Originally posted by Unregistered
View Post
-
try post 2258 or 57 for a clue -
Going nuclear is not a simple option. If you go down that route then the bill can be reversed with a simple majority in the future. The right Strategy is to go with 60 Senate votes. Basically assures a permanent solution. Dems have some but little leverage here. The deal will end up as trump originally wanted. DACA for fully funded wall, elimination of chain immigration, elimination of lottery immigrantion. At least that maybe more.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
Lmao ..Troll I don’t know why you stay or come on a Liberal thread. Is they no action in them there bare woods.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
But the wall would’ve been built by the time Fuktard leaves office . Trump don’t careOriginally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
No, what will happen in the long run.....Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
DACA will be protected and some path to citizenship will result.
There will be an "increase" in border security, manifesting itself in a bit of a physical structure, but far more about beefing up people, equipment and technology. It will be much more a virtual wall than a real one, but Trump will claim success, his base will approve and we will be out a few billion to placate everyone.
Chain and lottery elements of immigration will not go away completely, but there will be some stricter controls, requirements, and management. Merit will take a more pronounced role in immigration, but it will not be the primary driver. I suspect it ends up more likely being the tiebreaker when all things are equal.
A moderate approach that lends itself to a logical outcome. In the end, the moderates will win all this, because after all the left and right extremists expunge all their energy, moderates will govern and bring solutions, as they have always done.
Solutions are found in the middle, not at either end. That is where fascism and anarchy exist.Comment
-
Most sane legislators on both sides of the aisle are for that. The issue is you have a few nuts, especially on the right, and a president for whom that isn't good enoughOriginally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
you answer a perfectly reasonable post and inject blame on only one side- the CR turned into a turd because the gang of 8 thought Trump would jump at the chance to avoid a shutdown. they were wrong- when you negotiate a good deal both sides get some of what they want-they tried to push him into a corner and he walked away from the deal- he has that right and they had no plan BOriginally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
The left wants to crucify Shumer for caving. Threatening to primary any moderate Democrats. Take the blinders off. Whack jobs on both sides.Originally posted by Unregistered View PostComment
-
1) Trump never wanted a full wall from sea to sea.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
2) What you are calling a tie breaker above is a huuuuuuuge loss from the democratic position just a year ago. They are moving the most. Republicans in the past only really wanted boarder security (reducing illegal immigration). Now they're get a wall, boarder security, some chain migration and lottery elements. That's a huuuuuuge win for the right.
3) Your moderate position moved hard right and you don't even know it.Comment
-
Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
Again, let's stick to the facts........
When Graham and Durbin were called to the White House last week, it was after a conversation with the President in which all of them had come to a rough agreement. When they arrived...surprise, Tom Cotton and another strongly right leaning person in immigration was there and in the end, Durbin felt he was ambushed.
Thus he spoke to the President's comments about ****hole countries and that was backed up by Graham. I believe them, because Graham stands behind the comments. Shame on the Republicans trying to play some revisionist portrayal of that meeting. That's the bull**** that makes Washington a pustule.
Trump still can't show consistency in his position and that is because when he makes his mind up (or thinks he has made his mind up), that Stephen Miller and his dystopian view on immigration seizes him and suddenly, he's taken another position. He put out two tweets yesterday that directly contradicted each other.
What meaning is any member of Congress supposed to take from this garbage?
In the end, history proves that no leader can govern successfully on a purely populist platform. Not in this country and not to my mind, in any country in history. It might get you elected, but you cannot govern in a democratic system that way. The checks and balances are there for a reason.Comment
-
My position hasn't moved at all and we shall see what "wall" really means to him in the next few weeks. I don't think it's quite what you think, either.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
Your perception is your reality. It's not mine. And don't think things are moved as right as you believe.Comment
-
Trumptards are going to start killing people. His words are dangerous. Pizzagate could have been deadly. Big spikes in racial and religious hate crimes in the last year. How long until it happens?
"Fake news. I'm coming to gun you all down," the man told a CNN operator, according to court documents obtained by WGCL-TV.
He allegedly later called CNN again, saying, "I'm smarter than you. More powerful than you. I have more guns than you. More manpower. Your cast is about to get gunned down in a matter of hours."
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/man...t5R&ocid=ientpComment
-
-
They will only build hundreds of miles of concrete wall if some one politically connected will make money off of it. The wall itself is nonsense. It is way too expensive to sit out there and do nothing. Some ugly section show and it will be announced all along and that was the plan. Mexico will not pay for it and no one will care. Because it was never about a wall or Mexico paying for it. That was always just a euphemism.Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
It can all be removed at a later date. What a waste.Comment
-
Yep, crazies everywhere these days. So much anger and mockery, only making it worse...Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
A woman allegedly angry with U.S. military actions abroad was charged Friday with setting several fires at a Minnesota university.
/////
Tnuza Jamal Hassan, 19, a former student at St. Catherine University in St. Paul, allegedly confessed to investigators that she started multiple fires on campus last week, including one in a dormitory housing a day care center.
She was charged with first-degree arson and was held Friday night in the Ramsey County Jail on $100,000 bail.
"Hassan stated she started the fires because she's been reading about the US military destroying schools in Iraq or Afghanistan and she felt that she should do exactly the same thing," a criminal complaint said. "She said that her fire-starting was not as successful as she wanted."
/////
Authorities are expected to announce a decision on whether prosecutors will seek the death penalty against a 24-year-old man suspected of randomly killing four people and terrorizing a Florida neighborhood for several months.
Hillsborough State Attorney Andrew Warren has called a 10:30 a.m. news conference Tuesday to reveal his decision in the case against Howell Emanuel Donaldson III.
Donaldson was arrested Nov. 28 after police said he gave a bag containing a handgun to a co-worker at a McDonald's restaurant. She turned it over to a police officer who was in the restaurant.
/////
An Arizona man has been accused of a stunning murder spree in which he allegedly killed nine people in three weeks -- a rampage that would make him one of the most prolific serial killers in the state's history.
Cleophus Cooksey Jr., 35, was arrested on Dec. 17, 2017, after police responded to a call of shots fired in Phoenix. When officers arrived they found Cooksey’s mother and stepfather dead. Cooksey was not linked to the other homicides until he was in custody, police said Thursday.
/////
An illegal immigrant began his murder trial for the 2014 killings of two Northern California sheriff's deputies on Tuesday with a profanity-laced rant, calling a partner of one of the slain officers a “coward.”
Prosecutor Rod Norgaard recounted the events that led to the death of Sheriff's Deputy Danny Oliver outside a Sacramento motel in October 2014, and described how Oliver's partner, Deputy Scott Brown, was able to retreat from the heavy gunfire.
Luis Enrique Monroy Bracamontes, 37, the alleged killer, interrupted the court when he grinned and called Brown a "coward."Comment
Comment