken, contiguous ‘wall’ of concrete from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico, and that he’d gladly accept the 5.7 billion dollars to fund actual border security – funds not to be spent on a ‘wall’ he never intended to build in the first place.

But Trump is too stupid and arrogant to do that, and too frightened of his hateful, bigoted supporters.

 

[keepitreal]

NOTHING.

It has all to do with Trump's promise to build a wall, a campaign promise which had only one detail, Mexico will pay for it.

His promise appealed to the biddable who remain his only real supporters, even when the only detail proved to be false - Mexico will not pay for the wall - and still no details on how long the wall will be and the estimated cost of such a barrier.

The only thing we have to fear, is Trump himself. It's time for even his most ardent supporters to say "enough" and recognize the abuse of power by what they created, a megalomaniac who seeks autocratic power.

There wasn't a problem forking over 800 billion to Wall Street.

Besides, think of all the shovel ready jobs this wall would REALLY create!

 

[edward37]

NOTHING.

It has all to do with Trump's promise to build a wall, a campaign promise which had only one detail, Mexico will pay for it.

His promise appealed to the biddable who remain his only real supporters, even when the only detail proved to be false - Mexico will not pay for the wall - and still no details on how long the wall will be and the estimated cost of such a barrier.

The only thing we have to fear, is Trump himself. It's time for even his most ardent supporters to say "enough" and recognize the abuse of power by what they created, a megalomaniac who seeks autocratic power.

There wasn't a problem forking over 800 billion to Wall Street.

Besides, think of all the shovel ready jobs this wall would REALLY create!

might create some AFTER trump got his piece

 

[danielpalos]

Thanks once again for your echo of the propaganda (poopaganda) by other Trumpanzees and the liars in the White House.

You are too blind to reality to have ever posted anything substantive, thoughtful or thought provoking, and this is but one example.

Nah Thanks once again for your echo of the propaganda by other lefty loons and liars in the House.

You are too blind to reality to have ever posted anything substantive, thoughtful or thought provoking, and this is but one example.

LMAO So post some more of your drivel dingbat.

There is no express wall building power in our Constitution; Government should not be shut down over any implied power.

But there is security for the country in our Constitution and border security is part of it. For that we need a wall so illegals or others can't get in. Once we have that wall we can boot those that are here out.

These illegals cost we the tax payer billions each year. They are here illegally and need to be booted out.

The problem is we should have no illegal problem with a naturalization clause; and, we don't have a common defense issue on our border it is a refugee issue.

It's not just an issue about people of Mexican origin. You have drugs, you have human trafficking, there are people coming across the border from multiple countries and regions like Central America, South America , ME, Europe, etc. Just on the other side of the border towns are run by drug cartels as much as they are by the Mexican government. Then you have M.E. terrorist groups like Hezbolla ,which have set camp In parts of Mexico who can make deals with Cartels.
The Mexican Government itself cannot control what is going on inside it's own borders, and they have no idea who is going across their northern border into the U.S., nor do they really care. So maybe when they can correct all of that, we could begin to talk about not needing a secure border.
To say its just an issue with a naturalization clause and refugees is simply choosing to look at the tiny piece of the picture you want to look at.

So really? we should naturalize everyone who comes across our border? and what if they happen to not be Mexican? who gets to decide which ones to naturalize? See, this is why we have an immigration policy where we allow a million immigrants into the US a year. By the same token, we also have the right to deny people entry, much as every other country in the world does.

The problem is, we have no crime, drug, or terror clause in our Constitution.

We have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.

 

[edward37]

Nah Thanks once again for your echo of the propaganda by other lefty loons and liars in the House.

You are too blind to reality to have ever posted anything substantive, thoughtful or thought provoking, and this is but one example.

LMAO So post some more of your drivel dingbat.

There is no express wall building power in our Constitution; Government should not be shut down over any implied power.

But there is security for the country in our Constitution and border security is part of it. For that we need a wall so illegals or others can't get in. Once we have that wall we can boot those that are here out.

These illegals cost we the tax payer billions each year. They are here illegally and need to be booted out.

The problem is we should have no illegal problem with a naturalization clause; and, we don't have a common defense issue on our border it is a refugee issue.

It's not just an issue about people of Mexican origin. You have drugs, you have human trafficking, there are people coming across the border from multiple countries and regions like Central America, South America , ME, Europe, etc. Just on the other side of the border towns are run by drug cartels as much as they are by the Mexican government. Then you have M.E. terrorist groups like Hezbolla ,which have set camp In parts of Mexico who can make deals with Cartels.
The Mexican Government itself cannot control what is going on inside it's own borders, and they have no idea who is going across their northern border into the U.S., nor do they really care. So maybe when they can correct all of that, we could begin to talk about not needing a secure border.
To say its just an issue with a naturalization clause and refugees is simply choosing to look at the tiny piece of the picture you want to look at.

So really? we should naturalize everyone who comes across our border? and what if they happen to not be Mexican? who gets to decide which ones to naturalize? See, this is why we have an immigration policy where we allow a million immigrants into the US a year. By the same token, we also have the right to deny people entry, much as every other country in the world does.

The problem is, we have no crime, drug, or terror clause in our Constitution.

We have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.

do we have an emolument clause?

 

[danielpalos]

There is no express wall building power in our Constitution; Government should not be shut down over any implied power.

But there is security for the country in our Constitution and border security is part of it. For that we need a wall so illegals or others can't get in. Once we have that wall we can boot those that are here out.

These illegals cost we the tax payer billions each year. They are here illegally and need to be booted out.

The problem is we should have no illegal problem with a naturalization clause; and, we don't have a common defense issue on our border it is a refugee issue.

It's not just an issue about people of Mexican origin. You have drugs, you have human trafficking, there are people coming across the border from multiple countries and regions like Central America, South America , ME, Europe, etc. Just on the other side of the border towns are run by drug cartels as much as they are by the Mexican government. Then you have M.E. terrorist groups like Hezbolla ,which have set camp In parts of Mexico who can make deals with Cartels.
The Mexican Government itself cannot control what is going on inside it's own borders, and they have no idea who is going across their northern border into the U.S., nor do they really care. So maybe when they can correct all of that, we could begin to talk about not needing a secure border.
To say its just an issue with a naturalization clause and refugees is simply choosing to look at the tiny piece of the picture you want to look at.

So really? we should naturalize everyone who comes across our border? and what if they happen to not be Mexican? who gets to decide which ones to naturalize? See, this is why we have an immigration policy where we allow a million immigrants into the US a year. By the same token, we also have the right to deny people entry, much as every other country in the world does.

The problem is, we have no crime, drug, or terror clause in our Constitution.

We have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.

do we have an emolument clause?

yes, we do; your point?

 

[edward37]

But there is security for the country in our Constitution and border security is part of it. For that we need a wall so illegals or others can't get in. Once we have that wall we can boot those that are here out.

These illegals cost we the tax payer billions each year. They are here illegally and need to be booted out.

The problem is we should have no illegal problem with a naturalization clause; and, we don't have a common defense issue on our border it is a refugee issue.

It's not just an issue about people of Mexican origin. You have drugs, you have human trafficking, there are people coming across the border from multiple countries and regions like Central America, South America , ME, Europe, etc. Just on the other side of the border towns are run by drug cartels as much as they are by the Mexican government. Then you have M.E. terrorist groups like Hezbolla ,which have set camp In parts of Mexico who can make deals with Cartels.
The Mexican Government itself cannot control what is going on inside it's own borders, and they have no idea who is going across their northern border into the U.S., nor do they really care. So maybe when they can correct all of that, we could begin to talk about not needing a secure border.
To say its just an issue with a naturalization clause and refugees is simply choosing to look at the tiny piece of the picture you want to look at.

So really? we should naturalize everyone who comes across our border? and what if they happen to not be Mexican? who gets to decide which ones to naturalize? See, this is why we have an immigration policy where we allow a million immigrants into the US a year. By the same token, we also have the right to deny people entry, much as every other country in the world does.

The problem is, we have no crime, drug, or terror clause in our Constitution.

We have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.

do we have an emolument clause?

yes, we do; your point?

when is trump going to pay the piper for the millions he's making as president Get my point? it's in the constitution something our dumb ass president knows little of