The shut down thread

#4,577
#4,577
volfanjustin said:
You all are just sad you can't go on and on today about how plastic pelosi owned Trump today. It will be ok don't get too upset because it's going to be harder for future undocumented democrats to cross the border.
Click to expand...
Anyone who takes a hard look at this can easily see that Trump has demonstrated poor leadership here. If new sections of the wall were so critical, why didn't he press the matter like this while the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate for two years?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JCP201 and volfanhill
#4,580
#4,580
BowlBrother85 said:
Anyone who takes a hard look at this can easily see that Trump has demonstrated poor leadership here. If new sections of the wall were so critical, why didn't he press the matter like this while the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate for two years?
Click to expand...
The budget with the 5 plus bill passed the house (despite what plastic pelosi told you all) but it needed 60 votes in the Senate which cryin chuck wouldn't let anyone of his b*****s vote for it, therefore that's why I called it the schumer shutdown
 
#4,581
#4,581
Franklin Pierce said:
Border Security Bill Provides Aid, Buses, Legal Shields to Migrants

Democrat legislators added numerous aid and welfare programs in the 2019 spending bill to support the growing wave of economic migrants, even as they agreed to provide $1,375 billion for construction of a border wall.

The border spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security offers “$192,700,000 for improved medical care, transportation, and consumables to better ensure the health and safety of migrants who are temporarily in U.S. Customs and Protection] custody,” according to a congressional Explanatory Statement of the provisions.

The spending includes funds to aid and feeds economic migrants as they journey across the border towards jobs in U.S. cities, as well as funds to bus the migrants from the border to pro-migration non-profits:

To facilitate these additional requirements, the conferees provide $192,700,000 above the request to include $128,000,000 for contract medical professionals, $40,200,000 for increased consumable commodities such as food, infant formula and diapers.​
​
Border officials are also directed to bus migrants from reception centers directly to the welcome centers run by pro-migration aid groups:
​
Within the $114,147,000 increase above the fiscal year 2018 funding level for the Transportation and Removal Program, ICE is directed to provide for the transportation of migrants to such shelters based on where collaborating organizations have open sheltering capacity, including during surge periods. ICE shall immediately notify the Committees in advance of any decision to deny such transportation.​
​
The flow of cheap workers to U.S. cities is a boon to business groups because it lowers their payroll costs and spikes their sales of food, autos, and housing to migrants. Government agencies also benefit from the inflow of more poor people — while ordinary Americans pay the price of reduced wages and raised housing costs.

The bill was drafted by a panel of 17 GOP and Democrat legislators who sit on the House and Senate appropriations committees. However, none of the GOP members on the panel are immigration experts, while the Democrat side included several legislators who are determined to raise the inflow of migrants. This imbalance allowed the Democrats to compromise on some major funding issues — such as funding for a border wall — while snatching important political wins by quietly imposing pro-migration policies.

The bill includes many large programs to help illegal migrants, as well as people who walk up to the border to ask for asylum so they may get work permits. The language also includes backdoor curbs on enforcement agencies.

For example, the legislation reopens the joint cartel-to-agency smuggling route for so-called “Unaccompanied Alien Children.” Former President Barack Obama opened this route when his deputies agreed to let illegal migrant parents in the United States “sponsor” — pick up — their foreign children from government shelters after the cartels deliver the children to the border agency. President Donald Trump’s deputies have been shutting down this route by arresting illegals who try to “sponsor” their children from the government shelters:
​
Here's a gem from the spending bill. Section 224 (a) says that ICE may not remove any sponsor or *potential sponsor* or *member of a household* of a UAC. That's de facto sanctuary for anyone near a UAC. Ridiculous. 30-40% of MS-13 arrests have been UACs.​
​

The language also offers a legal shield to illegals who agree to pay cartel-affiliated smugglers to move additional children into the United States. The shield is created by the language barring officials from deporting people who are “a sponsor, a potential sponsor, or member of a household of a sponsor or potential sponsor”:​

The bill directs border agencies to spend $1 million on “rescue beacons” so that migrants who try to sneak through the deserts and scrub land along the border can call for help when they are exhausted.​

The bill adds $220 million to build new border reception centers for illegal migrants and asylum migrants, even though the vast majority of migrants say they are eager to take very low wage jobs in U.S. cities, undercutting the ability of Americans to earn a decent living:​
​
The conferees provide a total of $270,222,000 for construction and facility improvements, an increase of $222,000,000 above the request. The amount includes $192,000,000 for a new central processing facility in El Paso, Texas, $30,000,000 for renovations to the existing McAllen Central Processing Center … The conferees expect the new El Paso facility and renovations to the existing processing center in McAllen, Texas, will make them more appropriate for use as temporary holding sites for individuals in CBP custody, particularly families and unaccompanied children. At a minimum, these facilities should be equipped with appropriate temperature controls and avoid chain-link fence-type enclosures. CBP is also encouraged to use a more appropriate blanket type than currently utilized.​

The extra construction money is also intended to help reduce the number of migrants who are detained until their claims for legal asylum are accepted or rejected. For example, the budget adds $30 million to ensure that 100,000 migrants in the federal welcome centers can get an “Alternative to Detention” option, such as monitoring devices attached to the migrants’ ankles. Without enforced detention, the vast majority of economic migrants who expect to lose their asylum cases rationally disappear into the growing population of illegal migrants:​
​

The budget also provides $30 million to hire pro-migration groups that will guide migrants towards winning asylum:​
​

The budget plan also directs the Department of Homeland Security to help pro-migration lawyers and political groups contact and aid the migrants:​
​

Business lobbies back the federal government’s economic policy of using both legal and illegal migration to boost economic growth.

Border Security Bill Provides Aid, Buses, Legal Shields to Migrants
Click to expand...

Three words...

Line. Item. Veto.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol and AM64
#4,582
#4,582
BowlBrother85 said:
It's setting a bad precedent (there will eventually be a Democrat in the White House again, who will now be able to declare a national emergency over a whim - such as climate change) and what was gained over this? An extra 100 miles of fencing? Maybe? This is horrible leadership by Trump.
Click to expand...
Politicians, in their greed for power, don't seem to realize that if they change the rules, or set some new precedent, that is going to be used against them at some point in the future when their party is inevitably out of power. Just like Harry Reid and Senate Dems using the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on nominations. They set that precedent, then Republicans just extended it to SCOTUS nominations.

This whole wall issue, even if you think a wall is needed, is poor leadership by Trump, agreed. Because of his polarizing nature, he's taken an issue that Dems espoused support for in recent history and created a shutdown out of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic and BowlBrother85
#4,583
#4,583
05_never_again said:
Politicians, in their greed for power, don't seem to realize that if they change the rules, or set some new precedent, that is going to be used against them at some point in the future when their party is inevitably out of power. Just like Harry Reid and Senate Dems using the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on nominations. They set that precedent, then Republicans just extended it to SCOTUS nominations.

This whole wall issue, even if you think a wall is needed, is poor leadership by Trump, agreed. Because of his polarizing nature, he's taken an issue that Dems espoused support for in recent history and created a shutdown out of it.
Click to expand...
The dems/socialists are just simply against anything Trump wants. They have to keep the radical base satisfied.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#4,584
#4,584
volfanjustin said:
lol I'm sure you were concerned with that from 2008-2016
Click to expand...
It's funny that you would point this out because this is exactly the type of executive action which Donald Trump would have called an "abuse of power" or "unconstitutional" on Twitter while Obama was in office. Trump is trying to usurp Congressional authorization.
 
#4,585
#4,585
volfanjustin said:
The budget with the 5 plus bill passed the house (despite what plastic pelosi told you all) but it needed 60 votes in the Senate which cryin chuck wouldn't let anyone of his b*****s vote for it, therefore that's why I called it the schumer shutdown
Click to expand...
Thank goodness Trump was able to stop the "Schumer Shutdown". Tell us how he did that again..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hunerwadel and BowlBrother85
#4,586
#4,586
volfanjustin said:
The dems/socialists are just simply against anything Trump wants. They have to keep the radical base satisfied.
Click to expand...
A big part of being a leader, actually the essence of being a leader, is being able to galvanize support for some type of goal. Largely because of his rhetorical style, he has a way of alienating people. A big part of the reason Dems are now against a wall (which many were in support of just a few years ago) is because the rhetoric Trump uses allows for easy portrayal of him (especially to SJWs who always think like that anyway) as a racist or bigot, and they conclude the reason he wants a wall isn't to stop illegal immigration but because bigoted against Hispanics.

Trump, like pretty much all other politicians, isn't a leader. He's good at identifying a base and saying what that base wants to hear, all for the purposes of being re-elected.

In the spirit of equal opportunity, Obama wasn't much of a leader either. He also was quite poor at galvanizing support, especially from people outside his party, or something he wanted. But politics, especially modern politics, isn't about galvanizing support for something. It is about appealing to a base.
 
Last edited:
#4,587
#4,587
05_never_again said:
A big part of being a leader, actually the essence of being a leader, is being able to galvanize support for some type of goal. Largely because of his rhetorical style, he has a way of alienating people. A big part of the reason Dems are now against a wall (which many were in support of just a few years ago) is because the rhetoric Trump uses allows for easy portrayal of him (especially to SJWs who always think like that anyway) as a racist or bigot, and they conclude the reason he wants a wall isn't to stop illegal immigration but because bigoted against Hispanics.

Trump, like pretty much all other politicians, isn't a leader. He's good at identifying a base and saying what that base wants to hear, all for the purposes of being re-elected.

In the spirit of equal opportunity, Obama wasn't much of a leader either. He also was quite poor at galvanizing support, especially from people outside his party, or something he wanted. But politics, especially modern politics, isn't about galvanizing support for something. It is about appealing to a base.
Click to expand...
I have to stop you right there. When it came to his signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act, Obama got the votes. Trump, couldn't muster the votes for his promise of a repeal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mick
#4,589
#4,589
BowlBrother85 said:
I have to stop you right there. When it came to his signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act, Obama bought the votes. Trump, couldn't muster the votes for his promise of a repeal.
Click to expand...

FYP to reflect the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase and now we are learning the San Joaquin Boondoggle plus any number of smaller "gifts" for signing on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T-TownVol, AM64, FLVOL69 and 2 others
#4,590
#4,590
BowlBrother85 said:
I have to stop you right there. When it came to his signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act, Obama got the votes. Trump, couldn't muster the votes for his promise of a repeal.
Click to expand...
Don't pat him on the back too much. 100% of the yes votes came from his own party. Even 34 Dems voted against it in the House. He got the votes because his party had a majority in both houses of Congress. He didn't reach across the aisle for that, because he didn't have to. It was one of the most partisan pieces of "big" legislation that has passed in some time. Once Congress became split in 2010, pretty much nothing was done after that.

Trump was able to "get the votes" (again, purely partisan because Repubs had a majority in both houses) to repeal the fine for not having insurance, which honestly is the only part of it Republicans truly don't like.
 
#4,591
#4,591
volinbham said:
FYP to reflect the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase and now we are learning the San Joaquin Boondoggle plus any number of smaller "gifts" for signing on.
Click to expand...
And Just think Trump couldn't get 50 votes for tax reform and jobs without giving gifts for signing on.
 
#4,592
#4,592
05_never_again said:
Don't pat him on the back too much. 100% of the yes votes came from his own party. Even 34 Dems voted against it in the House. He got the votes because his party had a majority in both houses of Congress. He didn't reach across the aisle for that, because he didn't have to. It was one of the most partisan pieces of "big" legislation that has passed in some time. Once Congress became split in 2010, pretty much nothing was done after that.

Trump was able to "get the votes" (again, purely partisan because Repubs had a majority in both houses) to repeal the fine for not having insurance, which honestly is the only part of it Republicans truly don't like.
Click to expand...
This part in bold describes the only reason that Trump has gotten any legislation at all passed or any nominees confirmed... let's see how he does with the next two years.
 
#4,593
#4,593
BowlBrother85 said:
This part in bold describes the only reason that Trump has gotten any legislation at all passed or any nominees confirmed... let's see how he does with the next two years.
Click to expand...

True but doesn’t that work the other way also ? I mean that’s why they are supposed to work together otherwise nothing gets brought up in the house and nothing gets past the senate .
 
#4,595
#4,595
Because he was worried about losing the primaries. He doesn’t believe this is an emergency. Well perhaps to his re-election he sees it at as one
 
#4,600
#4,600
Actually, the bill passed so overwhelmingly in both chambers of Congress that it no longer even needs his signature tomorrow. There is a veto proof majority.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top